Dismissed

A.Anandan v. Vikram Kapur

Madras HC20 Dec 2016CONT P/1177/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed after nine years regarding a Municipal Corporation's stop work notice. The Court held that such proceedings are not for matters of this nature where the order merely records issuance of notices and action to be taken by law.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 dismissed with no order passed.

A.Anandan Vs Vikram Kapur — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

Contempt Petition No.1177 of 2015 A.Anandan .. Petitioner Vs Vikram Kapur Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Buildings Chennai – 600 003. .. Respondent

¶6

PRAYER: Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order dated 15.9.2006 passed in W.P.No.36366 of 2005. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohan For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkataramani Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran

¶7

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

¶8

(2)

¶9

ORDER

¶10

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice )

¶11

The contempt petition has been filed in the year 2015

¶12

in respect of an order passed on 15.9.2006, after nine

¶13

years. The excuse given for such delay is stated to be a policy decision not to demolish unauthorized construction,

¶14

but it is conceded that this Court by an order dated 23.8.2006 had opined that the cut-off date should be 28.2.1999 and the endeavour to re-fix the cut-off date failed.

¶15

The contempt proceedings are meant for willful disobedience of the orders of the Court and not for matters

¶16

of this nature, where the order only records that the

¶17

respondent Corporation had issued stop work notices to the fourth private respondent therein and action had to be taken in accordance with law.

¶18

In any case, the report filed on behalf of the respondent suggests that the petitioner and the fourth respondent in the writ petition both had unauthorized construction and ultimately fresh notices have been issued on 24.11.2016 to different parties followed by locking and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

sealing notice dated 1.12.2016.

¶20

(3)

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.

¶22

sasi

¶23

//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2017.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
from 25 th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.
Sm/CO/28/12/2016
one cc to the Mr.S.Mohan, Advocate, Sr.No.16592
r

¶24

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

A.Anandan v. Vikram Kapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Anandan v. Vikram Kapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.C.Ramdass Vs State of Tamilnadu

T.Kesavan Vs The District Collector

N.Murugesan Vs the Commissioner Dhrapuram

Mr.N.Saravanan Vs The District Collector

Muthuveeran, Vs The District Collector

T.Jayamala Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer