Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 1865
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. MURUGESAN & B. RAJENDRAN
Deivanayagam President Health India Foundation
Versus
Vimala Ramalingam President Indian Red Cross Society Chennai
Contempt Petition No.910 of 2010
Decided On: 01-04-2011
For the Petitioner:C.R. Ramakrishna for K. Viswanathan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S. Silambanan, Senior Counsel for M/s Profexs Associates, Advocates.
Ratios
a. In case of contempt of the order passed against artificial persons, necessity of taking permission from other places, delay in getting such permission and the absence of personal malice on the part of the contemnor in committing violation are the relevant factors to avoid the imposition of punishment on the contemnor.
b. In order to punish a person for having committed contempt of an order of the Court, an element of willingness is an indisputable requirement.
Headnote:(A)Contempt of Courts Act,1971(70 of 1971)-Sec.11-Constitution of India-Art.215-Contempt-Wilfulness-Punishment-Society-On an application taken out by the petitioner, respondent society was directed to complete the renovation of a building within a specified time and hand over the same to the petitioner-On the failure of the respondent to complete the renovation, petitioner filed a petition for contempt-During the pendency of the contempt proceeding, respondent completed the work and handed over the possession of the premise to the petitioner-While the petitioner contended that the failure of the respondent to comply with the order within the time given was a contempt, respondent pleaded that she was a honourary president of the society and had to take approval from various stages and she was not wilful in her failure-Held, though there was a failure in complying with the order of the Court, the failure was not wilful-Respondent should have been little more cautious in complying with the order of the Court-As the order was already complied with and there was no willfulness in failure, contempt petition was closed.
(B)Contempt of Courts Act,1971(70 of 1971)-Sec.11-Constitution of India-Art.215-Contempt-Wilfulness-Punishment-Society-In case of contempt of the order passed against artificial persons, necessity of taking permission from other places, delay in getting such permission and the absence of personal malice on the part of the contemnor in committing violation are the relevant factors to avoid imposition of punishment on the contemnor.
Though we find disobedience of the order of this Court in not completing the renovation work within the stipulated time and in not handing over the portion of the premises to the petitioner, in our opinion, the disobedience cannot be considered to be one of wilful disobedience warranting the invocation of power under the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India to punish the respondent. That apart, considering the fact that the respondent was only holding the honorary post of President and the decision has to be taken at various levels and there is nothing personal pleaded against the respondent, except a general complaint that the society has not complied with the order, we are of the considered view that no punishment is warranted on the respondent in this case. Para 10
(C)Contempt of Courts Act,1971(70 of 1971)-Sec.11-Constitution of India-Art.215-Contempt-Wilfulness-Punishment-Society-In order to punish a person for having committed contempt of an order of the Court, an element of willingness is an indisputable requirement.
In our opinion, in order to punish a person for having committed contempt of an order of the Court, an element of willingness is an indisputable requirement. Para 11
D. MURUGESAN, J.
1. The above contempt petition is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 22.12.2008 passed in M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008 in O.S.A.No.377 of 2008. The facts leading to the filing of the present contempt petition are as follows.
2. The petitioner is the President of Health India Foundation which was registered on 14.4.2001. He had served in various capacities earlier, namely, as the Professor of Thoracic Medicine and Chest Physician at the Madras Medical College during the period between 1971 and 1989; the Dean of Sri Ramachandra Medical College & Hospital during the period between 1989 and 1992, the Superintendent of Government Tuberculosis Hospital, Tambaram during the period between 1992 and 2000 and WHO Consultant for HIV/AIDS. On and from 14.4.2002, the petitioner was allowed to run a HIV/AIDS clinic in the heritage building of the premises owned by the respondent-Indian Red Cross Society under a memorandum of understanding entered into between them on 21.8.2002. After a year, the petitioner requested for provision of additional space due to the inflow of patients. The respondent society had also allotted additional space in Brace Clinic for the use of the petitioner by their letter dated 30.9.2003. It appears that a letter was sent by the respondent society on 2.1.2008 to the petitioner to spare the space occupied by the petitioner as the activities of the respondent society had grown and that they wanted to demolish the old building which was unfit for use. Thereafter, on 7.1.2008, the respondent had requested the petitioner to move to the original place in the heritage building till major repairs to the old building are taken up and finished. The respondent also made it clear that the cabin occupied by the petitioner at the entrance of the main office building would not be available for use from 9.1.2008. This letter of the respondent had given cause to the petitioner to file a suit in C.S.No.37 of 2008 praying to pass a judgment and decree declaring the letter dated 7.1.2008 issued by the defendant society to the plaintiff as null and void and also to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and all persons claiming under them from interfering with the medical activities of the plaintiff at No.50, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 in the premises of the defendant society, where the plaintiff foundation has been functioning. This Court, by order dated 11.1.2008, granted an ex parte order of injunction in O.A.No.44 of 2008. Thereafter, the respondent society took out Application Nos.443 and 443 of 2008 seeking to vacate the said order of injunction and also to reject the plaint. After considering the rival contentions, this Court, by order dated 2.4.2008, made the injunction absolute and dismissed the applications filed by the respondent society. Challenging the said order, the respondent society preferred O.S.A.No.461 of 2008 before this Court.
3. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent started to give trouble by locking the gate, bathroom etc., and not allowed the petitioner to do service to the patients. Hence, he was constrained to file O.A.No.860 of 2008 seeking for an interim injunction restraining the respondent, their men, servants, agents and all persons claiming under them from renting, alienating, encumbering, creating charge of the premises at Door No.50 (second floor, main building), Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 to any commercial establishment or any other establishment. He also filed Appln.No.3699 of 2008 seeking for a direction to the respondent, their men to remove the tables, chairs, folded tables, chairs and other items stocked by them at the petitioner's consultation room for treatment of the patients at Door No.50 (ground floor), Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. By order dated 8.9.2008, both the applications were dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred th
