The Court closed the contempt petition because the respondent corporation produced proceedings showing the petitioner's representation had already been rejected, leaving no live question for adjudication.
Contempt petition closed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.06.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
Contempt Petition No.2915 of 2013
R. Natarajan ..Petitioner
Vs
Mr.Vikram Kapur
The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings
Chennai-3. ..Respondent
Prayer:- Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the respondent for
disobeying the order of this Court in W.P.No.15306 of 2013
dated 30 July 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy
For Respondent : Mr.M. Govindaraj
--------------
O R D E R
When the contempt petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the Chennai
Corporation by producing a copy of the proceedings dated 12 May 2014 submitted that the Corporation has already rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. In view of the proceedings dated 12 May 2014, nothing survives for adjudication in this contempt
2
petition. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 12 May 1014, if he is so advised.
observation. No costs.
Tr/
SD/-
DEPUTY REGISTRAR(OS)
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2014.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.
SS/CO/18/08/2014
One CC to Mr.Govindaraj, Advocate, SR.6559
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition survives for adjudication after the respondent produced evidence that the petitioner's representation was rejected.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. Natarajan
Mr. Vikram Kapur
K.K. Sasidharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
