Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19909
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR, J
Ponmani Devi Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
Govindammal – Respondent
Contempt Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.Antony Jesus
For the Respondents: Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
Disobedience of court orders can lead to contempt proceedings, and agreed damages can mitigate penalties.
Headnote:This judgment involves a Contempt Petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for the disobedience of the court order dated 11.01.2024 in C.R.P.No.4088 of 2019. The petitioners alleged that the respondents failed to handover possession of the premises as agreed. The respondents provided reasons for the delay and stated that possession was eventually handed over. The court accepted a demand draft of Rs.75,000/- as damages for the delay. The court observed that the contempt petition is closed based on the agreement.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disobedience of court order leads to contempt (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. compensation for delay in possession handover (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. closure of contempt petition based on mutual agreement (Para 7) |
O R D E R
The Contempt Petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondents for the disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in C.R.P.No.4088 of 2019, dated 11.01.2024.
2. The complaint of the petitioners is that though the respondents herein undertook to handover vacant possession of the demised premises to the petitioners herein on or before 30th September-2024 as per the order dated 11.01.2024, they failed to handover the same within the stipulated period.
3. The respondents herein filed counter affidavit stating that inspite of their best efforts, the respondents could not find a suitable alternative premises for running the shop and therefore, they could not handover the possession of the subject property to the petitioners within the time stipulated in the above order. It is further stated that the respondents handed over the possession to the petitioners in the execution proceedings in E.P.No.32 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruppur. The delivery of possession was recorded by the Executing Court by order dated 05.08.2025. The copy of the said order is also produced before this Court.
4. A perusal of the same would indicate that the petitioners herein filed a Memo before the Executing Court stating that possession had been delivered and based on the same, the execution petition was terminated.
5. The respondents in their counter affidavit also stated that for the occupation of the property beyond the time stipulated by this Court (i.e., from October-2024 to July-2025), the respondents are willing to pay rent at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also handed over Demand Draft bearing No.045034 drawn on IDBI Bank, Avinashi Road, Tiruppur in the name of the 1st petitioner for a value of Rs.75,000/- to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, would submit that the Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.75,000/- handed over by the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted treating the amount as damages for use and occupation of the premises for the period from October-2024 to July-2025.
7. Recording the said statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Contempt Petition is closed.
