Judgment :- N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 3.8.2010 made in W.P.No.6174 of 2010 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the auction notice insofar as column No.15, published in Dina Thandhi Newspaper dated 23.4.2010 intending to bring the appellants property situated in Door No.3/240 Ward G, Plot No.21, Survey No.103, Paramakudi Town, Ramanathapuram District, for auction sale. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: (a)The appellant along with his mother A.Krishnammal being members of the second respondent Co-Operative Building Society Limited, borrowed a sum of Rs.2,75,000/-in the year 1998 and only part of the said amount was repaid. An arbitration proceeding under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983 was initiated in ARC No.2/98-99. On 23.1.2010 an award was passed to the effect that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.7,95,880/-with subsequent interest. (b)The said award amount having not been paid by the appellant, the second respondent issued a tender notification inviting tenders for the sale of the mortgaged property bearing Door No.3/240 Ward G, Plot No.21, situated in survey No.103 Paramakudi Town, Ramanathapuram District. It was stated in the said auction notice that auction would be conducted on 29.4.2010 at 1.00 p.m. (c)The appellant challenged the said auction notice by filing W.P.No.6174 of 2010 on 27.4.2010 with the above said prayer and contended that the subject house property will fetch more than Rs.35 lakhs; that the office bearers of the Society want to grab the property for a song; that the appellant shall make appropriate arrangement to settle the due of the second respondent at the earliest; and that, if the property is sold the appellant will be put to severe loss and hardships. Though various contentions were raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the award passed under the arbitration proceedings was not challenged. (d)The writ petition was posted for admission on 28.4.2010 and this Court taking note of the averments contained in the affidavit, granted an interim stay of the proposed auction. Though various contentions were raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the award passed under the arbitration proceedings was not challenged. (d)The writ petition was posted for admission on 28.4.2010 and this Court taking note of the averments contained in the affidavit, granted an interim stay of the proposed auction. According to the appellant, the said order was telegraphically intimated to the respondents 1 and 2, and in spite of the same, auction was conducted by the first respondent and the 3rd respondent was declared as the highest bidder and his auction was confirmed for a sum of Rs.10,25,000/-and he also made part payment of Rs.3 lakhs. (e)According to the appellant, the telegram sent by the appellant was duly delivered by the department (BSNL) and a certificate to that effect was issued by BSNL dated 5.10.2010 stating that the said telegram was delivered on 29.4.2010 at 10.30 hours. A certified copy of the telegram sent was also enclosed along with the said certificate and both the documents are filed by the learned counsel for the appellant by way of an additional typed set of papers on 6.1.2011 after serving copy of the typed set to the respective counsels. (f)It is the further case of the appellant that the auction having been conducted after the grant of interim stay by this Court and after communication of the stay order through telegram, the conduct of auction, declaring the 3rd respondent as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.10,25,000/-and his deposit of Rs.3 lakhs before the Sale Officer are to be ignored as the order of this Court was violated. In view of the said violation of order of this Court, all events consequent to the said auction should be treated as nullity. (g)The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has not challenged the award passed in the arbitration proceedings. After the dismissal of the writ petition 3rd respondent has paid the balance amount on confirmation of the sale and he was also given possession of the property. 3. The writ appeal was presented before this Court on 22.9.2010 with a delay of seven days. The condone delay petition came up for hearing on 25.10.2010 and private notice returnable in three weeks was ordered. After service of notice, on 25.11.2010 this Court condoned the delay as the delay was sufficiently explained. 3. The writ appeal was presented before this Court on 22.9.2010 with a delay of seven days. The condone delay petition came up for hearing on 25.10.2010 and private notice returnable in three weeks was ordered. After service of notice, on 25.11.2010 this Court condoned the delay as the delay was sufficiently explained. Thereafter the writ appeal was posted for admission on 8.12.2010. 