Madras High Court
CONT P(MD)/2583/2026 of G.Lal Bahadur Murugan Vs M.MANOJ KUMAR on 16 October 2026
CONT P(MD) No. 2583 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
CONT P(MD) No. 2583 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011091362026}
G.Lal Bahadur Murugan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
M.Manoj Kumar,
Administrator,
R.R.1397, Schwartz Higher Secondary,
School Employees Co-operative
Thrift and Credit Society,
O/o.of the Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies,
K.T.M.Kasim Centre II Floor,
Saalai Street,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Respondent is amended as per the Court order dated 18.09.2026 in Cont.P(MD).No.2583/2026)
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Contemnor/ 2nd Respondent for the willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order passed in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12222 of 2025 dated 23.02.2026 for committing the act of contempt of court.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s R.Saravanan
For Respondent(s):
S.N.Sathishwaran
CONT P(MD) No. 2583 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 23.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 12222 of 2025.
2. In the said order, the Society was directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,16,655/-, being the subsistence allowance quantified by the statutory authority. However, it is seen that the petitioner had approached this Court seeking bail, subject to a condition that the accused should deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. Subsequently, several orders were passed stating that the amounts payable by both parties could be adjusted against each other. It is now submitted that such adjustment is not possible, as the petitioner is liable to pay a substantial amount.
3. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rival claims regarding payment, coupled with the condition requiring the deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-, have created confusion. Therefore, the bail condition requiring the deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- cannot be insisted upon. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that conditions requiring the payment of money cannot be imposed while granting bail. Therefore, the condition imposed in the bail order requiring the deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- cannot be
CONT P(MD) No. 2583 of 2026 enforced and has to be modified. Consequently, neither the petitioner nor the Society can be directed to pay their respective amounts in these proceedings.
4. The parties are directed to work out their respective remedies before the appropriate forum with regard to the payment of subsistence allowance by the Society and the recovery of the allegedly misappropriated amount from the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Initially, the respondent refused to receive the said amount. Subsequently, pursuant to the subsequent orders passed by this Court, the respondent received the amount. As this Court has now held that the parties must work out their respective remedies before the appropriate forum, the amount already deposited by the petitioner is liable to be refunded. Accordingly, the Society is directed to refund the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner. The earlier orders passed by this Court in this regard are hereby recalled.
5. Accordingly, this Contempt Petitioner is closed. 16-10-2026 jbr
CONT P(MD) No. 2583 of 2026 S.SRIMATHY, J. CONT P(MD) No. 2583 of 2026 16-10-2026