HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2641/2011
ALLU VENKATRAMAN AND ANR. ��. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
G.D.D. DIWAKAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR �� RESPONDENT(S)
AND ANR.
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2646/2011 & CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2644-
2645/2011.
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2641/2011
This appeal arises from the judgment and order of a
Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 17.06.2006
in a batch of contempt petitions. The present appeal
relates to the order of the High Court in contempt
petition No.370 of 2006 and Sub Application No.126 of
2006.
The contempt petition was disposed of by the High
Court in terms of the following order:-
�There is no representation on behalf of the
petitioner. Heard the parties. Except to suspend
the sale made under the teeth of injunction and to
permit the purchasers to seek appropriate relief in
the manner known to law, to protect their right and
2
interest and to restore status quo ante on the date
of the orders of injunction with regard to the
possession of the plaintiffs, which were being
complained as willfully disobeyed in these contempt
petitions, no further order is required in the
contempt petitions. Accordingly the same are
closed. Consequently, Sub Application Nos. 227,
278 to 293 of 2003, 170 to 185 and 187 of 2004, 370
of 2005 and 125 to 127 of 2006 are also closed.�
A suit (C.S. No.124 of 1994) has been instituted on
the Original Side of the Madras High Court under Section
92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . There are five
plaintiffs including D. Jayaraju, who is the second
respondent in the present appeal. Among the reliefs
sought in the suit, the plaintiffs seek the removal of the
Property Association of Baptist Churches Private Limited
(PAPB) from trusteeship of the properties mentioned in the
schedule thereto. An inquiry has been sought into the
affairs of the company and into several transfers of
immovable properties effected by or on behalf of the
trustee company after 1979.
On 25.07.2000, a Division Bench of the High Court
while dealing with an application for the sale of certain
property at Kodaikanal directed that no other properties
should be sold pending the disposal of the suit. This
order was passed in OSA No. 69 of 1999 and CMP No.7306 of
1999. During the course of the proceedings in the suit,
following order was also passed by a Division Bench of
3
the High Court on 27.06.2003 (in Sub-Application No.274 of
2003 in contempt Petition No.441 of 2003):-
�The first respondent or its office bearers or
power of attorneys or custodians or care takers or
allottees so also the other respondents are hereby
restrained by means of an injunction from
alienating by way of sale, mortgage, lease of the
properties fully described in the Schedule. They
should not enter into any kind of agreement
whatsoever with anyone else with reference to the
said property. All activities in the premises
should be stopped and advertisement board, if any,
exhibited shall be removed forthwith.�
In 1993, the appellant instituted a suit for specific
performance before the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Narasaraopet, Andhra Pradesh (O.S.No.109/1993). This suit
was filed in respect of an agreement to sell which was
allegedly executed by PABC, on 14.05.1981. The suit was
decreed on 18.04.2003. The sale deed was stated to have
been executed on 31.12.2003, in the course of execution
proceedings through the Court.
In the contempt petition which was filed by the
second respondent, it was alleged that the above sale was
in breach of the interim order of injunction which was
passed by the High Court. Various other transactions
involving the sale of the property belonging to the Trust
appear to have taken place giving rise to several contempt
proceedings. It was in the course of the hearing of the
batch of contempt petitions that the impugned order has
been passed.
4
We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
second respondent who are the contesting parties.
The submission which has been urged is that in the
exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the High Court
manifestly erred in directing the suspension of the sale
made and for the restoration of the status quo ante on the
date of the order of injunction.
This Court has been apprised of the fact that in Civil
Appeal No.4124 and 4125 of 2013, a bench of two learned
Judges of this Court while dealing with the same order of
the High Court passed the following order on 26.04.2013:
�Heard learned senior counsel for the
appellants.
Leave granted.
In spite of service, none appears on behalf
of respondents.
After hearing learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and the
relief as prayed for in contempt petition before
the High Court, we are satisfied that the High
Court is not justified in passing the impugned
order without dealing with any of the claim in the
contempt petition. Inasmuch as the main suit which
is of the year 1994 are still pending on the file
of the High Court, we are inclined to remit the
matter for disposal of the contempt petition
afresh, but we feel that ends of justice would be
met by setting aside the impugned order and request
the High Court to take all endeavour for early
disposal of the suit viz. C.S. 124 of 1994
preferably within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
The civil appeals are allowed.�
5
In the present appeal, the case of the appellant that
it was in pursuance of the decree passed by the Civil
Court in Andhra Pradesh in a suit for specific performance
that the appellant had obtained the sale deed through the
process of the Court, could not have been negated in the
summary manner in which the High Court had proceeded to
pass orders in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.
Moreover, it is not in dispute that the appellant is not a
party to the suit pending before the Madras High Court.
The issue as to whether the alienation of the
property by PABC is valid or otherwise must be adjudicated
upon in the course of the hearing of the suit. That is
also the basis of the order dated 26.04.2013 passed by this
Court in the earlier civil appeals, noted above.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that the
impugned order passed by the High Court in purported
exercise of its contempt jurisdiction should be set aside
in so far as the appellant is concerned. It is ordered
accordingly.
We however, clarify that it will be open to the
plaintiffs to seek appropriate remedies in the suit which
is pending before the Madras High Court (O.S. No.124 of
1994). Nothing contained in the order shall be construed as
6
any opinion of this Court on the disposition which is
claimed by the appellant(s).
Having due regard to the order passed by this Court
on 26.04.2013 for the expeditious disposal of the suit, we
once impress upon the High Court the need for the
expeditious disposal of the suit.
The civil appeal is accordingly disposed of in the
above terms.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2646/2011
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated
15.09.2006 which seeks to clarify the previous order dated
02.08.2006 passed in the exercise of its contempt
jurisdiction. The present appeal has been heard together
with companion civil appeal No.2641/2011. As the facts
narrated in the judgment indicate, an order was initially
passed on 17.06.2006 by the High Court which was sought to
be modified in certain respects on 02.08.2006 and
clarified by the order dated 15.09.2006. The order dated
17.06.2006 has been set aside in companion civil appeal
No.2641/2011. Since the main order has been set aside,
the clarification will not, in consequence, survive and
the civil appeal shall accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
7
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2644-2645/2011
In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal
No.2641/2011, civil appeal Nos.2644-2645/2011 are disposed
of.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
���������������������������.J.
[D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
�������������������������....J.
[VINEET SARAN]
New Delhi
20 th
November,2018.
8
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).2641/2011
ALLU VENKATRAMAN AND ANR. & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
G.D.D. DIWAKAR AND ANR. & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 2644-2645/2011 (XII)
C.A. No. 2646/2011 (XII)
Date : 20-11-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. Ratnakar Dass,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Promila,Adv.
Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR
104.1 and 104.2 Mr. V.Prabhakar,Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Parasher,Adv.
Mr. N.J.Ramchandar,Adv.
Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Kumar Jha,Adv.
Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR
Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR
Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR
Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR
Ms. T.Archana,Adv.
Mr. V.Prabhakar,Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Parasher,Adv.
Mr. N.J.Ramchandar,Adv.
Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR
9
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Civil Appeals are disposed of in terms of
the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
