COMMON JUDGMENT

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J]

These contempt appeals have been filed challenging the order passed in Contempt Petition No.524 of 2019 in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.641 of 2018 dated 17.02.2020.

2. The minimum facts that are required for deciding these contempt appeals are as under:

2.1. One M/s.Sabari Realtors Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter would be referred to as "Sabari" for the sake of brevity] had engaged the services of M/s.Stephan Constructions [hereinafter would be referred to as "Stephan" for the sake of brevity] for certain construction activities in connection with which, a dispute arose between the two, resulting in Stephan filing a suit in C.S.(Comm) No.641 of 2018 in the Original Side of this Court against Sabari claiming a sum of Rs.4,81,37,669/-. Along with the suit, Stephan also filed an application in O.A.No.862 of 2018 seeking certain interim reliefs. Certain interim orders appear to have been passed by various learned single Judges in the applications filed by Stephan, which we are not immediately concerned with. Suffice to say that during the course of the hearing of the interim applications, an undertaking was given in the Court to the effect that three fully built apartments would be given to Stephan as security for the suit claim. Accordingly, one A.Venkataraman, authorised representative of Sabari filed an affidavit dated 06.02.2019 undertaking not to alienate three flats described in the schedule to the affidavit in Ekambara and Margosa venture. Alleging that those three flats were not fully constructed and two of the three flats do not even belong to Sabari, Stephan initiated contempt proceedings in Contempt Petition No.524 of 2019 in which, Ramani and his wife Aruna Ramani were shown as respondents/alleged contemnors on the ground that they are the Directors of Sabari.

2.2. On notice, Ramani and Aruna Ramani entered appearance in the contempt proceedings and sought time to appear in person. The said contempt petition came up before a learned single Judge on 04.04.2019, who directed the contempt petition to be heard along with the main suit in C.S.No.641 of 2018. Therefore, Contempt Petition No.524 of 2019 got tagged with C.S.No.641 of 2018.

2.3. It appears that in the applications in C.S.No.641 of 2018, a learned single Judge has passed certain orders on 20.08.2019. However, no orders were passed in Contempt Petition No.524 of 2019 by the learned single Judge. Subsequently, the said contempt petition came up before another learned single Judge, who, by order dated 22.10.2019, directed the "respondent/defendant" to appear in person before the Court on 11.11.2019. The order of the learned single Judge dated 11.11.2019 states that "the respondent is present before this Court pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.10.2019."

2.4. On instructions, Mr.C.Mani Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that, Aruna Ramani was present in the Court whereas Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel appearing for Stephan, submitted that it was the representative of Sabari, who was present and not Aruna Ramani. However, the learned single Judge adjourned the case to 25.11.2019 directing the parties to file their counter. On 06.12.2019, the matter came up before yet another learned single Judge, who went through the records and found that change of vakalath has been filed by Ramani and Aruna Ramani, but there were no representation for them. Therefore, the learned single Judge issued statutory notice and directed Ramani and Aruna Ramani to appear on 08.01.2020 and show cause as to why action should not be taken against them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the meanwhile, it appears that A.Venkataraman, representative of Sabari, filed an affidavit in the contempt proceedings. On 08.01.2020, the learned counsel requested some more time for the appearance of Ramani and Aruna Ramani, which was accepted by the learned single Judge and the matter was adjourned to 15.02.2020. On 15.02.2020, th