The court held that while the respondent committed contempt by evicting the petitioner, payment and restoration justified exempting imprisonment or fine, with only litigation costs awarded.
Respondent to pay litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- within four weeks; contempt case closed without fine or imprisonment.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
CONTEMPT CASE No.1537 OF 2011
ORDER:
The order of this Court required the respondent not to evict the petitioner from the subject land except after initiating proceedings in accordance with law, that too after putting him on notice and giving him an opportunity of being heard.
Admittedly, the petitioner was dispossessed from the subject land in flagrant violation of the order of this Court. An affidavit is filed by the respondent stating that he has put the petitioner back in possession of the land; returned all his belongings; reconstructed the thatched hut; and has paid him Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of firewood taken away from his hut. The respondent would seek pardon contending that he has purged himself of contempt.
While the acts of the respondent, subsequent to the eviction of the petitioner, do show that he has sought to make reparation of the loss suffered by the petitioner, on his being illegally dispossessed from the subject land, the fact, however, remains that the order of this Court was wilfully and deliberately violated, despite the respondent being aware of the order of this Court. Considering the fact that the respondent has sought to purge himself of contempt by his subsequent act of putting the petitioner back in possession, reconstructing his hut, and paying him Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of firewood, I do not consider it appropriate to impose on the respondent the punishment of imprisonment or with fine, as any such order may well harm his future career prospects. The respondent shall, however, pay the costs of this litigation to the petitioner, which is quantified at Rs.5,000/-, within four (4) weeks from today. On failure on the part of the respondent to do so, the petitioner is entitled to have the order executed in accordance with law.
Subject to the observations aforementioned, the Contempt Case is closed.
_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
April 24, 2012 MD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
CONTEMPT CASE No.1537 OF 2011
April 24, 2012
MD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent committed criminal contempt by violating a court order by evicting the petitioner.
Petitioner
Respondent
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
