Disposed

P.Murugesan v. Sybudhin

Madras HC6 Jan 2016CONT P/2602/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience. The Court declined to adjudicate on the legality of the respondent's subsequent order, closing the contempt proceedings and allowing the petitioner to challenge that order through proper legal channels.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is closed; the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the subsequent order.

P.Murugesan Vs Sybudhin — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 06.01.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

Cont.P.No.2602 of 2015

¶7

P.Murugesan .. Petitioner
Vs.
Sybudhin,
Tahsildar,
Tahsildar Office,
Udumalpet Taluk,
Tiruppur District. .. Respondent
Prayer:- Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, seeking to punish the respondent
for his willful disobedience of the order of this Court
dated 17.04.2015 made in W.P.No.9883 of 2015 and punish the
respondent in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prasath
For Respondent : Mrs.P.Kavitha,
Government Advocate

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

This Court, vide order dated 17.04.2015 made in W.P.No.9883 of 2015, has directed the respondent to implement it's order dated 04.03.2015 and alleging contempt, the present petition is filed.

¶10

The learned Government Advocate has filed a counter affidavit and would submit that subsequently the very same official has passed another order dated 31.03.2015 in Moo.Mu.10743/2014/A2 referring to his earlier order dated 09.03.2015, modifying the same and it was also received by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner and on 04.04.2015, the writ petition has been filed.

¶11

¶12

However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has disputed the said fact and would submit that only after passing final orders in the writ petition, the order dated 31.03.2015 has been communicated to him and wants to make his submission on the merits of the said communication.

¶13

In the considered opinion of the Court, this Court, in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, cannot go into the legality or otherwise of the subsequent order of the respondent dated 31.03.2015.

¶14

Hence, this Contempt Petition is closed and the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of the respondent/contemnor dated 31.03.2015 in accordance with law. The proceedings of the respondent dated 31.03.2015 in Moo.Mu.10743/2014/A2 is placed on record.

¶15

jvm

¶16

SD/DEPUTY REGISTRAR(CLAA) //Certified to be true copy//

¶17

Dated at Madras this the day of 2016.

¶18

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶19

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶20

SS/CO/20/01/2016

¶21

¶22

Mr.Sybudhin, Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur District.

P.Murugesan v. Sybudhin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Murugesan v. Sybudhin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lahari Recording Co.Pvt.Ltd Vs Jain Television

S.Karunaamoorthy Vs S.Mohanasundaram B.Com Bl

M.Chinnathambi Vs Tmt.v.Thenmozhi

Mr.Y.Visweswar and 4 Others Vs M/S.Kasi Housing & Development

R.Arun Vs Moni

Mallika Vs Ravikumar