GORDON WOODROFFE & CO Vs. DNRADHAKRISHNA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice calls upon Mr. Ranganatham Naidu of Messrs. Dowden & Co. to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. He appears and has been examined He says that he is the sole proprietor of Messrs. Dowden & Co. It is immaterial for the present whether this statement is true or not, Messrs. Dowden & Co. used to be frequently appointed by the Court, auctioneers to sell properties. In this case when the sale proclamation was settled the Master appointed them auctioneers to sell certain properties in execution of a mortgage decree. Mr. Ranganatham Naidu admits that the properties were sold by him in May, 1930, and that he in due course received the sale proceeds. It was his obvious duty to have brought the money into Court. He failed to do so and the only excuse he is able to offer is that the Court was then closed. As the Master points out, this did not prevent him from bringing in the money. In any case it could have been brought on the 14 July when the Court re-opened after the long recess. Again he made default and he swore to an affidavit on that day containing a report of the sale. Though it was sworn on the 14 it was filed in Court only on the 18th. The case came up before the Master for the sale being confirmed and he discovered that the money had not been paid. After some adjournments Mr. Ranganatham Naidu finally declared before the Master on the 28 July that he used the money for his own purposes, having utilised it in payment of his own creditors described in the Master's proceedings as Mullanese creditors. Several orders were made by the Master requiring Mr. Ranganatham Naidu to bring in the money and, owing to his continued default, the case was posted before the Court. As it was represented to me that if time was granted money would be forthcoming, I adjourned the case, I think, four times. I gave him every opportunity to fulfil his obligation and all he is able to say to-day is, that if another adjournment is granted money may be forthcoming. In his evidence he says that his liabilities far exceed his assets, and if that is true there is very little possibility of the money coming in. Whether the statement in regard to his financial position is true or not, I need not at present enquire. Mr. Ranganatham Naidu has committed a flagrant violation not only of the duty imposed upon him by the rules but has also disobeyed the successive orders made by the Master and by the Court . In these circumstances he is guilty of contempt and he shall stand committed to prison for a term of six months from this date, unless he shall at any time before the expiration of that term comply in all I respects with the order for payment and purge himself of the contempt, in which case, he may apply for his discharge from imprisonment. See for the form of the order Origanti Venkataratnam V/s. K. Desikachari (1918) 36 M.L.J. 461.

(2.) The notice issued to Mr. Ranganatham Naidu directs him to show cause net only why he should not be arrested but also why his properties should not be attached. As the learned Advocate-General has not been able to be present to-day I adjourn this part of the Motion to to-morrow.

(3.) It only remains to add that these proceedings were taken by the Court suo motu, as Mr. Sell, who appears for the plaintiffs in the case, not being sure of his legal position, did not desire to take any part in them.