IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31-01-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition No.140 of 2005 E.Rajeswari .. Petitioner. Versus Mr.C.Arumugam .. Respondent. Prayer: Petition under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71 to punish the respondent for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order, dated 15.09.2004, made in W.P.No.26268 of 2004. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mathivanan For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian Government Advocate O R D E R
Heard Mr.P.Mathivanan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent herein for his willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 15.09.2004 in W.P.No.26268 of 2004, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. It is stated by the petitioner that the writ petition had come up for admission on 15.09.2004 and this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition, directing the respondent to consider the representation, dated 16.6.2004, after due opportunity being given to the respondents 2 to 4 and the first respondent had been directed to pass appropriate orders on merits, within one month from the date of the order. The petitioner has also submitted that an advocate notice had been issued to the respondent on 23.11.2004, along with a copy of the order, bringing to the respondent’s notice, the order of this Court, dated 15.09.2004. In spite of several reminders, the respondent had not disposed of the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.06.2004. Hence, the respondent had willfully disobeyed the order of this court, dated 15.09.2004, amounting to contempt of Court, under the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had filed a counter tendering his unconditional apology, in case this Court finds that he had committed contempt. However, it is also stated that a notice was issued to the respondent company, on 30.03.2006, to cause production of the relevant records within 15 days time. Again on 24.07.2006, a notice had been issued to the respondent company to produce the relevant records. However, the respondent had replied that the records had been misplaced and that they would be produced in due course. Another notice, dated 13.12.2007, had been issued to the respondent company by the District Registrar, Salem West, fixing the date of compliance on 17.12.2007. Since the respondent company did not comply with the notice issued by the respondent herein, an order had been passed on 03.01.2008, imposing a penalty of Rs.5,000/- in accordance with Section 81 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982.
5. In such circumstances, even though there has been some delay in passing the order, it is found that the respondent had taken sufficient steps to implement the order of this Court, dated 15.09.2004. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no wilful disobedience of the order had been committed by the respondent/contemner. Hence, the contempt petition is closed. No costs.
csh