K Duraisamy v. Th Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
Court closed a contempt petition filed for punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as both the petitioner and the respondent agreed that the impugned order had been complied with, rendering no further order necessary.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petition closed; no costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
Contempt Petition No. 1394 of 2016
--
K. Duraisamy .. Petitioner
Versus
Thiru. Kumar
Tahsildar
Gangavalli Taluk
Salem District .. Respondent
Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of
Courts Act praying to punish the respondents for wilful
disobedience of the order passed in WP No. 9542 of 2014 dated
02.04.2014.
For Petitioners : Mr. P. Ganesan
for M/s. C.S. Associates
For Respondents : Mr. I. Arokiasamy
Government Advocate
ORDER
Today, when the above contempt petition is taken up for
hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent produced a copy of the order bearing ref
Na.Ka.4285/2014/A4 dated 16.06.2016 passed by the respondent
and submit that the order passed by this Court has been
complied with by the respondent. The learned counsel for the
petitioner also agrees as regards the compliance of the order
passed by this Court by the respondent.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. In the light of the above submission of the counsel
for both sides, no further order is required to be passed in
this contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition is
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K. Duraisamy
- respondent
Thiru. Kumar
Coram
B. Rajendran
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court