SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 3282

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & K.K. SASIDHARAN, JJ.
K. Balasubramanian & Others
Versus
R. Padma & Others
Contempt Petition No. 315 of 2011 & Review Sub Application Nos. 650 of 2011 & 72 of 2013 in Sub Application No. 186 of 2011; Sub Application No. 162 of 2012 in Sub Application No. 183 of 2011; & Sub Application Nos. 589 of 2012 & 99 of 2013
Decided On: 16-09-2013

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:I. Subramanian, Senior Counsel, Prakash Goklaney, K. Bijay Sundar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 to R4, R. Swaminathan, Advocate.

The contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle private disputes between the parties, and a clear case of contumacious conduct must be established for action under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Headnote:

Contempt - Disobedience of Judgment - O.S.A.No.202 of 2005 - [C.S.No.51 of 2005, O.S.No.57 of 2004, O.S.No.64 of 2004] - The judgment discusses the alleged willful disobedience of the judgment dated 5.9.2005 in O.S.A.No.202 of 2005, involving a dispute over the control and management of M/s.Citrex Products Limited. The court analyzed the alleged violations, the lease agreements, and the boundaries of the properties to determine the contempt petition.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute involved the control and management of M/s.Citrex Products Limited, including allegations of misuse of security documents and interference with the company's affairs. The court had issued directions to protect the company's interests.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the alleged violations and disobedience of the judgment were not conclusively proven. It also noted that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle private disputes between the parties.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the alleged violations of the judgment dated 5.9.2005 in O.S.A.No.202 of 2005, including the execution of lease and sale deeds, and the boundaries of the properties involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to settle private disputes and that the alleged violations were not conclusively proven based on the available materials.

Final Decision: The Contempt Petition, Sub Applications, Review Application, and Review Sub Applications were all dismissed, and the respondents were not held liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

JUDGMENT

R. Banumathi, J.

1. Alleging that there is willful disobedience of the Judgment dated 5.9.2005 made in O.S.A.No.202 of 2005, the petitioners/defendants 6,8 and 9 filed Contempt Petition No.315 of 2011 against respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs 2, 4, 5 and 6 in C.S.No.51 of 2005 and the 5th respondent, who is a third party – M/s.Continental Warehousing (Nhava Sheva) Limited and has been a lessee under respondents 1 to 3. The dispute over the control and management of the 1st plaintiff – M/s.Citrex Products Limited has been the subject matter of dispute between the parties.

2. The 1st Plaintiff – M/s.Citrex Products Limited purchased properties in S.F.No.157/1 – 11.50 acres in Thatchur village; S.F.No.124/12 – 14.50 acres in Peravallur village; S.F.No.124/4B – 2.00 acres in Peravallur village and S.F.No.124/11 – 2.80 acres in Peravallur village in the public auction conducted by M/s.Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC) under registered sale deed dated 28.7.1993. The total outstanding to TIIC was Rs.120 lakhs. The 1st Plaintiff-M/s.Citrex Products Limited borrowed money of Rs.1,18,17,677.15 from Defendants Group of Companies for the purpose of discharging the mortgage loan due to the consortium of Banks consisting of Indian Overseas Bank, Canara Bank and TIIC and to redeem the suit schedule property. Case of plaintiffs is that as a security for the said loan, the 1st plaintiff – M/s.Citrex Products Limited executed various documents and signed in several blank papers and also opened accounts with Times Bank with whom defendants Group of Companies had a tie up.

3. The further case of Plaintiffs is that out of Rs.1,18,17,677.15 borrowed by way of a loan, Rs.1,30,55,995.40 was paid within a period of 22 months. While that being so, in the month of June 2004, Plaintiffs came to know that returns of 1st Plaintiff-M/s.Citrex Products Limited had been filed from 29.07.2003 by some of the Defendants. In or about the same time, Defendants 6,8 and 9 have also filed two suits in O.S.Nos.57 of 2004 and 64 of 2004 on the file of Sub-Court, Ponneri. After enquiry, Plaintiffs realised that some of the documents taken as security from them have been misused by Defendants 6,8 and 9 to create various instruments, as though they have taken over the Company and its property and they are trying to interfere with the affairs of the Company.

4. C.S.No.51 of 2005 has been filed by the Plaintiffs inter alia for the reliefs:-

i. to declare that the pledge of the 900 shares belonging to Plaintiffs 2,3,5 to 11 infavour of 2nd Defendant stands discharged and consequently direct the 2nd Defendant to return 900 shares pledged by Plaintiffs 2,3,5 to 11;

ii. to declare that Plaintiffs 2 to 6 continue to be the Directors of 1st Plaintiff Company and Plaintiffs 2,3,5 to 11 continue to be the shareholders of the 1st Plaintiff Company and consequently restrain the Defendants by means of a permanent injunction from in any manner interfering with the management of the 1st Plaintiff Company; and

iii. to declare that the agreement of sale dated 02.06.1997 and 25.08.1995 are null and void and not binding upon the 1st Plaintiff Company and other reliefs.

5. Alleging that Plaintiffs are attempting to encroach into the property and that the Power of Attorney executed infavour of Defendants dated 07.04.1999 is irrevocable, Defendants 6,8 and 9 have filed O.S.No.57 of 2004 on the file of Sub-Court, Ponneri. O.S.No.57 of 2004 has been filed for the reliefs:-

i. declaration that the sale deed dated 13.07.1998 registered as Doc.No.1761 of 1998 on the file of Sub Registrar, Ponneri in respect of Schedule 'B' property is void abinitio;

ii. declaration that the sale deed dated 13.07.1998 registered as Doct.No.1765 of 1998 on the file of Sub Registrar, Ponneri in respect of Schedule 'C' property is void abinitio;

iii. declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 07.04.1999 registered as Doc.No.362 of 1999 on the file of Sub Registrar, Adyar infavo



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top