A person who is punished for contempt and who is affected alone can file appeal against such order.

2. Questioning the order dated 28.9.2005 of the learned single Judge made in C.P.No.28 of 2005, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank through its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer has filed L.P.A.No.21 of 2005. Questioning the same order, B.Ramachandra Adityan, Director of the Bank filed L.P.A.No.22 of 2005; and V.Baskaran, another Director filed L.P.A. No.23 of 2005. L.P.A.No.24 of 2005 is filed by one N. Balasubramanian and L.P.A.No.25 of 2005 is filed by A.Narayanan, against the very same order of the learned Judge. In all these appeals Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders’ Welfare Association is the first respondent and the Bank is the second respondent. As said earlier, since all the appeals are filed against the order dated 28.9.2005 made in C.P.No.28 of 2005, for convenience, we shall refer the facts and parties as mentioned in L.P.A.No.21 of 2005.

3. The first respondent herein, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders’ Welfare Association filed C.P.No.28 of 2005 to punish the respondent therein, viz., S.Radhakrishnan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, Tuticorin for violating the order dated 23.12.2004 made in O.A.No.1016 of 2004 in C.S.No.981 of 2004. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders’ Association is the plaintiff in C.S.No.981 of 2004 on the file of original side of this Court, wherein Reserve Bank of India, Chennai-600 001, N.S. Srinivasan, Director, R.B.I.Nominee, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited, S.Swaminathan, Director, R.B.I.Nominee, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited, S.T.Kannan, Director, R.B.I. Nominee, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited, are the defendants.

4. The relief sought for in that suit is to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men or servants or any other person claiming under them from preventing the Members whose name is registered in the Register of Members of Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited, or their duly authorised proxies lodged from participating and exercising their voting rights in the forthcoming Annual General Meeting dated 24.12.2004 or any subsequent date. The plaint is dated 21.12.2004. In that suit the plaintiff has also filed an interim application, viz., O.A.No.1016 of 2004, praying for an order of interim injunction on the same line. By order dated 23.12.2004, by consent of all the parties, the learned Judge passed the following order.

“5. ...... If any shareholder has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of any particular person and such General Power of Attorney is duly registered and intimated to the bank as required under Art.85 of the Memorandum of Association of the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited, such persons who satisfy the requirement of Art.85 of the Memorandum of Association will be permitted to vote in the place of the shareholder who has executed such Power of Attorney in favour of such person. Those shareholders who have not executed such General Power of Attorney, but whose names are found in the Register as Members of Tamilnad Mercantile Bank shall be permitted to vote and the respondents/defendants should not prevent them from exercising their franchise or participating in the Annual General Meeting.

6. However, in view of the disputes between the parties, the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli is appointed as an Observer to observe the entire proceedings of the Annual General Meeting and file an independent report in a sealed cover before this Court.

7. The Annual General Meeting and other Agenda will go on according to the schedule in the presence of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli who shall act as an Observer.”

5. It is the grievance of the shareholders’ Association that the said order has been violated since the Power of Attorney Holders whose Power of Attorney was not registered as per the Registration Act, were permitted to par