K.Gurumoorthy v. Chandan Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA & A.Nos.84 & 3545 of 2015 Lotus Pond Welfare Association, Represented by its President, Mr.K.Gurumoorthy, No.46, IT Highway, OMR, Thaiyur - B, Village, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram Dist., - 603 103 ... petitioner Vs.
Mr.Chandan Jain, Managing Director, M/s.Vijay Shanthi Builders Ltd., No.20/43, Kasthuri Rangan Salai (Near Russian Culture Centre), Alwarpet, Chennai 18.
... respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent in the manner this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for deliberately committing contempt by willful disobedience of the order dated 16.06.2015 of the Hon'ble Court in A.No.84 of 2015. 1/5
Application Nos. 84 of 2015 and 3545 of 2015: Lotus Pond Residents Welfare Association rep by its Vice President, Mr.S.Pitchumani, No.46 IT Highway, OMR, Thaiyur Village, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram District 603 103.
...Applicant in both Applications vs M/s.Vijay Shanthi Builders Ltd., rep by its Managing Director, No.20/43, Kasthuri Rangan Salai, (near Russian Culture Centre) Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.
...Respondent in both Applications
Application No.84 of 2015 filed under order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Section 9(ii) © of the Aribitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to pass an Interim direction directing the Respondent to continue with the maintenance work in the residential apartment complex named as LOTUS POND situated at No.46 IT Highway OMR Thaiyur Kelambakkam Kancheepuram District 603 103 pending initiation and completion of arbitration proceedings terms of clause 28 of the tripartive agreemtents. Application No.3545 of 2015 filed under order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 9 (ii) © of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to pass an interim direction directing the respondents to continue with the 2/5
maintenance work in the residential apartment complex named as Lotus Pond situated at No.46 IT Highway OMR, Thaiyur, Kelambakkam, Kancheepuram District 603 103 and also continue ensuring water supply to the residents.
For Petitioner :
Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan for Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail For Respondent :
Ms.Rekha for Mr.R.Parthasarathy
ORDER
The above contempt petition has been filed seeking to punish the contemnor for having wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 16.06.2015 in A.No.84 of 2015. The allegation of contempt are as follows.
2. On 16.06.2015 this Court has passed the following order: "At request, post on 24.06.2015.
Water supply shall continue until further orders. Without prejudice to the contentions raised, disposal of the garbage shall be continued subject to payment of maintenance charges."
3. The petitioner would contend that despite this order of the Court and the same being intimated to the respondent herein, the respondent has 3/5
failed to provide the water supply to Tower 8 from 16.06.2015 to 18.06.2015 and water was only supplied on 19.06.2015.
4. That apart, though the respondent was directed to continue to do maintenance work of garbage clearance on maintenance charges, the respondent had vide their e-mail dated 17.06.2015 informed the petitioner that they would be handing over the entire project to them, which according to the petitioner amounts to contempt of orders of this Court.
5. A perusal of the typed set of papers would indicate that the respondent had by their letter dated 17.06.2015 handed over the entire common amenities to the association and had also submitted that on and from the said date they would not be liable for common amenities. As regards the clearance of garbage, they had stated that they were willing to continue clearing the garbage, provided the charges are paid as per the orders of this Court dated 16.06.2015.
6. They had also undertaken to continue the water supply. The said documents had also been received by the petitioner association. After issuing contempt notice vide their e-mail and letter dated 17.06.2015, the 4/5
petitioner association has sent a letter dated 22.06.2015 returning the documents to the respondent. Nowhere in this letter has any statement been made out about the non supply of water or the non clearance of the garbage.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner have not been able to substantiate the contempt pleaded by them the petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected applications are also closed. No costs. SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) kan //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
SMI/22/01/2021 5/5