Disposed

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic v. Mohan Varghese Chunkath

Madras HC6 Nov 2014CONT P/3037/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 regarding willful disobedience of a writ order. The court found the petition infructuous because the government had passed proceedings restricting the report submission area. Accordingly, the petition was closed. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was declared infructuous, closed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Vs Mohan Varghese Chunkath — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06-11-2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶8

CONTEMPT PETITION No.3037 of 2014
K.R.Ramaswamy alias
Traffic Ramaswamy .. Petitioner
vs
1.Mohan Varghese Chunkath
Chief Secretary
Government of Tamilnadu
Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.C.V.Shankar
Secretary to Government
Industries Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9
3.Apurva Varma
Secretary to Government
Home Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9 .. Respondents
Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the
respondents for willful disobedience of the order passed in
W.P.No.16841 of 2014 dated 28.10.2014.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam

¶10

for Mr.N.Rajaraman For Respondents: Mr.AL.Somayaji Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy Government Pleader

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶13

The order having been passed by the Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vide proceedings of the Commissioner of Geology and Mining,

¶14

¶15

Guindy, Chennai in Rc.No.10086/MM2/2014 dated 5.11.2014, the contempt petition has become infructuous and is closed. No costs.

¶16

2.We may note the submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner that the area for which report has to be submitted, has been restricted, for which he will move necessary application in the writ proceedings. nsv 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/21/11/2014 One CC to Government Pleader, SR.12951 One CC to Mr.Traffic Ramaswamy,Party-in-Person, 12820 To 1.The Chief Secretary to Govt., Government of Tamilnadu Fort St. George, Chennai 9 2.The Secretary to Government Industries Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9 3.The Secretary to Government Home Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic v. Mohan Varghese Chunkath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic v. Mohan Varghese Chunkath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Institute of Technology Vs 1. Union of India Rep. by Its

Vs Indian Institute Oftech.

Dr.G.Muthuveerappan Vs 1) the Chairman, Board of

E.Seshan Vs Lakshminarayan IFS

L.Amudha Vs the State of Tn. Rep.by

Fdc Ltd., rep. by Joint Vs Union of India