In appealable contempt petitions filed against TN Electricity Board officers, the court closed the proceedings after the standing counsel submitted that the impugned orders had been duly complied with by sending an enquiry notice, noting the absence of petitioner counsel.
The contested contempt petitions were closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 01.12.2016
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
Contempt Petition Nos.2815 & 2817 of 2016
G.Jayalakshmi ...Petitioner in Cont.P.2815/2016 K.V.Subramanyam ...Petitioner in Cont.P.2817/2016
Vs
1.Mr.Arunachalam, Executive Engineeer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Perambur, Chennai-11.
2.Mr.Murali Mohan, Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Operation & Maintenance, Periyarnagar, Chennai-82.
3.Mr.Manuneedhi, Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Operation & Maintenance, Perambur, Chennai-11. ...Respondents in both Cont.Ps.
PETITIONS under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish
the second respondent/second contemner for violating the orders passed by
this Court in WP.Nos.10007 and 10008 of 2016 dated 17.3.2016.
For Petitioners : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar
(2)
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
RS
COMMON ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent.
01.12.2016
Internet : Yes
Cont.P.Nos.2815 & 2817 of 2016 http://www.judis.nic.in
G.Jayalakshmi
K.V.Subramanyam
Mr. Arunachalam
Mr. Murali Mohan
Mr. Manuneedhi
T.S.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
