Pulivarthi Goweri Purna kumari, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

BETHA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O LATE KONA SRINIVASA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCCUPATION TEACHER, R/O H.NO.171, GANDHINAGAR COLONY, NELLIMARLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

MADHAB RAJAN DUTTA, The Branch Manager, The State Bank of India, Main Branch, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh India - 532501

¶14

...CONTEMNOR

¶15

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the Respondents herein for willfully and deliberately violating the order passed by this Honble Court n WP.No.5967/2024 dated 3.9.2024 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Contemnor:

¶19

1.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA

¶20

2

¶21

The court made the following ORDER:

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

The present Contempt Case is filed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful disobedience and violation of the order of this Court dated 03.09.2024 passed in W.P. No. 5967 of 2024.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though this Court specifically directed the respondents to release the entire amount stands at credit of the deceased in favour of the petitioner within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the respondents, for one reason or the other, have not complied with the said order nor taken any steps for its implementation. Instead, they waited for an interim order to be passed in Writ Appeal No. 899 of 2024. Hence, according to the petitioner, the respondents have intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court and are liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶25

3

¶26

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidavit and also placed on record the copies of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 899 of 2024 dated 07.11.2024 and 19.06.2025. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, averred inter alia as follows:

¶27

6. I respectfully submit that on 03-11-2024 we sent a written correspondence asking the Petitioner to submit certain documents for further process your application, following documents are sought

¶28

a.) New Disclaimer Certificate signed by Daughter (Major Now)

¶29

b.) Daughter E KYC [ Will be provided at Branch

¶30

c.)Latest KYC Copies of Sri U.Srinivasa Rao (Surity 1)

¶31

d.) Latest KYC Copies of Sri K.Balaji (Surity2).

¶32

7. I submit that allegations raised in Para Nos 5 to 9 are false and bereft of truth, hence denied. I respectfully submit that soon after receipt of Order of this Hon'ble Court we have commenced the process, it is absolutely false to allege that I am in hand glove with un-official respondent in writ petition, on the other hand she is insisting not to proceed with the future, since she has already filed W.A against the Hon'ble Single Judge, otherwise she will suffer irreparable loss.

¶33

8. I humbly submit we have specially stated in Counter Affidavit filed W.P. that

¶34

4

¶35

"non- payment to the Petitioner is neither willful nor wanton, it is bonafide only to avoid multiplicity of Proceedings between the Parties and to avoid further hardship. I submit that we are always willing and ready to disburse amount as per the direction of the Hon'ble Courts in case of disputed Claims. I humbly submit that in the present case also it is our duty to honor this Hon'ble Court Orders".

¶36

(9) I submit that on 23-10-2024 our Counsel informed that W.A is filed. On 07-11-2024 Our Counsel informed me through phone that the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to suspend the operation of Judgement and Order impugned remained stayed and posted to 02-01-2025, Interim Order extended time to time. Finally, on 19-06-2025 the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to disposed of modifying the Hon'ble Court judgment and order impugned is set aside. The issue of the release of the money shall depend upon the final outcome of the proceedings before the court of senior civil judge, Vizianagaram in S.O.P.No.5 of 2020.

¶37

The learned standing counsel for the respondents further submits that when the respondents were taking steps to comply with the order of this Court as directed, the unofficial respondents challenged the said order by way of Writ Appeal. At the time of admission, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 07.11.2024, staying the operation of the judgment of this Court as follows:-

¶38

5

¶39

“This writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 03.09.2024 passed in WP.No.5967 of 2024.

¶40

The dispute primarily revolves around the entitlement to receive money, which is in the 2nd respondent Bank, belonging to Kona Srinivasa Kumar. In the bank, the deceased had reflected his nominee as K. Rama Devi, who was the elder sister of the deceased.

¶41

It also appears that the wife and children of the deceased obtained a succession certificate from the competent Court against which an application has since been filed for setting aside the said proceedings primarily on the ground that the applicants were not served in those proceedings. Apart from this, it also appears that a suit has been filed for declaration based upon a Will which is sought to have been made by the deceased– Kona Srinivasa Kumar, which is pending in the Court of II Additional District Court, Parvatipuram.

¶42

In the meantime, operation of the judgment and order impugned shall remain stayed.”

¶43

6. Thereafter, while disposing of the writ appeal No.899 of 2024 on 19.06.2025, the Hon’ble Division Bench modified the order as under:-

¶44

“In that view of the matter, the judgment and order impugned is set aside. The issue of the release of the money shall depend upon the final outcome of the proceedings before the court of senior civil judge, vizianagaram in S.O.P.No.5 of 2020”.

¶45

6

¶46

In view of the above orders passed in the writ appeal, the learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents were restrained from implementing the order of this Court dated 03.09.2024. Therefore, the non-implementation of the order cannot be construed as either wilful violation or deliberate disobedience. He further submits that, in view of the modification of the order of this Court by the Division Bench, the present contempt case is not maintainable and is liable to be closed.

¶47

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents, and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the counter affidavit and the orders passed in Writ Appeal No. 899 of 2024, it is evident that the respondents received the order of this Court on 18.09.2024 and issued a notice dated 03.11.2024 calling upon the petitioner to submit certain documents and to open an account for processing the claim. While the respondents initiated steps to comply with the order, the unofficial respondent furnished the stay order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Division Bench, as a result of which further processing was halted.

¶48

7

¶49

Upon perusal of the final order dated 19.06.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No. 899 of 2024, it is clear that the original order of this Court has been modified. It is a well-settled principle of law that when the order alleged to have been violated has been stayed, modified, or reversed by the appellate court, contempt proceedings based on the original order cannot be sustained.

¶50

In view of the above legal position and the subsequent modification of the order in the writ appeal, this Court is of the opinion that no case of willful disobedience is made out. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.

¶51

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.

¶52

_________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶53

31.10.2025 klk

¶54

8

¶55

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶56

(closed)