The main legal point established in the judgment is that the auction of pledged jewels by the second respondent bank was not in violation of the court's order, and the petitioner was allowed to challenge the surcharge order in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for committing wilful violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4507 of 2021 dated 01.03.2021.)

1. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition for violation of this Court order dated 01.03.2021 in W.P.No.4507 of 2021. The said writ petition was filed for the following relief:

“The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to return the gold jewels of the petitioner in seven loan accounts on payment of the jewel loan due on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 29.05.2020 and 16.12.2020.”

2. The said writ petition was disposed by an order dated 01.03.2021 with the following observations:

“3. If there are any allegations as against the petitioner, they can proceed with the allegations and conclude with an enquiry and without an enquiry, jewels of the petitioner cannot be retained. Hence, this Court is of the considered view to direct the third respondent to proceed with the enquiry, will serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to proceed with the enquiry and conclude the same, within a stipulated time, preferably, not less than six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

3. The facts on record indicate that the petitioner's husband Mr.G.Charles Sugumar had pledged her jewels and ornaments weighing 362.80 grams with the second respondent Erode District Central Cooperative Bank Limited during the year 2019 for a loan.

4. It appears that the petitioner's husband late Mr.G.Charles Sugumar was working as a Secretary of the CE-11, Erode District Judicial Staff Thrift and Cooperative Society Limited. Later, the petitioner's husband late Mr.G.Charles Sugumar died on 20.06.2021 due to Covid- 19 Viral Pneumonia with Cardio-Pulmonary symptoms after the aforesaid order dated 01.03.2021 came to be passed by this Court in W.P.No.4507 of 2021. 5. A notice dated 30.11.2021 was addressed in the name of the petitioner's husband Late. Mr.G.Charles Sugumar which called upon him to clear the outstanding. The petitioner therefore sent a legal notice dated 07.12.2021 and stated that the petitioner's husband died on 20.06.2021 due to Covid-19 Viral Pneumonia with Cardio-Pulmonary symptoms and that the petitioner came to know about the proposed auction through publication/ advertisement in Malai Murasu on 26.11.2021 to auction the petitioner's jewels and ornaments along with the jewels and ornaments of other defaulters in various branches of the second respondent bank for the proposed auction on 07.12.2021 without notice to the petitioner.

6. Under these circumstances, the petitioner called upon the second respondent bank to not to bring the petitioner's jewels and ornaments to auction.

7. The specific case of the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner had approached the second respondent bank to allow redemption of the jewels and ornaments pledged by her Mr.G.Charles Sugumar and offering to repay the loan outstanding. However, there was no proper response from the officials. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the second respondent bank and sent a representation dated 29.05.2020 and thereafter by a reminder dated 16.12.2020 and stated that the jewels were required for the petitioner's daughter's marriage.

8. However, the second respondent bank had refused to accept the amount from the petitioner stating that a surcharge proceedings under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies, 1983 had been initiated against the petitioner's husband. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4507 of 2021.

9. It was therefore submitted that the auction was without proper notice to the petitioner and by a notice to the dead person without giving opportunity to the petitioner who is legal heir. The respondents were therefore called upon to not auction the pledged jewels.

10. Thereafter, t