##PAGE1##

Cont.P.No.3919 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

Cont.P.No.3919 of 2025

P.Rajalakshmi ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. Vivekanand Choubey

The General Manager,

State Bank of India

16, College Lane,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600006.

2. Ramamoorthy

The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India

The Regional Office

173, JN Road,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.

3. Mukesh Kanna

The Bank Manager,

State Bank of India,

Ranipet Branch,

Railway Station Road,

Ranipet.

4. P.Thiyagarajan ... Respondents

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 06:47:36 pm )

Cont.P.No.3919 of 2025

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts

Act, praying to punish the respondents particularly the third respondent for

his wilfully disobeying the orders passed in W.P.No.37787 of 2025 dated

03.10.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundram

For Respondent : Mr.B.Sivakollappan (for R1 to R3)

Mr.C.Prakasam (for R4)

****

O R D E R

This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the

order dated 03.10.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.37787 of 2025 by the

third respondent.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

3.By order dated 03.10.2025, this Court disposed of W.P.No.37787 of

2025 in the following terms:-

“5. In view of the limited prayer sought for in this Writ

petitioner, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deal with the

objections of the petitioner after affording a fair opportunity to the

petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent before passing any final

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 06:47:36 pm )

Cont.P.No.3919 of 2025

orders regarding the return of jewellery, within a period of two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Bank

is about to hand over the jewellery belonging to the petitioner in a

day or two. It has been made clear in the foregoing paragraph

that the decision to return the jewellery to the 4th respondent

would be subject to hearing and considering the objections of the

petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner need not have any

apprehension that without hearing the petitioner, the jewellery

would be handed over to the 4th respondent.”

4.The above order was passed in the presence of the learned counsel

for the Bank. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said order, the Bank

issued notices to the writ petitioner as well as the fourth respondent on

09.10.2025. In compliance with the order dated 03.10.2025, the petitioner

submitted his reply on 13.10.2025 reiterating his request for a personal

hearing/enquiry. The Bank official concerned, upon perusing the objections

and claims of both parties, communicated the decision to the petitioner and

the fourth respondent by letter dated 16.10.2025. The said communication

was served on the petitioner on 18.10.2025 and thereafter the jewels were

handed over to the fourth respondent on 21.10.2025. These facts are not in

dispute.

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 06:47:36 pm )

Cont.P.No.3919 of 2025

5.The grievance of the petitioner is that the direction of this Court

requiring a personal hearing was not complied with and, therefore, there is

willful disobedience of the order. On going through the communication dated

16.10.2025, this Court finds that the third respondent has rendered his

decision based on the documentary evidence produced by both parties.

Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no willful disobedience of the

order passed by this Court. However, it is evident that an opportunity of

personal hearing, as directed, was not afforded to the petitioner.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

would be satisfied if the General Manager, who is the first respondent herein,

conducts an enquiry after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to

both the petitioner and the fourth respondent and renders a fi