IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:22.07.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.79 of 2008 The Krishnagiri Taluk Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., rep. By its Special Officer, Krishnagiri, Pochampally, Krishnagiri District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Shri N.Mahalingam The Presiding Officer, The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. 2.Thiru.M.Prabhakaran, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Dharapuram Branch, Erode District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondents for having violated the order in W.P.No.25378 of 2001 dated 04.07.2006. For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Veerabagu For 2nd Respondent : Mrs.Kala Ramesh O R D E R Heard the submissions made by Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.S.Veerabagu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mrs.Kala Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. The materials available on record were also perused. 2.For the recovery of the debt due from M/s. Selvanayaki Gin and Press Private Limited and one Natarajan, the State Bank of India, Dharapuram Branch, the Bank initially filed O.A.No.771 of 1997 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. Pursuant to the constitution of a separate DRT at Coimbatore, the said application was transferred to DRT, Coimbatore and renumbered as T.A.No.2235 of 2002. The Krishnagiri Taluk Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, which is the present petitioner in the contempt petition, obtained a decree from the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Krishnagiri for the amount due to the said society from M/s.Selvanayaki Gin and Press Private Limited. Pursuant to the decree obtained from the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the Special Officer, Krishnagiri Taluk Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited brought the property for sale in execution of the said decree. At that juncture, the petitioner (in T.A.No.2235 of 2002) namely, the State Bank of India, Dharapuram Branch filed a writ petition on the file of this Court in W.P.No.25378 of 2001. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an order dated 04.07.2006, the operative portion which reads as follows: "9.The third respondent herein claims certain monies from the fourth respondent pursuant to a decree passed by the first respondent. In respect of monies realised under the Act and the question of priorities among the banks and financial institutions and other creditors can be decided only by the Tribunal under the Act, hence, this Court permits the petitioner herein to file an application to implead the third respondent as a party in T.A.No.2235 of 2002 before the DRT, Coimbatore (Originally OA.No.771 of 1992 before DRT, Chennai) so that the Tribunal can adjudicate the claims of the petitioner and the third respondent in accordance with law. This Court granted interim order restraining the first respondent from bringing the property on auction sale, the same shall continue till both the parties approach the Tribunal and thereafter, the Tribunal shall consider the case of the parties on merits and proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to file necessary application to implead the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 3.Contending that the State Bank of India which was directed to file a petition for impleading the petitioner herein in T.A.No.2235 of 2002 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order of this Court did not do so, but belatedly filed a petition for impleadment in I.A.No.770 of 2006 in T.A.No.2235 of 2002 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore; that even after filing the said petition the petitioner therein allowed the said petition to be dismissed without taking necessary steps to serve notice on the petitioner herein, who was sought to be impleaded and that after allowing the said petition to be dismissed the State Bank of India chose to bring the property for sale in public auction, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition seeking punishment of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Dharapuram Branch arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the contempt petition. The petitioner has also contended that after the dismissal of I.A.No.770 of 2006, the petitioner filed applications for getting impleaded in the TA and the DRT without disposing of the said application chose to order sale of the properties in public auction and that hence, the respondents herein have committed contempt of Court for which they should be punished. 4.The learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that the first respondent cannot be held liable for contempt as there was no direction against the first respondent and that the first respondent was helpless when the impleading petition filed by the State Bank of India was allowed to be dismissed for not taking steps. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the State Bank of India devised an ingenious method by filing an impleading petition in the TA belatedly, allowing the petition to be dismissed for default and thereby paving the way for the sale of the property in public auction pursuant to the decree passed in the TA in favour of the State Bank of India. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent, in the light of the order passed by this Court, should not have dismissed the impleading petition for default or after having dismissed the same for default should not have allowed the auction to take place. 5.The learned counsel for the second respondent, as an answer to the above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out the counter statement filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.770 of 2006 (impleading petition) opposing the said application and praying for the dismissal of the same and contended that having chosen to persuade the DRT to dismiss the impleading petition filed pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner herein cannot have any grievance over the public auction conducted for the sale of the property. The learned counsel contended further that the very intention of the petitioner in filing a counter statement opposing the impleading petition which was filed pursuant to the direction of this Court with the object of allowing the petitioner herein put forth its case for priority of the debt due to it before the DRT, the petitioner cannot complain that the order of this Court has been violated. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted further that the second respondent filed a petition before the Recovery Officer within the period of two weeks stipulated in the order of this Court; that the said petition was dismissed and that after the dismissal of this petition, the second respondent filed I.A.No.770 of 2006 for impleading the petitioner herein in T.A.No.2235 of 2002. 6.A careful reading of the order passed by this Court shows that the order of interim injunction restraining the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District from bringing the property for sale in public auction was to be in force till both the parties approached the Tribunal for impleading the petitioner herein in T.A.No.2235 of 2002. The State Bank of India was also directed to file necessary application to implead the present petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in W.P.No.25378 of 2001. The said order was intended to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein to put forth its case before the DRT regarding priority of debts. However, it seems, the petitioner society resisted the application for impleadment filed by the State Bank of India with a view to prevent the Bank from bringing the property for sale in execution of the decree passed by the DRT in T.A.No.2235 of 2002 as long as possible. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent, the same is obvious from the fact that the petitioner society chose to file a counter statement opposing the impleading petition and in fact proved to be successful in getting the impleading petition dismissed and from the further fact that when steps were taken to bring the property to sale in public auction in execution of the decree passed by the DRT, the petitioner filed petitions in I.A.Nos.2621 and 2622 of 2007. The said course of auction adopted by the petitioner seems to be with the intention of preventing the second respondent from executing the decree obtained in T.A.2235 of 2002 on the file of DRT, Coimbatore. 7.Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents cannot be held liable for contempt as alleged in the petition. Before parting with the case, mentioning yet another aspect will be helpful in supporting the above said decision made by this Court. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 04.07.2006, petition for impleadment was filed by the second respondent, State Bank of India. Soon after the disposal of the said petition on 08.10.2007, the interim order of injunction granted against the petitioner herein and the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies not to bring the property for sale stood vacated. Nothing prevented the petitioner herein and the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies from bringing the property for sale in public auction pursuant to the decree obtained from the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The petitioner has not chosen to do it. On the other hand, the petitioner simply waited till the sale in public auction was notified and then chose to file a petition once again for impleadment. The same will also show the intention of the petitioner herein. 8.For all these reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out a case for contempt and the contempt petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. 22.07.2008 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sgl To 1.Shri N.Mahalingam The Presiding Officer, The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. 2.Thiru.M.Prabhakaran, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Dharapuram Branch, Erode District. P.R.SHIVAKUMAR,J. Sgl Cont.P.No.79 of 2008 22.07.2008