Rajeev K.S v. O.K.Ganesh
Case brief
What is this about?
In 8 common contempt petitions, the High Court held that undisputed compliance with a stay order, despite a failure to reverse salary, negated willful disobedience, leading to the closing of the petitions.
What did the court decide?
The Contempt Petitions were closed. No costs.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 16.12.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
Cont.P.No.2667 to 2674 of 2015 (8 Cases)
Contempt Petition No.2667 of 2015
Rajeev K. ... Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2668/2015 N.Subburathnam ... Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2669/2015 R.Saravanan ... Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2670/2015 Karunakar sial ... Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2671/2015 Rajesh Kumar Sharma... Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2672/2015 Prakash Kumar P.C ... Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2673/2015 S.K.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2674/2015
Versus O.K.Ganesh, Indian Overseas Bank, Chief Manager, Personnel Admn. Department, Central Office, Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002 ... Respondent
Prayer: This Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 70/71 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 28.11.2014 and made in M.P.No.2 of 2014 in W.P.No.31231 of 2014 order dated 09/02/2015 in M.P.No.2/14 in W.P.No.31223/14, order dated 09/12/15 in M.P.No.2/14 in W.P.No.31224/14, order dated 09/2/15 in M.P.No.2/14 in W.P.No.31229/14,Order dated 9/2/15 in M.P.No.2/14 in W.P.No.31229/14 , order dated 9/12/15 in M.P.No.2/14 in W.P.No.31226/14, order dated 9/2/15 in M.P.No.2/14 in W.P.No.31227/14, order dated
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the failure to reverse salary amounts to willful disobedience of an interim order.
Whether the contempt petitions should be allowed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rajeev K
- respondent
O.K. Ganesh
- respondent
Indian Overseas Bank
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court