A.Jayasimha v. S.Viswanathan

ORDER This contempt petition is filed to punish the respondent/contemnor for wilful disobedience for non compliance of the order dated 06.03.2013 made in WP.No.2528 of 2008. Page1 of 6

¶2The order copy was uploaded on the High Court website/portal thereafter. However, the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order on

06.04.2026 and obtained the same on 20.04.2026 and thereafter presented the Contempt Petition on 22.04.2026.

¶3Though on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that despite the direction issued by this Court, the respondent did not comply with the order and has wilfully disobeyed the order and inspite of 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 22.04.2026.

¶4I have taken note of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶5At 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.

¶6This 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 Page2 of 6 1971') and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and also as to what would constitute continuing cause of action.

¶7This 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 – 2024 SCC online 1764, has held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, being a specific provision, the contempt petition has to be filed within one year when the cause of action arises.

¶8This Court, in the aforementioned contempt petitions also dealt with the issue of continuing cause of action and referring to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Tirupathi Rao V. M.Lingamaiah and others (supra), wherein the Apex Court had explained as to what constitutes a continuing wrong. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :- "56. A caveat needs to be added here. For a "continuing wrong/breach/offence" to be accepted as a ground for seeking exemption in an action for contempt, the party petitioning the court not only has to comprehend what the phrase actually means but would also be required to show, from his pleadings, the ground resting whereon he seeks exemption from limitation. Should the party fail to satisfy the court, the petition is liable to outright rejection. Also, the court has to be vigilant. Stale claims of contempt, camouflaged as a "continuing wrong/breach/offence" ought not to be entertained, having regard to the legislative intent for introducing section 20 in the Act which has been noticed above. Contempt being a Page3 of 6 personal action directed against a particular person alleged to be in contempt, much of the efficacy of the proceedings would be lost by passage of time. Even if a contempt is committed and within the stipulated period of one year from such commission no action is brought before the court on the specious ground that the contempt has been continuing, no party should be encouraged to wait indefinitely to choose his own time to approach the court. If the bogey of "continuing wrong/breach/offence" is mechanically accepted whenever it is advanced as a ground for claiming exemption, an applicant may knock the doors of the Court any time suiting his convenience. If an action for contempt is brought belatedly, say any time after the initial period of limitation and years after the date of first breach, it is the prestige of the court that would seem to become a casualty during the period the breach continues. Once the dignity of the court is lowered in the eyes of the public by non-compliance of its order, it would be farcical to suddenly initiate proceedings after long lapse of time. Not only would the delay militate against the legislative intent of inserting section 20 in the Act (a provision not found in the predecessor statutes of the Act) rendering the section a dead letter, the damage caused to the majesty of the court could be rendered irreparable. It is, therefore, the essence of justice that in a case of proved civil contempt, the contemnor is suitably dealt with, including imposition of punishment, and direction as well is issued to bridge the breach."

¶9In the facts of the present case, the cause of action for the petitioner to initiate action for contempt had arisen on expiry of three months time granted by this Court from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 06.03.2013. 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 Page4 of 6 of time and approached this Court by filing the present contempt case nearly 13 years later.

¶10Having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Tirupathi Rao (supra), this Court is of the view that the present contempt petition as filed is not maintainable having been filed beyond the limitations prescribed under the Act.

¶11Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. Though it is contended that the respondents having passed an order, which is not in accordance with the direction issued by this Court in WP.No.2528 of 2008 dated 06.03.2013, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has to work out his remedy in the manner known to law and could not initiate contempt proceedings alleging disobedience of the order of this Court. No costs. 17-07-2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KKD Page5 of 6 CONToPoNo.o2057oofo2026 T.VINODoKUMAR,oJ. KKD CONToPoNo.o2057oofo2026 17-07-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR A.Jayasimha ..Petitioner(s) Vs. 1.S.Viswanathan The Chairman Chennai Port Trust, Chennai 600 001. 2.Malla Srinivasa Rao The Financial Advisor Cum Chief Accounts Officer, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents Prayer : Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.2528 of 2008 dated 06.03.2013. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.Doraiswamy For Respondents : Ms.Y.Kavitha Govt.Advocate