Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 488 (MAD)

D. Nagendran v. V. Sekar

2008-02-11

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- Heard Mr.Sadasharam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.V.Mani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for having wilfully and deliberately violated the order of interim injunction, dated 26.03.2004, issued in O.A.No.274 of 2004. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had started a business, along with the respondent, in the name and style of M/s. ACE India Exports, dealing in manufacturing of automobile parts. A partnership was formed by a partnership agreement, dated 28.05.1999. Thereafter, the partnership was re-constituted, on 112. 1999. Since a dispute had arisen between the partners, applications, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were filed. An original application in O.A.No.274 of 2004 had been filed before this Court and an application in Application No.1398 of 2004 had also been filed, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for an order of interim injunction and for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to seal the business premises of M/s. ACE India Exports. This Court had passed an order of interim injunction, dated 26.03.2004, in O.A.No.274 of 2004, restraining the respondent his men, agents or any one claiming through him from dealing with the affairs of the partnership firm and its properties, viz., the machineries, dies, moulds mentioned in the Annexures A-D, annexed thereto. It is stated by the petitioner that in spite of the said order passed by this Court, the respondent has been using the telephone with Telephone Nos.23810258 belonging to the partnership firm and in spite of an undertaking given by the respondent before the arbitral Tribunal agreeing to surrender the said telephone to telephone department. Thus the respondent has committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 26.03.2004, made in O.A.No.274 of 2004. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent has been using the Telephone bearing No.23810258 belonging to the partnership firm. The petitioner has also stated that the respondent had given an undertaking before the Arbitrator, before whom the arbitration proceedings are pending, stating that the parties would surrender the telephone bearing Nos.23810258 and 23811966 to the Telephone Department and to divide the amount refundable by the Department equally. The petitioner has also stated that the respondent had given an undertaking before the Arbitrator, before whom the arbitration proceedings are pending, stating that the parties would surrender the telephone bearing Nos.23810258 and 23811966 to the Telephone Department and to divide the amount refundable by the Department equally. It has also been agreed that the Telephones, which stand in the name of the respondent, would be surrendered by the end of November, 2004, to enable the Department to refund the amount. Therefore, the respondents had committed contempt by not complying with the agreement. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying the claims made by the petitioner and stating that the Telephone in question is in the individual name of the respondent. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the arbitration proceedings have been completed and the respondent had filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the said award. 6. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out a case to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for wilful disobedience of the order, dated 26.03.2004, made in O.A.No.274 of 2004. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs.