Dismissed

Mr.S.Ashokan, v. Mrs.Geetha

Madras HC21 Dec 2016CONT P/2917/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition filed for wilful disobedience of an order restraining lease registration, the High Court closed the proceedings due to the contemnor's unconditional apology, observing that the registration would remain subject to further orders.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed with observation that the registration shall be subject to further orders in the parent writ petition.

Mr.S.Ashokan, Vs Mrs.Geetha — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.12.2016

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

Cont. Petition No.2917 of 2016
and
Sub Appln. No.687 of 2016
1.S.Ashokan
2.S.Jayalakshmi Ganesan
3.S.Veeraraghavan
4.S.Natarajan
5.S.Ganapathy
rep. By their Power of Attorney Agent
A.R.Suresh .. Petitioners
vs.
1.Geetha,
District Registrar,
Chennai South,
No.9, Jeenis Road,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
2.Damu,
Sub Registrar,
Neelangarai, Chennai – 41. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.33850 of 2015.

¶8

For Petitioners.. Mr.S.Thankasivan in Cont.P.No.2917 of 2016

¶9

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

¶10

Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Sr. Counsel for M/s.R.T.Shyamala in Sub Appln. No.687 of 2016

¶11

¶12

For Respondents .. Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Spl. Govt. Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Alleging that the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.33850 of 2015 has

¶15

been wilfully disobeyed by the second respondent, the present contempt petition has been filed.

¶16

2.By the order dated 28.10.2015, this Court has restrained the contemnor viz., the second respondent from proceeding further towards the registration at the instance of any third parties. However, despite the same, the registration of lease deed has been done.

¶17

3.The only explanation given by the second

¶18

respondent/contemnor is that the order passed by this Court has not been placed before him though the records would indicate that the communication has been duly received. The contemnor who is present before this Court tenders

¶19

unconditional apology.

¶20

4.Though the order passed by this Court is disobeyed,

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the second

¶22

respondent in person, this Court is not willing to proceed

¶23

¶24

further. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed with the observation that the registration done would be subject to the further orders to be passed in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.33850 of 2015.

¶25

5.In view of the aforesaid order, Sub Application
No.687 of 2016 stands closed, leaving all the issues open.
Sd/-
JOINT REGISTRAR(OS)
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2017.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.
Sm/CO/03/01/2017
To
Three cc's to M/s.S.Thankasivan, Advocate, Sr.No.16810/2016.
One CC to the Govt.Pleader, Sr.No.16826/2016.
One CC to M/s.R.T. Shyamala , Advocate, Sr.No.16724/2016.

¶26

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

Mr.S.Ashokan, v. Mrs.Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.S.Ashokan, v. Mrs.Geetha

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

P.Kuppan (Died) Vs G.Suresh Babu

M.Sakthivel, Vs R.Sivaraj

M.Easwaran Vs K.v.Ponnusamy

Tmt. Kokila, W/O. Vadivelu Vs Madhavaram Municipallity

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs Saravanan

M/S. Fuso Glass India Private Vs L. Neelakantan