Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against a Fair and Decreetal Order upholding a trial court's finding that respondents did not commit contempt. The High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the contempt application due to lack of evidence of wilful disobedience amidst automated ECS deductions.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.2815 of 2018 C.M.P.No.21465 of 2018
1.P.R.Ponragu
2.P.Vasanthy ..Petitioners/Plaintiffs vs. 1.M/s.Citicorp Finance India Limited (Formerly known as " Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.,) Rep.by its Managing Director, Mr.Deepak Keshav Ghaisas Having Office at: "ACROPOLIS" New No.148, Old No.68, 9th Floor, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 2.M/s.L&T Housing Finance Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, Mr.Shashikant Harilal Bhojwani, Having Office at New No.62, Old No.30/31, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
.. Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of C.P.C, against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the XVI Additional Judge (FAC XIX Additional) City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.44 of 2018 in I.A.No.17391 of 2017 in O.S.No.6480 of 2017 and allow the appeal with cost.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Vivekanandhan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Arunachalam for R1 M/s.C.Deepanandhini for R2
O R D E R
The Fair and Decreetal Order dated 11.06.2018 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2018 in I.A.No.17391 of 2017 in O.S.No.6480 of 2017 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the present appeal. The suit was instituted for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Along with suit, Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.17391 of 2017 was filed and the trial Court granted an order of interim injunction. However, the appellants moved an interlocutory application in I.A.No.44 of 2018 to punish the respondents for committing contempt of Court as they have not obeyed the interim order granted by the trial Court. The said interlocutory application to detain the respondent in civil prison for their wilful disobedience to the order dated 22.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.17391 of 2017 was adjudicated by the trial Court. The trial Court considered the wilful disobedience with reference to the conduct of the respondents. The findings of the trial Court in this regard in paragraph No.11 are extracted hereunder:
11. In the case on hand, mere restraint over encashment of the cheques have been prayed for.In the circumstances when the ECS mandate has not been cancelled by the petitioners, the ECS mandate fed into their system automatically deducts the EMI, periodically. Therefore, wilful disobedience strictly speaking cannot be countenanced. Moreover, a proceeding under Rule 2A or 39 CPC is a serious matter and the power that is sought to be invoked by the petitioner being penal in nature, the burden rests heavily upon him to prove the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Nor can an order under Rule 2A or 39 CPC be passed on mere suspicion and in doubtful circumstances. There should be clear proof that the order was clearly communicated and the same was disobeyed. But in the case on hand, I find that the specific order of the Court, is preventing the respondents from encashing the cheques. In such circumstances when the deductions are made in the ECS mandate, there is every susceptibility of the order of this Court, referring to a different meaning. Therefore, the main ingredients of wilful disobedience missing in this case, I find, no reason to punish the alleged contemnors and sent them civil prison.
3. Perusal of the findings reveals that the appellant has not established any such wilful disobedience so as to punish the respondent for committing contempt. This Court do not find
any reason so as to interfere with the findings made by the trial Court in this regard and the findings are certainly candid and convincing. Accordingly, the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 11.06.2018 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2018 in I.A.No.17391 of 2017 in O.S.No.6480 of 2017 stands confirmed and consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssb
To
XVI Additional Judge (FAC XIX Additional) City Civil Court,
Chennai.
+2cc to M/s.C.Deepa Nandhini, sr no.5203
C.M.A.No.2815 of 2018
RMP(23/02/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's finding that there was no wilful disobedience to attract punishment for contempt.
Whether the deductions made under the ECS mandate caused wilful disobedience of the interim order preventing encashment of cheques.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.R. Ponragu
P. Vasanthi
M/s. Citicorp Finance India Limited
M/s. L&T Housing Finance Ltd.
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
