C. Robert Vincent v. Mr. Sanjay Joshi And 2 Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR Cont.P .N o.3860 of 20 C.Robert Vincent S/o.P.Chellappan, Saral Vilai, Kattathurai Post, Kanyakumari District - 629 158.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Mr. Sanjay Joshi Chairman and Managing Director The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Head Office, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110 002.
2.Ms.Meena Parthasarathy, General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office, Asaf Alif Road, New Delhi -110 002.
3.Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Deputy General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., P.B.
No.1877, UIL Building 4th Floor, No.4, Esplanade, Chennai 600 108.
Contemnor(s) 1/7
Prayer: This Contempt Petition is filed Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3356 of 2018.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.V.Radhini for Mr.S.Thanka Sivan For Respondent(s): Mr.C.P.Goutham Government Advocate
ORDER
This Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3356 of 2018.
2. The order copy was uploaded on the High Court website/portal thereafter. The petitioner however, applied for certified copy of the order on 25.09.2025 nearly after three years and the same was made ready on 09.10.2025 and delivered on 10.10.2025.
3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition had given the following directions: (i) That 2/7
the impugned orders insofar as inflicting the maximum punishment of removal of service alone is set aside for the purpose of remitting the matter back to the respondents for punishment which includes the compulsory retirement against the petitioner. (ii) In this regard, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the aforestated facts and circumstances including the honourable acquittal registered by the petitioner and the findings given by the criminal court in this regard in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, pass an order giving a modified punishment to the petitioner including the one, that is compulsory retirement as a punishment commensurate with the proven charges against the petitioner.
(iii) As a sequel, the petitioner since would be entitled to get retiral and pensionary benefits and whatever such retiral or post retiral benefits, that shall be calculated and be paid to the petitioner in accordance with the rules which are in vogue. (iv) The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents did not comply with the order and have wilfully disobeyed the order.
3/7
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the petitioner following up the matter with the respondents, the respondents kept the issue pending and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file the present contempt case on 25.09.2025.
6. I have taken note of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes the limitation of one year for initiating contempt proceedings.
8. This Court by order dated 28.11.2025 in Cont.P.Nos.2599 and 3033 of 2025 and by order dated 12.09.2025 in Cont.P.No.2706 of 2025 had considered the scope of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'Act 1971') and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and also as to what would constitute continuing cause of action. 4/7
9. This Court having regard to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Tirupathi Rao V. M.Lingamaiah and others reported in 2024 SCC online 1764, has held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, being a specific provision, the contempt petition has to be filed within one year when the cause of action arises.
10. In the facts of the present case, the cause of action for the petitioner to initiate action for contempt had arisen on expiry of eight weeks time granted by this Court from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 01.09.2022. The petitioner not only did not take steps thereafter within time prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, but remained silent for a considerable length of time and approached this Court by filing the present contempt case nearly 3 years later.
11. Having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court as noted herein above, the present contempt petition cannot be entertained, having been filed beyond the limitation prescribed under the Act, 1971.
5/7
12. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to work out his remedy, if so advised, in the manner known to law.
25.06.2026 Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No dna 6/7
T.VINOD KUMAR , J.
dna Cont.P .No.3860 of 2025 25.06.2026 7/7