Dismissed

The Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. R.Jagadeesan

Madras HC23 Sept 2021CONT P/782/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a contempt petition regarding the respondent's failure to pay a decretal amount within the time granted pending an execution proceeding. Noting partial payment and inability to raise funds despite the granted breather, the court recalled the interim order releasing attachment and closed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

Interim order allowing release of attachment on items 2 and 3 was recalled; status quo ante restored; contempt petition closed; extension petition closed.

The Cotton Corporation of India Limited Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Cont.P.No.782 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.09.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Cont.P.No.782 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.No.13173 of 2020 in C.R.P.No.3661 of 2018

¶9

M/s.The Cotton Corporation of India Limited, Rep.by its Deputy General Manager, Mr.R.Jeyakumar, No.1057, Trichy Road, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-641 045.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

vs.

¶12

Mr.R.Jagadeesan, Managing Director, M/s.Thambi Modern Spinning Mills Ltd., Omalur Road, Jagirammapalayam, Salem-636 302. ... Respondent

¶13

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to

¶14

penalize the respondent for the willful disobedience of the order of this Court

¶15

dated 27.08.2020 in C.M.P.No.22339 of 2019 in C.R.P.No.3661 of 2018.

¶16

For Petitioner : M/s.Anirudh Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.D.Shivakumaran

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

6/1

¶19

Cont.P.No.782 of 2021

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

(The case has been heard through video conferencing)

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶23

counsel for the respondent/contemnor.

¶24

The parties, before this Court, entered into agreement and due to breach committed, the petitioner herein invoked Arbitration Clause. The arbitration award passed against the respondent/contemnor, sought to be enforced by the petitioner herein by filing Execution Petition. As against the order of attachment in E.P., the contemnor herein filed revision petition. Pending disposal of the revision petition, the contemnor herein filed an application for raising the attachment in respect of the item Nos.2 and 3 only to enable the contemnor to mobilize fund to repay and discharge the award amount.

¶25

This Court, vide order dated 27.08.2020, considered the request made by the contemnor herein and passed the following order:

¶26

“4. In this petition, it is contended that for

¶27

recovery of Rs.1,00,72,428/- four properties worth more than Rs.75,00,00,000/- were attached, which has crippled the petitioner herein to mobilize fund and pay the decreetal amount. It is also stated in the affidavit that, out of four items of properties mentioned above, item Nos.2 to 4 (S.Nos.203/1L,

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

6/2

¶30

Cont.P.No.782 of 2021

¶31

206/1(part), 206/3(part) and 206/3(part)) have already been encumbered with IDBI Bank by creating equitable mortgage. 1^st item property (S.No.202/1) according to the petitioner is worth more than Rs.12 crores. Therefore, it is sought to raise attachment over the item Nos.2 to 4 since the interest of decree-holder will be sufficiently satisfied by the attachment of the 1^st item of property alone.

¶32

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that for the past 7 years after passing of the award, the petitioner has not shown any bonafide to discharge the decreetal amount inspite of attachment and unless and until they show some bonafide, raising attachment will be prejudicial to the interest of the respondent.

¶33

6. After giving anxious considering to the rival submission and the undertaking given by the petitioner's counsel to clear the decree amount, (which as on date works out to Rs.1,43,16,893/-) within a period of 3 months by availing loan from IDBI Bank or any other source, this Court is of the view that interim order of raising attachment in respect of Items Nos.2 and 3(S.No.203/1L and 206/1(part) and 206/3(part)) alone be granted as a breather to the petitioner for availing loan from

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

6/3

¶36

Cont.P.No.782 of 2021

¶37

other source and repay the decreetal amount.

¶38

7. In the result,

¶39

The following order is passed:-

¶40

(1)The attachment in R.E.P.No.162/2016 on

¶41

the file of the Principal District Court, Salem in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3(S.Nos.203/1L, (a)206/1(part) (b)206/3(part)) alone is hereby raised.

¶42

(2)The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 08.09.2020 and the balance amount within a period of 90 days from today.

¶43

(3)The Sub Registrar, Jagir Ammapalayam Sub Registrar Office, Salem is directed to record the raising of attachment in respect of the following items:

¶44

Item No.2---Survey No.203/1L

¶45

Item No.3---(a)Survey No.206/1(part)

¶46

(b)Survey No.206/3(part))

¶47

and issue encumbrance certificate, on application to the petitioner to enable him to raise loan over the properties. Accordingly, this petition is ordered.”

¶48

4.In the instant petition, it is brought to the notice of this Court

¶49

that, the contemnor has not honoured the undertaking and so far has paid only

¶50

Rs.35,00,000/- as against the decreetal amount of Rs.1,43,16,893/-. Hence,

¶51

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there is a willful disobedience of the Court order. Therefore, the contemnor

¶52

6/4

¶53

Cont.P.No.782 of 2021

¶54

should be punished for willful disobedience.

¶55

5.The learned counsel for the contemnor would submit that with

¶56

all bonafide intention, the contemnor made attempts to raise funds through IDBI bank, which did not fructify, due to other reasons. Hence, the contemnor is making alternate arrangements to pay the dues and there is no willful disobedience on the part of the contemnor.

¶57

6.This Court, on considering the submissions, is of the view that, for nearly two years, time was given to the contemnor herein to raise fund and discharge the decreetal amount. For the said purpose, the attachment of item Nos.2 and 3 were raised as an interim measure and this Court has made clear in its order dated 27.08.2020 that the interim order of raising attachment is granted as a breather to the contemnor for availing loan from other source to repay the decreetal amount. Now, it is clear that despite granting two years time, the contemnor is not able to raise adequate fund and he has paid only Rs.35,00,000/- as against the decreetal amount of Rs.1,43,16,893/-. Therefore, interim order of raising attachment in respect of the item Nos.2 and 3 is recalled. The status quo ante as on 26.08.2020 stands restored.

¶58

6.As far as the contempt petition is concerned, taking note of the pandemic situation, the inability of the contemnor to mobilize adequate fund https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and part payment of Rs.35,00,000/-, the contempt petition is closed.

¶59

6/5

¶60

Cont.P.No.782 of 2021

¶61

Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.13173 of 2020 filed for extension

¶62

of time already granted in the order dated 27.08.2020 in C.M.P.No.22339 of

2020 is also closed.

SD/-

rpl

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) //Certified to be true copy//

¶67

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶68

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶69

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of

¶70

the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶71

To:

¶72

The Managing Director, M/s.Thambi Modern Spinning Mills Ltd., Omalur Road, Jagirammapalayam,Salem-636 302.

¶73

Copy to:

¶74

The Chief Posting Clerk, Judicial Department, High Court, Madras - 104

¶75

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶76

6/6

The Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. R.Jagadeesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. R.Jagadeesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh P.Sheth and another Vs M/s.Indus City Scapes Construction Pvt. Ltd. and another

Mr.a.D.Padmasingh Isaac and 2 others Vs Aachi Catering Services and Homely Mess

Vishal Kothari, carrying on business under the name and style of Nirman Finance and Investment Co., Vs Mrs.G.Geetha Lakshmi and 3 others

Dr.Prabakaran Srs Vs Vellore Institute of Technology(Vit) and 3 others

K.T.V. Health Food Private Limited Vs Kalasakthi Agro Private Limited

M/s.Shriram Epc Ltd. Vs M/s.Bharti Axa General Insurance Co.Ltd and 2 others