V MALLIGA Vs. I KRISHNAN PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the respondent in Review Petition No.1146 of 2009 and appeal in A.S.No.600 of 2008 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.6685 of 2007.

(2.) Factual matrix:- a) Case of the petitioner:- The Central Public Works Department Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Limited is a multi-State Co-operative Society floated to promote the interest of all its members to attain their social and economical betterment through self-help and mutual aid in accordance with the co-operative principles. Under the bye laws of the Society, the Secretary is an Officer of the Society. He is also an Ex-Officio Member of the Board of Directors. He is the Chief Executive of the Society under clause 30 of the bye laws of the Society. A notification for selecting the Board of Directors was issued on 15.10.2007 for the election to be held on 30.10.2007. The said notification was under challenge in O.S.No.6685 of 2007 before the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents conducted the elections. The results of the said election was subject to the outcome of the Application filed for interim injunction. Respondents 1 to 10 alongwith late G.Arunachalam were declared elected and they assumed charge as Board of Directors of the Society during the pendency of the suit. The Trial Court was pleased to decree the suit partially. A Review Petition was filed by the respondents in I.A.No.9438 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. Civil Revision Petition No.2400 of 2008 was preferred before this court and the same was also dismissed on merits. First Appeal in A.S.No.600 of 2008 was preferred before the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the said First Appeal was also dismissed whereas the counter appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2009 filed by the petitioner was allowed. The first appellate court appointed the Secretary of the Respondent Society, the 11th respondent herein as the Special Officer and directed to conduct the election as per the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. A Review Petition No.1146 of 2009 was filed before the first appellate court to review its judgment and decree passed on 31.7.2009 in A.S.Nos.600 of 2008 and 12 of 2009. The Review Petition ended up in a compromise and a compromise memo was also filed by the parties. The 11th respondent submitted an undertaking on 14.9.2009 before the learned III Additional Judge that the elections to the Society would be conducted and concluded within four months from the date of the memorandum filed before the court. The same was recorded by the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in his order dated 16.9.2009. The period of four months fixed by the court in the Review Petition expired on 15.1.2010. But, no election was conducted as committed before the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 16.9.2009. The respondents wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The undertaking submitted by the 11th respondent was conveniently ignored not only by the 11th respondent but also by all the Board of Directors who had no right to continue in office beyond 15.1.2010. There is a clear and wilful disobedience of the orders passed by the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt under sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. b) Counter case of respondents 1 to 10:- At the outset, respondents 1 to 10 tender their unconditional apology for the contempt that might have been committed inadvertently by the respondents. They have not disobeyed or committed any act of contempt intentionally or wilfully. The Secretary of the Society is the Chief Executive of the Society. Respondents 1 to 10 were not parties before the court below. Only after a decree was passed in O.S.No.6685 of 2007 dated 17.4.2008, the Board was informed of the result of the case. The Board unanimously resolved on 23.4.2008 to prefer an appeal. The Society was not aware of the result of the appeal in A.S.No.600 of 2008. Only after the Society received a notice from the counsel for the petitioner dated 4.8.2009, Shri.S.Jagannathan, Advocate on record for the respondents intimated that the court has extended the functioning of the Board of Directors for a period of four months and to conduct election before the expiry of the extended period of four months. Therefore, the Board could not function between 6.8.2009 and 16.9.2009. It appears that the Secretary of the Society filed a Review Petition in the appeal in A.S.No.600 of 2008 before the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 14.9.2009. A joint memo of compromise seems to have been filed without the knowledge of the Board of Directors. The Board again met on 11.9.2009 and resolved to take further action in the election process as soon as the certified copy of the order was obtained. The Board of Directors have no intention whatsoever to delay the election. They once again tender their unconditional apology before this court for the act of contempt, if any.

(3.) Submissions on the side of the petitioner:- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 11th respondent being the Ex-Officio Member of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive of the Society as per the bye laws, represented the Society throughout the litigation initiated by the petitioner. The Board of Directors were very well aware of the litigation and the directions passed by this court. Therefore, the Board of Directors cannot shirk their responsibility in conducting the election as stipulated by the first appellate court within the time frame fixed by it. The 11th respondent also cannot escape from the contempt proceedings as he was instrumental in inviting the order passed in the Review Petition by filing the memo of compromise after entering into some consultation with the Board of Directors. The very fact that the Board of Directors, in fact, enjoyed their tenure extended by the court, but, postponed the election till about the expiry of their tenure. Such a conduct would go to show that they wilfully disobeyed the orders of the court.