M.Mahaboob Sherif v. Albert Dinakaran
Case brief
What is this about?
Upon hearing the matter, the Court addressed allegations that a previous order was defied. The learned counsel for the petitioner established compliance with that order by producing evidence dated 28.03.2015. Consequently, the Court held that the Contempt Petition was closed.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petition closed as the impugned order was found to be complied with.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
Cont.P.No.415 of 2015
M.Mahaboob Sherif ...Petitioner
Vs.
Mr.Albert Dinakaran,
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport
Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002. ...Respondent
Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent
herein for having defied the order of this Court passed in
W.P.No.33614 of 2013 dated 20.10.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan
O R D E R
When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed
by this Court has been complied with and produced a copy of the proceedings dated 28.03.2015.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.Mahaboob Sherif
- respondent
Mr.Albert Dinakaran
Coram
M.M.Sundresh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court