4. On 20.12.2010 this Court recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has taken a demand draft for a sum of Rs.7,95,000/-. After recording the said statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant the matter was adjourned to 3.1.2011. The 3rd respondent also filed an implead petition and got himself impleaded on 20.12.2010. On 3.1.2011 the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was willing to pay any interest and he will get demand draft for the interest amount payable also, if time is granted. Therefore time was granted as requested by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. On 6.1.2011 the appellant filed an affidavit stating that he has suffered at the hands of the Sale Officer and the award amount of Rs.7,95,880/-with subsequent interest comes to Rs.8,18,775/-, and the appellant prayed for remitting the said amount directly through the counsel for the second respondent Society. The details of the demand drafts as mentioned in the affidavit are as follows: DD No.420380 dated 16.12.2010 ..Rs.2,00,000/- DD No.169758 dated 16.12.2010..Rs.1,00,000/- DD No.169759 dated 18.12.2010..Rs.3,00,000/- DD No.169760 dated 18.12.2010..Rs.1,95,880/- DD No.777789 dated 04.01.2011..Rs. 22,895/- Total..Rs.8,18,775/- Pointing out the above facts and the subsequent events happened after filing the writ petition and writ appeal, the appellant is praying for setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and for passing appropriate orders as the appellants house property is sold in auction contrary to the interim order passed by this Court and during pendency of the writ petition. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the above narrated facts during the course of his arguments and submitted that taking note of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the appellant was willing to settle the award amount if some time is granted, on 28.4.2010 the learned single Judge granted interim stay of the auction proposed to be conducted on 29.4.2010 at 1.00 p.m. and in spite of receipt of communication through telegram regarding the grant of stay, the auction sale was conducted and therefore the conduct of auction after the knowledge about the order passed by this Court and participation of the third respondent in the auction and remittance of part of the amount by him pending disposal of the writ petition and paying balance amount after confirmation of the sale after dismissal of the writ petition, will not confer any right to the third respondent, except his right to claim return of the money he paid and the expenses met by him pursuant to the auction sale. The learned counsel also submitted that the Division Bench of this Court on 20.12.2010 recorded production of demand draft for a sum of Rs.7,95,000/-and to show the bona fide, during the subsequent hearing, for the interest amount payable also demand drafts were taken, which were also produced before this Court supported by an affidavit dated 6.1.2011. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is not challenging the award, but submitting to the award and therefore the writ appeal has to be disposed of by giving direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to accept the amount offered by the appellant through demand drafts mentioned above, granting liberty to the second respondent to demand any further amount payable as lawful expenses incurred and the amount paid by the third respondent may be directed to be returned to the third respondent, so that the appellant will be in a position to get back his house property. The learned counsel also submitted that the appeal being continuation of the original proceeding, this Court is entitled to take note of the readiness and willingness of the appellant to pay the entire amount and this Court can also mould the relief even though a different relief was sought for in the writ petition, on equitable grounds. 7. The learned counsel also submitted that the appeal being continuation of the original proceeding, this Court is entitled to take note of the readiness and willingness of the appellant to pay the entire amount and this Court can also mould the relief even though a different relief was sought for in the writ petition, on equitable grounds. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 vehemently opposed the said prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the interim order passed by this Court on 28.4.2010 was not communicated and therefore auction was conducted on 29.4.2010 and the third respondent was declared as the highest bidder, who also remitted a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. The confirmation of auction sale was deferred after the knowledge about the interim stay granted by this Court. The writ petition having been dismissed by this Court by order dated 3.8.2010, confirmation order was passed in favour of the third respondent, who also remitted the balance amount and thereafter sale deed was executed and possession was also handed over to the third respondent. The learned counsel also submitted that even though the appellant has produced the demand drafts in the appellate stage, no such attempt was made by the appellant during pendency of the writ petition, except a vague statement made in the affidavit that the appellant is willing to satisfy the award amount, if time is granted. 8. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that he is a bona fide purchaser and he will be put to serious hardships if any order is passed in favour of the appellant in this writ appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition it is stated that after dismissal of the writ petition, third respondent paid the balance amount. The date of execution of the sale deed, the date of handing over possession of the property, the date of mutation of records are not mentioned and the dates typed were erased in the affidavit. The learned counsel also filed a memo dated 11.1.2011 signed by the learned counsel stating that the third respondent has incurred the following expenses, 1. 1. Bid Amount...Rs.10,25,000/- 2. 2. Stamp Duty...Rs. 61,500/- 3. 3. Registration Fee..Rs. 6,150/- 4. 4. Poundage Charges..Rs. 51,250/- Grand Total..Rs.11,43,900/- 9. The learned counsel also filed a memo dated 11.1.2011 signed by the learned counsel stating that the third respondent has incurred the following expenses, 1. 1. Bid Amount...Rs.10,25,000/- 2. 2. Stamp Duty...Rs. 61,500/- 3. 3. Registration Fee..Rs. 6,150/- 4. 4. Poundage Charges..Rs. 51,250/- Grand Total..Rs.11,43,900/- 9. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties in the light of the interim order passed by the learned single Judge on 28.4.2010; the auction conducted on 29.4.2010; certified copy of the telegram along with certificate issued by the BSNL; the affidavit filed in the writ appeal mentioning the details of demand drafts; and the cost memo filed by the third respondent. 10. The appellant having not repaid the loan amount as agreed, the second respondent initiated arbitration proceedings under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983, and an award was passed on 23.1.2010 for a sum of Rs.7,95,880/-. The appellant has not challenged the said award for one reason or the other. A notification was issued for the sale of appellants property bearing Door No.3/240 Ward G, Plot No.21, situated in survey No.103 Paramakudi Town, Ramanathapuram District proposing the auction date as 29.4.2010 at 1.00 p.m. Paper publication was made on 23.4.2010, which was challenged by the appellant before the learned single Judge. It is also the specific case of the appellant in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the appellant has expressed his willingness to satisfy the award amount. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated as follows: “.... as on date the subject property will fetch Rs.35 lakhs. The Office bearers of the society want to grab the property for a song. I shall make appropriate arrangements to settle the dues of the second respondent at the earliest.” In the light of the above pleadings, the learned single Judge shown indulgence and passed an interim order on 28.4.2010 granting interim stay of the auction sale. Time to conduct auction was fixed as 29.4.2010 at 1.00 p.m. The same is evident from the auction notice published by the Sale Officer through paper publication dated 23.4.2010. The certificate issued by the BSNL regarding service of the telegram intimating the grant of stay by this Court stating that the telegram in question was delivered on 29.4.2010 at 10.30 hours. The certificate issued by the BSNL regarding service of the telegram intimating the grant of stay by this Court stating that the telegram in question was delivered on 29.4.2010 at 10.30 hours. The certificate is filed in the additional typed set of papers filed on 6.1.2011. For proper appreciation the same is extracted hereunder: “BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED From To Sub Divisional EngineerShri Sakthimani, M.A., Groups, BSNL,Dist. Inspection Cell Officer, Paramakkudi -623 707.Ramanathapuram. No.G-2/Genl/SDE(G)PMK/09-11/73Dtd.05-10-2010 Sub: Time of delivery for Telegram dated 28-04-10 -reg. With reference to your letter dated 04-10-10, the telegram in question has been delivered on 29-04-2010 at 10.30 hrs. The xerox copy of the acknowledgement slip is enclosed herewith for perusal and to find out whose signature is it. Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxx Sub Divisional Engineer, Groups, BSNL, Paramakkudi -623 707." The interim order passed by this Court which was communicated through telegram and the certified copy of the telegram is also extracted hereunder, "Certified True Copy Msg.Dated:28/04/2010 Msg.S.No:A5 Msg.Class:X TO.LNo.:5 ZCZC TKR VRA0006 PP TKRVRA EZ X 1643 A5 MADURAI-HIGHCOURT-BENCH 28 155/000 DELAY INTIMATED TO THE SALE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (HOUSING) VIRUDHUNAGAR REGION VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. The Writ Petition In Wp(Md) No.6174 Of 2010 Filed By A Murugesan Against The Sale Officer, Office Of Deputy Registrar Housing, Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar And The Secretary, Nn11 Paramakudi Cooperative Building Society Ltd, Paramakudi Came Up Before Honble Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Today. The Honble Mr. Justice K.Venkatraman Was Pleased To Admit The Matter And Ordered Notice To You. The Honble Judge Was Also Pleased To Grant Stay All Further Proceedings In Pursuant To The Auction Notice Issued By The 1st Respondent Insofar As Column 15 Is Concerned, Published In Thina Thanthi Issue Dated 23/4/2010 Intending To Bring The Petitioners Property In Door No.3/240 Ward G, Plot No.21, Situated In Survey No.103 Paramakudi Town, Ramanathapuram District. ORDER COPY FOLLOWS G R SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE, MADURAI. CERTIFIED TRUE COPY SD/-xxxxxxxxxxxxx Incharge, Telecom Centre, High Court Complex,Madurai" From the perusal of the above order passed by this Court on 28.4.2010, telegram sent by the counsel to the first respondent and the certificate issued by the BSNL as extracted supra, it is evident that the auction was conducted at 1.00 p.m. on 29.4.2010 after the knowledge about the grant of interim stay of the auction by this Court. Thus, the auction conducted on 29.4.2010 at 1.00 p.m. cannot be treated as a valid auction and therefore the consequences arising out of the said auction viz., participation of the third respondent in the auction sale, declaring him as the highest bidder, payment of part of the bid amount, will have no consequences. 11. The writ petition was dismissed on 3.8.2010 and thereafter sale confirmation order was issued. What is relevant to be noted in this case is, the order of sale confirmation issued in favour of the third respondent is consequent to the auction conducted on 29.4.2010 at 1.00 p.m. During the said time an interim stay order passed by the competent court was in operation. After the dismissal of the writ petition, writ appeal was preferred and the appeal being continuation of the original proceedings, the appellate Court is entitled to take note of all events including the conduct of the parties as well as readiness and willingness on the part of the appellant to pay the entire amount, the bona fide of which is proved by producing the demand drafts before this Court on 20.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.7,95,000/-. 12.(a) It is well settled principle of law that an authority proceeding with any matter after the prohibitory order passed by the Competent Court, has to be seriously viewed and the parties should be put back to the original position as no one can be permitted to enjoy the fruits of any order which was passed in contravention to the stay order. The said principle is fully explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 (4) Supreme 519 (Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs.). In paragraphs 23 to 28 the Supreme Court held as follows: "23. In Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR 1967 SC 1386 , this Court considered the effect of action taken subsequent to passing of an interim order in its disobedience and held that any action taken in disobedience of the order passed by the Court would be illegal. Subsequent action would be a nullity. 24. In Surjit Singh Vs. Harbans Singh, AIR 1996 SC 135 , this Court while dealing with the similar issue held as under: "In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. Subsequent action would be a nullity. 24. In Surjit Singh Vs. Harbans Singh, AIR 1996 SC 135 , this Court while dealing with the similar issue held as under: "In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes." 25. In All Bengal Excise Licensees Association Vs. Raghabendra Singh & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1386 , this Court held as under: "A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof ............ the wrong perpetrated by the respondents in utter disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good." 26. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2005 , this Court after making reference to many of the earlier judgments held: "On principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them." 27. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund, AIR 2008 SC 901 , this Court while dealing with the similar issues held that even a Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the event of coming to the conclusion that a breach to an order of restraint had taken place, may bring back the parties to the same position as if the order of injunction has not been violated. 28. In view of the above, it is evident that any order passed by any authority in spite of the knowledge of the interim order of the court is of no consequence as it remains a nullity." (b)The order issued by the competent Court is bound to be obeyed without any reservation by parties concerned. 28. In view of the above, it is evident that any order passed by any authority in spite of the knowledge of the interim order of the court is of no consequence as it remains a nullity." (b)The order issued by the competent Court is bound to be obeyed without any reservation by parties concerned. The same is explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2007 (6) Supreme 97 (Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah). In para 31 the Supreme Court held thus, "31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected." (c) In (2009) 4 MLJ 326 (SC) (Marirudraiah v. B.Sarojamma) the Supreme Court clearly held that the Courts are not to encourage pendente lite transaction and regularise their conduct in purchasing properties during pendency of the litigations. 13. We are not called upon to scrutinise the papers with utmost care and caution regarding service of the telegram as we are not deciding the contempt of Court proceedings, which has to be dealt with as a criminal case. In the absence of any contra material available, especially with regard to the certificate issued by the BSNL certifying that the service of telegram prior to conducting auction, that was on 29.4.2010 at 10.30 a.m., we are fully satisfied that the action of the first respondent in conducting the auction in spite of prohibitory order issued by the High Court is not proper. If the said action is approved by this Court a tendency to violate the Court order will grow, which is happening now-a-days both by private individuals and Government Officials. If the said action is approved by this Court a tendency to violate the Court order will grow, which is happening now-a-days both by private individuals and Government Officials. The judgment of the Supreme Court above cited clearly gives an indication as to how the violation of the Court orders should be dealt with. If any leniency or indulgence is shown in favour of the persons who violated the Court orders, there will be an end of Rule of Law. As observed by the Honourable Supreme Court, the party against whom a prohibitory order is passed can only approach the Court to vacate the order or take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Had the respondents 1 and 2 postponed the auction and filed a petition to vacate the interim stay granted on 28.4.2010, appropriate orders could have been passed by this Court and this situation could have been avoided. 14. What is required to be seen in this case is whether the appellant is willing to satisfy the award amount with interest and cost and how to solve the problem by giving appropriate directions to return the amount to the third respondent on equitable grounds. Equity jurisdiction can be exercised by the Courts, particularly superior Courts, is also well settled. Whether the appellant is entitled to pray for extending equitable relief is also supported by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 10 SCC 677 (Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P.). In paragraph 26 the Supreme Court held as folows: "26. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in the writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the Court. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the Court. However, being that the power is discretionary, the court has to balance competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest coalesce generally. A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. The petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner. (Vide Champalal Binani v. CIT, AIR 1970 SC 645 : (1971) 3 SCC 20 ; Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shirke v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co.Ltd. (2000) 6 SCC 622 : AIR 2000 SC 2532 ; LIC v. Asha Goel (2001) 2 SCC 160 : AIR 2001 SC 549 ; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, (2002) 3 SCC 496 ; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 545 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 951; and Punjab Roadways v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co., (2010) 5 SCC 235 ). 15. From the materials available on record, we are satisfied that the appellant has proved his bona fide in satisfying the award amount and other claims. Hence we are inclined to pass the following orders. (a)The writ appeal is allowed. (b)The order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition dated 3.8.2010 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. (c)The appellant is directed to hand over the five demand drafts (referred in para 5 above) to the second respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the second respondent is entitled to demand any further sum payable by the appellant towards lawful dues including publication, expenses for conducting auction sale and if any such demand is made the appellant is directed to pay the same to the second respondent as assured by the learned counsel for the appellant within a period of one week on demand. (d)The respondents are directed to return the subject property to the appellant by cancelling the sale deed executed in favour of the third respondent and the expenses towards executing the deed shall be borne by the appellant. (e)The amount paid by the third respondent shall be returned to the third respondent by the second respondent with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. (f)The above directions have to be complied with by all concerned within a total period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (g)There will be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.