High Court of Madras Vs Pushparaj and another

Prayer : Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings initiated against the Contemnors herein as per the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 10.07.2023 and 27.09.2023 made in O.A.Nos.779 & 780 of 2022 and O.A.Nos.355 to 357 of 2020 and A.No.1816 of 2020 in C.S.No.199 of 2020.

¶13

1/5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Contp.No.2333 of 2023

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (For R1) No appearance (For R2) Mr.R.W.H.Ghyaz Ahmed Advocate Commissioner

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Court had initiated Suo Motu Contempt against the respondents herein for the acts that had been committed by them in execution of the warrant issued by this Court.

¶19

It is to be noted that this Court, by judgment dated 05.11.2024

¶20

in C.S.No.199 of 2020, held that the new office bearers of the First Respondent Society had taken over pursuant to the orders of this Court, including the management of the third and fourth defendants, had closed the suit as having become infructuous.

¶21

2/5

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Contp.No.2333 of 2023

¶24

The learned Advocate Commissioner had alleged various illegal

¶25

acts that had been conducted by the interim Administrator appointed by this Court in the conduct of elections to the First Respondent Society. A perusal of the judgment dated 05.11.2024 would also indicate that the learned Advocate Commissioner was removed by orders of this Court dated 15.07.2024.

¶26

The learned Advocate Commissioner had also filed an intracourt appeal against the order of removal and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Therefore, he would submit that the contempt by the First Respondent has to be taken note of, and he would also seek for additional remuneration to be paid to him. The act of contempt was based on the report filed by the learned Advocate Commissioner indicating that the respondents herein had objected to his executing the warrant for recovery of documents from the First Defendant Society.

¶27

It is to be noted that the Administrator appointed by this Court

¶28

had conducted elections of the First Respondent Society and also handed

¶29

3/5

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Contp.No.2333 of 2023

¶32

over charge of the said society and the third and fourth respondent institutions to the newly elected office bearers, and the suit itself had been closed as infructuous.

¶33

In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to

¶34

precipitate the matter and would want to give a quietus to the entire issue.

¶35

However, as regards the claim of remuneration, since the learned Advocate Commissioner had been removed by the order of this Court dated 15.07.2024, which is the subject matter of appeal, this Court is of the view that if the learned Advocate Commissioner succeeds in the intracourt appeal, he could seek for additional remuneration thereafter.

¶36