Contempt lies only for willful disobedience of mandatory court orders, not permissive liberties granted to parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.04.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Contempt Petition No.1471 of 2026 The Chief Manager State Bank of India (est. while State Bank of Travancore)

Market Centre, HAPP Township, Trichy 620 025. .. Petitioner -vs-

Anthonysamy .. Respondent Prayer: Petition filed Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for having willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 10.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.29945 of 2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran * * * * *

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 10.10.2025 in W.P.No.29945 of 2025.

2. The respondent had filed the writ petition for the following relief:

“To consider the household items and the items touching the Profession values of Rs.19,09,000 (Nineteen lacs and nine thousand only) which are shown in detail and explained in our Request-cum-Notice dated 23.04.2025 and issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Order or Direction in the nature of Writ and direct the respondents to pay Rs.19,09,000/- (Nineteen lacs and nine thousand only) to the Petitioner Anthony Samy towards the loss occurred to the Petitioner by the Respondents.”

While disposing of the writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court had passed the following order:

“14. However, the petitioner is at liberty to collect all the articles from the rented premises, which is in the possession of the respondent bank. For this purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, HAPP Branch, Trichy on 15.10.2025 at 10.30 a.m. Upon such approach made, the bank shall depute an officer who shall take the petitioner to the rented premises where the items have been kept and the petitioner shall be allowed to remove all the items as per the inventories. A report of panchanama shall also be prepared by the concerned bank official in whose presence the petitioner shall remove the items and the petitioner shall also acknowledge removal of the items. The entire rent amount paid by the bank for the rental premises where the items are kept shall also be indicated to the petitioner and as soon as the petitioner pays the amount to the bank, all the items may be allowed to be removed by the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the contempt petitioner submits that the contempt petitioner was the second respondent in the writ petition and the respondent/writ petitioner had not complied with the order passed by this Court by removing all the materials and therefore, he may be punished for contempt of order of the Court.

4. We have perused the directions contained in para 14 of the order, reproduced hereinabove and we find that only liberty was granted to the respondent/writ petitioner to collect the articles from the rented premises, which is in his possession. We find that there is no direction in favour of the contempt petitioner which appears to have been violated.

In view of the aforesaid, this contempt petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to work out the remedy available to them in accordance with law.