Compliance with judicial orders is mandatory, and willful non-compliance may attract contempt proceedings, though the court may consider extenuating circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of July, 2020 S.Manikumar, CJ Instant contempt case is filed alleging non compliance of Annexure-A1 judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed in W.A. No.2352 of 2019, by which, respondent - Bank of India, was directed to pay an amount of Rs.42,37,762/- towards the principal sale amount plus stamp duty and registration charges. Direction was also issued to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-, as litigation charges, within ten days of the petitioner giving a letter surrendering possession of the property in question. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“10. In such circumstances, apart from the sum offered to pay as per Annexure R3(a), we deem it fit to direct the Bank of India to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/-.

11. Mr. J.Harikumar, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that no sooner the appellant/ auction purchaser delivers possession of the subject property, the above said sum + litigation expenses as ordered, will be paid to the appellant/ auction purchaser. Mr. Mohan Jacob George, learned counsel for the auction purchaser/ appellant submitted that suitable letter would be given to the Bank.

12. Within ten days from the date of receipt of the letter effecting delivery of possession, the Bank shall pay a sum of Rs.42,37,762/- towards principal sale amount +

Stamp duty and Registration charges and also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges. The Bank shall take steps to cancel the sale deed as ordered by the Tribunal. Bank shall also take steps to inform the Sub Registration Officer about the setting aside of the sale. Auction purchaser/ appellant shall also return the original sale deed executed by the Bank in favour of auction purchaser/ appellant. 13. After the judgment was delivered, Ms. K.R.

Monisha, learned counsel for the borrower, submitted that the entire amount ordered by this Court along with incidental expenses, if any incurred by the Bank, would be paid to the Bank, by the borrower/respondent on or before 30.3.2020 and that the Bank be directed to return the sale deeds deposited with them as also to hand over physical possession of mortgaged property to the borrower/

respondent.

14. Inasmuch as the prayer in this writ appeal is restricted only for repayment of the sale amount with appropriate interest to the auction purchaser, we are not inclined to make any direction. However, it is open to the borrower/respondents to approach the bank with the aforesaid request. If any such request is made, in order to give a quietus to the litigation, the Bank is directed to consider the same. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that if a request is made for one time settlement, the same would be considered. Submission is placed on record.”

2. Petitioner has contended that though subsequent to the abovesaid judgment, he submitted letters dated 15.01.2020 and 20.01.2020, [Annexures-R2 & R2(a)]; one for surrendering the title deed and the other for surrender of possession, the Bank did not pay the amounts as directed by this Court. Therefore, he was constrained to issue Annexure-A3 advocate notice dated 30.01.2020 stating that he will initiate contempt proceedings. However, on 5.2.2020, respondents have paid an amount of Rs.21,27,605/-, but not paid the balance amount, as ordered by this Court.

3. Alleging non-compliance of the judgment in W.A. No.2352 of 2019, in its entirety, this contempt petition is filed on the grounds, inter alia, that, though the petitioner has submitted the letter as directed by this Court surrendering the title deed with all rights, including possession on 15.01.2020, the respondents attempted to delay the same by making frivolous objections. Hence, he was constrained to issue Annexure-R2(a). Petitioner has further contended that inspite of the issuance of Annexure-A3 notice, informing the Bank that he will initiate contempt proceedings, the respondents have not cared to comply with the directions of this Court. 4. When this