Madras High Court
M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs Mr.A.Manohar Prasad (Insolvent) on 6 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
2024:MHC:3338
Cont.P.No.523 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Contempt Petition No.523 of 2022
M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
Asset Reconstruction Division
rep.by its Vice President
402 L “Samson Towers”, 5th Floor
Pantheon Road, Egmore
Chennai 600 008 .. Petitioner
v.
1. Mr.A.Manohar Prasad (Insolvent)
2. Smt.A.Indira Anand
3. Mr.A.Anand Prasad
4. Ms.A.Chandini
5. Mrs.A.Sai Sivajyoti
6. Ms.A.Lakshmi Anandhi
7. Ms.A.Anjali Krishna Mani
8. Mr.U.Sivakumar
The Sub Registrar, Adyar
Office of the Sub Registrar
Adyar, Chennai 600 020
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.523 of 2022
9. Mr.S.Raja
The Sub Registrar, T.Nagar
Office of the Sub Registrar
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 035
(8th & 9th respondents name amended vide
order dated 19.10.2023 in Sub Apln.751/23
in Cont.P.No.523/22)
10.Mr.Chendurpandian
The Sub Registrar
Chennai South Joint-1
537 Teynampet, Nandanam
Chennai 600 035 .. Respondents
Contempt Petition is filed under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 praying to initiate criminal contempt proceedings as against the
respondents 1 to 10.
For Petitioner :: Mr.E.Om Prakash
Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Elaya Rajkumar
For Respondents :: Mr.N.Srinivasan for
Mr.M.Ashwinkumar for R1 & R2
Mr.C.Vigneswaran for R3 to R7
Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh
Additional Government Pleader
for R8 & R9
Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan for R10
____________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.523 of 2022
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The contempt petition on hand has been instituted under Section 15
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to initiate criminal contempt
proceedings against the respondents for their intentional interference with
the administration of justice.
2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Om Prakash would mainly contend
that in spite of several orders from the civil Court including the orders of
attachment of property, the petitioner-M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited is
unable to realize the amounts due to them. A compromise decree was
entered into between the petitioner and the private respondents on
26.03.2007 and in spite of that, the petitioner Bank is unable to realize the
loan amount due to them. Since the private respondents had executed a
settlement deed amongst the family members, which was registered without
considering the attachment orders passed by various Courts, the learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the Sub Registrars also committed criminal
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contempt. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dulal Chandra Bhar v. Sukumar Banerjee, 1958
SCC OnLine Cal 176 and in Prashant Bhushan, In re, (2021) 1 SCC 745.
3. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made several observations
regarding the exercise of powers by the High Courts and Supreme Court
under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, it is not
necessary to examine the facts for the purpose of forming an opinion.
4. The complaint filed by the petitioner before this Court reveals that
the compromise was originally made between M/s Ind Bank Merchant
Banking Services Limited and the private respondents in C.S.Nos.1023 of
1998, 33, 52 & 225 of 1999 on the file of the High Court of Madras.
Subsequently, the decree debts were assigned by the said M/s Ind Bank
Merchant Banking Services Limited in favour of the petitioner Bank,
namely, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited in the year 2006, where fresh terms
were entered into in respect of the said debt and three other suits were
pending for disposal during the relevant point of time. After signing the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compromise memo, the petitioner Bank approached the Debts Recovery
Tribunal by filing Original Application Nos.46, 47 & 48 of 2008 seeking for
recovery based on the compromise decrees passed by the High Court of
Madras in respect of the above stated civil suits. Thus, the petitioner-Kotak
Mahindra Bank Limited had not directly entered into a compromise in the
civil suits, but filed applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
seeking for recovery of the amount based on the compromise decrees passed
in the civil suits before the High Court of Madras.
5. Considering the complex nature of civil disputes between the
parties, the fact remains that the contempt has been not filed against any
orders of Court, but on the ground that the private respondents are
continuously disobeying the orders of Court and not permitting the
petitioner to execute the terms and conditions stipulated in the compromise
decrees.
6. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines “criminal
contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the
doing of any other act whatsoever which--(ii) prejudices, or interferes or
tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii)
interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner.
7. Though in certain circumstances the High Courts entertain criminal
contempt applications on the ground that there is wilful disobedience of the
directions issued by the Court, the same cannot be applied in all cases in a
routine manner. The Court has to examine whether alternate, efficacious
remedy is available to the person who is approaching the Court seeking to
initiate criminal contempt proceedings.
8. In the present case, an application was filed before the learned
Advocate General seeking his consent. Two Advocate Generals have not
given their consent to file a contempt petition and the petition was referred
for the decision of the Court. Consequently, the matter is listed before the
Court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. A contempt proceeding cannot be a substitute for execution
proceedings and moreover, contempt proceedings should not be allowed to
be used as a lever by the litigants for bringing pressure on the State
functionaries in getting the decree or orders executed without taking
recourse to remedies available under the Act itself. The said principle was
decided by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Om Prakash v.
Secretary, Home Department, UP 1987 (30) ACR 799.
10. The facts pleaded between the parties would amplify that civil
disputes exist and several orders are passed. The petitioner Bank is armed
with an order of attachment of the properties. Under these circumstances,
the petitioner Bank is at liberty to initiate all appropriate actions to redress
their grievance in the manner known to law. We do not find any serious
allegations of interference into the administration of justice or otherwise, as
contemplated under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act with
reference to the definition enumerated under Section 2(c) of the Act. Thus,
the contempt petition is not entertainable and stands dismissed.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Consequently, Sub Application Nos.540, 673, 674, 675, 678, 679, 680 of
2022 & 32 of 2024 are also dismissed.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (V.S.G.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes 06.09.2024
ss
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
ss
06.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
