Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. ANANTHI, J.
The Tamil Evangelical Luthern Church (TELC), Rep. By it Secretary A. Mehar Antony & Others - Appellant
Versus
Rt. Rev.D.Daniel Jayaraj Bishop/President (Retired), Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church & Others - Respondent
CONT.P.(MD) Nos. 1896 & 1897 of 2021 & SUB.A(MD) Nos. 24 & 25 of 2022
Decided On : 29-04-2022
wilful disobedience to any Judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court (Section 2(b) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971)
Fact of the Case:
Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to issue summons and punish the Contemnors/respondents herein under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilfully disobeying the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021.
Finding of the Court:
The Bishop/R-1 convened a meeting and extended his age from 65 years to 67 years, which was against the order of the court. The court found that the Bishop and other members wilfully disobeyed the court's order. The court referred to the relevant provisions of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church Rules and the Contempt of Court Act to support its findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bishop and other members were guilty of wilful disobedience of the court's order, as they convened a meeting and passed resolutions against the findings of the court. The court relied on the powers granted to it under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act to punish for contempt of itself.
Result: The court allowed the Contempt Petitions and directed the Bishop and other members to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs to the credit of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The resolutions passed in the meeting were cancelled. The court dismissed the Sub-Applications filed in the Contempt Petitions.
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to issue summons and punish the Contemnors/respondents herein under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilfully disobeying the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021.)
Common Order
1. These Contempt Petitions have been filed to issue summons and punish the Contemners/respondents herein for wilfully disobeying the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021.
SUB.A(MD)Nos.24 & 25 of 2022 : The Appellants in C.M.A. (MD)No.619 of 2021 have been filed these Sub-Applications to appoint Honourable Judge Administrator for supervising the functioning of the Church Council in administrating the TELC till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.253 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional District Court, Trichy.
2. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record.
3. The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church by its Secretary has filed C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021 on 26.11.2021 and the same was allowed on with certain directions. As per the order in C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021, the period of Bishop has been ended on 14.01.2021. The other issues can be decided only in the suit.
4. But, after pronouncing the order on very next day, the Bishop/R-1 has convened a meeting and extend his age from 65 years to 67 years which was the main agenda.
5. The ingredients of Rule 161 of (C) of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church Rules, is extracted hereunder:
“161. ELECTION PROCEDURE AND TENURE OF OFFICE OF THE BISHOP:
(C) The Bishop shall retire on the 14th of January, after he has completed 65 years of age of ten years of service as Bishop, which ever is earlier. He shall not be given extension of service as Biship beyond the period mentioned above.”
6. Further, the paragraph Nos.14 to 16 stated in the order, dated 26.11.2021 in C.MA.(MD)No.619 of 2021 are extracted hereunder:
“14. Now, the period of Bishop has also been completed. At this stage, whether he can invoke Rule 128(12) of Church Rules.
15. The 1st respondent has to establish Special Emergency warranted to invoke Rule 128(12).
16. After trial only, these issues can be decided in the suit. Already, by order, dated 19.03.2021 in A.S.No.18 of 2021 this Court has issued directions to the trial Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.253 of 2020 and complete the trial within a period of six months.”
7. All the issues are pending in the suit in O.S.No.253 of 2020, the Bishop has convened meeting on 27.11.2021 and passed resolution in his favour regarding all the issues involved in the suit. That too after this Court has passed an order in C.M.A.No.619 of 2021 as all the issues can be decided only after trial. The order also confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. The resolution Nos.3 to 5, dated 26.11.2021 are extracted hereunder:
“Resolution No:3 This Church Counci approves the resolutions passed by SCC (General Body of TELC) dated 10.11.2020 29 12 2000 and 05.01.2021 more particularly in extending the age of the all the clergies in the Church from 65 to 67.
Resolution No.4: The Church Council approves the Emergency Circular of Bishop/ President, TELC dated 30.10.2020 issued by the Bishop President, TELC in invoking Rule 128(12) Hence the necessity arises to elect the new secretary to the Church Council, TELC Mr. R. Thanpapacham is elected as the Secretary Church Council Mr. A. Maher Antony and Mr. K Albert Inbaraj had not chosen to attend this meeting in spite of notice sent to them even by yesterday. Hereafter Mr A Maher Antony can continue as a Church Council member but can not claim to be the Secretary of the Church Council TELC and he shall not issue any notification or circular claiming to be the secretary Church Council, TELC.
Resolution: 5: This Church Council record that in view of the order passed by the Honorable Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in OMA (MD) No. 619/2021 dated 26.11.202
Wilful disobedience of a court order constitutes contempt of court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that wilful disobedience of a court order, including attempts to circumvent the order, constitutes contempt of court.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interpret Church Rules or adjudicate internal administrative disputes in absence of wilful disobedience of judicial order.
Point of law: the cases filed before the elections and after the elections. Almost 26 cases have been filed at the relevant point of time in 19 Courts, besides, various other interim orders have also....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the willful disobedience of the respondents to implement the directions given by the Division Bench of the Court, leading to their conviction for c....
Contempt of court requires willful disobedience of a court order; mere delay, especially under extenuating circumstances, does not constitute contempt.
Contempt proceedings cannot determine individual claims without prior adjudication; the court's role is limited to assessing willful disobedience of specific orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
