1965 Supreme(AP) 32

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
R.Narapa Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Jagarlamudi Chandramouli - Respondent
Decided On : 02-10-65

The jurisdiction of the High Court to commit for contempt of subordinate Courts has been expressly conferred upon it by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.

Headnote:

CONTEMPT OF COURT - ELECTION - INJUNCTION - JURISDICTION - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1952, SECTION 3(1) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 215.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a member of the Co-operative Loan and Sale Society Limited, Ongole, filed his nomination for election to one of the posts of the five Directors representing Marketing Societies. The Election Officer (Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Farming, Hyderabad) put up a notice on the notice board of the District Marketing Society stating that an order of interim injunction was issued in a suit filed by one T. Chakra Reddy restraining him from conducting the election. The 1st respondent (J. Chandramouli), presiding over the meeting, took over the mike and announced that there was no prohibition against the general-body as such to proceed with the election as the injunction was served only on the Election officer, and that the general-body might proceed with the election of the Directors irrespective of the order of interim injunction. The petitioner and a large majority of the members left the premises. The respondents, finding that a vast majority of the members had left the premises consequent on the interim injunction order took advantage of their absence and with the mala fide intent of putting forward the persons belonging to their minority group as members of the governing body and office bearers, stage-managed an alleged meeting of the remaining members of the general body, where at a governing body and office-bearers of the Marketing Society were stated to have been elected. The petitioner filed a contempt petition against the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

1. The order of interim injunction issued by the District Munsif Court was intended only to restrain the Joint Registrate of Co-operative Societies from conducting the election. 2. The 1st respondent is not guilty of contempt for disobedience of the order of the High Court and that of the District Munsif Court. 3. Respondents 2 to 7 and 9 had knowledge of the order of the High Court and that of the Court of the District Munsif. 4. The 2nd respondent is not guilty of contempt.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by disobeying the order of injunction issued by the District Munsif in I. A. No. 2336 of 1964 in O. S. No. 414 of 1964 and (2) that they violated the order of the High Court in C. M. P. Nos. 11768 and 11848 of 1964 in W. P. 1727 of 1964. 2. Whether the 1st respondent committed contempt by persuading members of the general body to proceed with the election despite the order of injunction passed by the District Munsif and that the 10th respondent, who had knowledge of the said order, committed contempt by presiding over the general body meeting at which the election was conducted. 3. Whether respondents 2 to 7 and 9, despite their knowledge of the order of interim injunction contempt by participating in the election.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of injunction issued by the District Munsif restrained the defendant (the Joint Registrar) from conducting the election to the Board of Directors. 2. None of the respondents in the present case was a defendant to the suit in which the injunction was granted. 3. The injunction order was admittedly issued to the Election Officer not to conduct the election. 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents added and abetted the party (the Election Officer) enjoined in its breach. 5. Where, as here, that party has not broken the injunction, it is impossible to hold that anyone has aided or abetted him in breaking it. 6. The anxiety of the parties is to get a decision on the controversial collateral question of the validity of the election held on 11/11/1964. 7. The validity of the election is the subject-matter of an election dispute which is within the competence of the officer who is to be appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 8. The Co-operative Societies Act provides a right of appeal over such a decision. 9. In such a situation it would be the necessary consequence of a decision on the question as to whether the election conducted on 11/11/1964 constituted a contravention of the order of the High Court. 10. The issue must be left open for future decision in appropriate proceedings and that this Court should not allow its jurisdiction to commit for contempt to be invoked in a case like this. 11. The 2nd respondent may have acted without due care and caution but there is no basis for the allegation made against him that he was motivated by extraneous considerations in passing the order which he did, and there is certainly no warrant for attributing any improper or corrupt motives to the 2nd respondent. 12. The 1st respondent made no attempt to suppress material facts. He has referred to order of the High Court in the plaint itself. There was no attempt to deceive the Court.

Final Decision: Both the casesm C. C. Nos. 19 and 20 of 1964 are dismissed and the rules discharged. Under all the circumstances, we make no order as to costs in either of the Contempt Cases.