BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, S. SRIMATHY, JJ.
D. Thangapazham - Appellant
Versus
K. Albert Inbaraj & Others - Respondent
Cont. A(MD)Nos. 3 to 10 of 2022 In Cont P(MD)Nos. 1896 & 1897 of 2021 C.M.P(MD). Nos. 4283, 4286 to 4292, 4294 to 4297, 4889 & 5048 of 2022
Decided On : 08-08-2022
Contempt - Church Dispute - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Rule 128(12) of Church Rules 1991, Rule 194 of Church Rules 1991 - The court found that the appellants committed contempt by convening a meeting to circumvent the court's order, and appointed an Administrator to conduct the election for the post of Bishop and the Church Council.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute within the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC) regarding the administration and functioning of the Church Council. The plaintiffs sought various declarations, injunctions, and relief in relation to the functioning of the Church Council and the actions of the Bishop/President of TELC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants committed contempt by convening a meeting on 27.11.2021 to circumvent the court's order granting injunction, and punished the appellants for wilful disobedience of the court's order dated 26.11.2021. The court also cancelled all the resolutions dated 27.11.2021, observing that the Bishop had convened the meeting without any power.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants committed contempt by convening a meeting to circumvent the court's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants committed an act of wilful disobedience of the court's direction, and appointed an Administrator to conduct the election for the post of Bishop and the Church Council.
Final Decision: The court appointed an Administrator to conduct the election for the post of Bishop and the Church Council, and accepted the payment of fine by the appellants, purging them of contempt.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Contempt Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by this Court in Contempt Petition(MD) No.1897 of 2021.)
Common Judgment:
S.S. Sundar, J.
1. All these contempt appeals have been filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge punishing the respondents in contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)Nos.1896 and 1897 of 2021 for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M.A(MD)Nos.619 of 2021.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these contempt appeals are as follows.
The suit in O.S.No.253 of 2022 was filed before the First Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, by the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, (TELC) represented by its Secretary Church Council originally along with six others. On account of change of sides/change of circumstances, the plaint was amended. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs 2,5 and 7 were transposed as defendants 4 to 6. The prayer in the suit is as follows:
(i) To declare by invoking of Rule 128(12) of Church Rules 1991 by the First Defendant to assume the office of Secretary, Church Council and Treasurer, Church Council by his letters dated 30.10.2020 as abinitionull and viod;
(ii) To declare declaring the Bishop/President TELC Emergency Circular No.4/2020 dated 01.11.2020 issued by the First Defendant invoking Rule 194 of the Church Rules 1991 as abinitio null and void;
(iii) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any one claiming any right under them from interfering with the functioning of the Plaintiffs as members and office bearers of Church Council for the Triennium 2019-2022 and carry out their duties as per the Rules either by issuing any Circular or Letter to the Pastors/Chairman/Candidates of Pastorates/Office Bearers of TELC/Boards/Station Managers/Staff or Members of TELC without the approval of the Church Council or in any manner whatsoever;
(iv) To declare that the continuance of Rt.Rev.Daniel Jeyaraj as Bishop/President of TELC, Trichy from 14.01.2021 is illegal and null and void;
(v) For a permanent injunction restraining the First Defendant from acting as Bishop/President of TELC, Trichy.
(vi) For a mandatory injunction directing the First Defendants to hand over all the TELC records/documents/accounts statements'/correspondents/keys in his custody to the plaintiffs forthwith.
4. Immediately after the suit was laid, an application in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.253 of 2020 was filed before the First Additional District Court, Tiruchirapalli, to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., on the ground that there is no cause of action for the suit and that the suit as framed is not maintainable. The said application was allowed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, by order dated 21.12.2020. The said order was challenged by the plaintiffs 1 & 3 before this Court in A.S(MD)No. 18 of 2021. This Court after referring to the plaint and the various allegations, allowed the appeal after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court rejecting the plaint. The parties to the suit were given liberty to seek interim relief if any. It is noted that the second plaintiff is the Secretary of the Church Council was also represented the first plaintiff in his capacity as Secretary as per the plaint.
5. The plaintiffs in the suit filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.253 of 2020 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C., for temporary injunction restraining the defendants or any one claiming any right under them from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiffs as members and office bearers of Church Council for the Triennium 2019-2022 and carry out their duties as per the Rules either by issuing any circular or letter to the Pastors/Chairman/Candidates of Pastorates/
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.
Wilful disobedience of a court order constitutes contempt of court.
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....
Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interpret Church Rules or adjudicate internal administrative disputes in absence of wilful disobedience of judicial order.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.