Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3212
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. JYOTHIMANI & M. DURAISWAMY
N. Jagannathan
Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 1068 of 2012 in O.S.A. Nos. 370 to 374 of 2008 & 197 of 2006
Decided on : 24-07-2012
For the Appearing Parties:V. Chockalingam, C. Uma Shankar, T. Selvaraj, M. Venugopal, Special Government Pleader (CS) V. Pari Vallal, SCGSC, G.A. Theagarajan M/s. S.K. Jagannathan, Mayilvardhini, A. Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General, I.S. Inbadurai, Special Government Pleader, S. Ravi, M/s. Gupta & Ravi, Satish Parasaran, N. Chandra Raj, Advocates.
The judgment establishes the legal principle that unauthorized actions related to probate and administration of estates, including misleading the court and failure to comply with court orders, can amount to contempt of court and lead to imprisonment and fines.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Letters of Administration - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Tamil Nadu Court of Wards Act, 1902
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed for issuance of Letters of Administration based on a Will dated 16.5.1992. The Will included properties and a trust called 'Sivagiriyar Trust.' The appellant claimed that a huge amount of money belonging to the Pandian Dynasty was lying in Credit Suisse Bank, Switzerland. The court revoked the Letters of Administration due to objections and directed proper adjudication. The appellant and his counsel failed to surrender the original Letters of Administration despite court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant and his counsel had sent the original Letters of Administration to Credit Suisse Bank without permission, and there was no evidence of the bank acknowledging its receipt. The court concluded that the appellant and his counsel had committed contempt of court by not surrendering the Letters of Administration and by misleading the court.
Issues: The main issues were the unauthorized sending of Letters of Administration to a foreign country, failure to comply with court orders, and misleading the court by the appellant and his counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant and his counsel's actions amounted to contempt of court under Order XXV Rule 65 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules and Section 296 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court also referred to the duty of a lawyer to act ethically and morally.
Final Decision: The court imposed a punishment of imprisonment and fine on the appellant and his counsel, suspended the sentence for a week, directed the government to produce records, and ordered the original side appeals for final disposal.
P. Jyothimani, J.
1. The Original Side Appeals, which we do not propose to take it now, arise from the orders passed by this Court in revoking the Letters of Administration already granted on 13.10.2004.
2. The appellant has filed O.P.No.380 of 2004 for the purpose of issuance of Letters of Administration based on a Will dated 16.5.1992 alleged to have been executed by one Varaguna Rama Pandiya Chinnathambiyar, who is stated to be one of the descendants of the legal heirs of the Pandian Dynasty. In the Will, which has been annexed to the original petition filed by the appellant, the appellant has chosen to include 12 items of properties, which are as follows:
3. A reference to the contents of the Will placed before this Court in the original petition shows that the testator intended to have the development of a trust called "Sivagiriyar Trust" including Temples, Madams, Burial Ground, Chatram, etc. However, neither in the body of the Will nor in the annexure attached to the Will there is a reference about any amount deposited in Credit Suisse Bank, Switzerland.
4. It is on record that before filing of the Original Petition, which was on 21.1.2004, there has been some discussion between the counsel who appeared for the appellant and one Giuseppe Leopoldo Cassina, who is stated to be a resident of Switzerland, and it is he who has informed that huge amount of money belonging to the Pandian Dynasty is lying in Credit Suisse Bank. It is thereafter the original petition has been prepared and filed before this Court and Letters of Administration was obtained on 13.10.2004.
5. On the objections raised by certain third parties for the purpose of cancelling the Letters of Administration, this Court in the order dated 21.2.2006 has directed the cancellation of the order in the original petition and ordered a proper adjudication and decision on merits. It is not in dispute that after the said order dated 21.2.2006 revoking the Letters of Administration, neither the appellant nor his counsel, who has received the original Letters of Administration from this Court, have surrendered the same before this Court. The excuse which is sought to be made by the learned counsel for the appellant now is that as against the order dated 21.2.2006, O.S.A.No.197 of 2006 has been filed and, therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the appellant or his counsel to return the original Letters of Administration.
6. It is admitted and is seen on record that the learned Single Judge on more than five occasions, namely on 21.2.2006, 18.8.2007, 7.9.2007, 26.10.2007 and 11.12.2007, as seen in Exx.C4 and C5, has directed the appellant as well as his counsel to produce the original Letters of Administration and in spite of such direction given on five occasions by the learned Single Judge, the original Letters of Administration has not been produced before this Court on the premise that O.S.A.No.197 of 2006 is pending.
7. In the meantime, some other persons who claim to belong to the family of Pandian Dynasty, claiming share over the property on the allegation that the Will has been obtained fraudulently, have filed applications for the purpose of revocation of Letters of Administration and ultimately, this Court in the order dated 24.6.2008 has passed another order holding that inasmuch as the persons who are interested over the property are making claim, the matter has to be adjudicated and accordingly, the order in the original petition stood again revoked and the case was directed to be numbered as Testamentary Original Suit in T.O.S.No.25 of 2008. It is against the said revocation order the further appeals have been filed in O.S.A.Nos.370 to 374 of 2008.
8. Even when the appeals are being heard by this Bench, we have specifically issued direction on 24.6.2008, 2.4.2012, 12.4.2012, 23.4.2012 and 26.4.2012 to the learned counsel for the appellant to produce the original Letters of Administration, as seen in Exx.C6 to C8, and in spite of
