N SRINIVAS Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been brought forth by the petitioners seeking action against the respondents 1 to 5 herein for an act of contempt committed by them by disobeying the orders of this Court made in O.A.No.243 of 2006 in C.S.No.979/2004 dated 23.3.2006.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is as follows: THE petitioners along with others have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before this Court in C.S.No.979 of 2004. While doing so, they have filed an application in O.A.No.1013/2004 for injunction, and this Court granted an order of injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property on 23.12.2004. THE said injunction is still in force. THE fifth defendant filed a counter. While the matter stood thus, in the year 2006, the fifth respondent made attempts to alienate the suit property. THEreafter, the petitioners have filed an application in O.A.No.243/2006 for injunction, and this Court has ordered status-quo to be maintained on 23.3.2006. Now, the suit is ripe for trial. THE petitioners have applied for encumbrance certificate and got the same on 6.12.2006, from which they came to know that the fifth respondent has mortgaged the suit property by way of deposit of title deeds for a sum of Rs.6,25,00,000/- in favour of the sixth respondent bank herein. Thus the act of the fifth respondent is in gross violation and willful disobedience of the orders of status-quo made by this Court. THE respondents 1 to 4 are the Directors of the fifth respondent company. THE fifth respondent has no right to mortgage the property when the order of status-quo is in force. Hence the respondents 1 to 5 are liable to be punished.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.V.Ramanujan would submit that the factum of execution of the said mortgage deed by way of deposit of title deeds is admitted by the contemnors; that while the said order to maintain the status-quo by both the parties in an application in which the interim relief to restrain the respondents 1 to 5/defendants from alienating or dealing with the property was sought for, was in force, it would be clearly indicative of the willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Court; that the respondents 1 to 5 have to be dealt with in accordance with law for the said disobedience; that further, the mortgage transaction entered into by the sixth respondent with the respondents 1 to 5, has to be declared void since the sixth respondent should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and the action of all the respondents was a clear interference in the administration of justice by taking law into their own hands; that the sixth respondent bank should have verified the encumbrance before entering into the transactions, and hence they are liable to be punished.