Disposed

S.Umapathy v. Manickam

Madras HC28 Mar 2016CONT P/408/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner sought punishment for non-compliance with a prior court order. The High Court directed the petitioner to handover a demand draft to the respondent and ordered the respondent to receive it, allow the appellant to run the shop, and grant a license, all subject to the result of a pending writ appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to handover demand draft; allowed petitioner to run shop; directed respondent to receive draft and grant license, subject to pending writ appeal result.

S.Umapathy Vs Manickam — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28/3/2016

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶6

Contempt Petition No.408 of 2016

¶7

S. Umapathy ... Petitioner Vs Mr.Manickam District Manager TASMAC Ltd Thiruvallur East District No.1 Bangalore High Road Sembaarambakkam Thirumazhisai Thiruvallur District 602 103. ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of

¶9

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order made in W.P.NO.27362 of 2015 dated 27/10/2015.

¶10

For Petitioner ... Mr.L.Chandrakumar For respondent ... Mr.Kasirajan O R D E R

¶11

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order made in W.P.No.27362 of 2015 dated 27/10/2015.

¶12

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent

¶13

¶14

submitted that the respondent is willing to receive the Demand Draft, to be rendered by the petitioner, pursuant to the orders of this Court, made in W.P.No.27362 of 2015, dated 27/10/2015.

¶15

petitioner submitted that he is having the Demand Draft, for a sum of Rs.1,35,700/- (Rupees One lakh Thirty five thousand and seven hundred only), drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, dated 28/3/2016 and that the petitioner may be permitted to handover the same to the respondent tomorrow i.e., on 29/3/2016.

¶16

That apart, the learned counsel appearing for

¶17

the respondent submitted that as against the order dated 27/10/2015, passed in W.P.No.27362 of 2015, etc., batch, the respondent has filed Writ Appeal, however, the same is yet to be numbered.

¶18

Further, the learned counsel submitted that on

¶19

receipt of the Demand Draft, the respondent will not disturb the running of TASMAC shop and that the petitioner may be permitted to run the shop, subject to the result of the Writ Appeal.

¶20

In view of the submissions made by the learned

¶21

counsel appearing on either side, the petitioner is directed to handover the Demand Draft, for a sum of

¶22

Rs.1,35,700/- (Rupees One lakh Thirty five thousand and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

seven hundred only) , tomorrow, i.e., on 29/3/2016 to the

¶24

¶25

respondent and the respondent is directed to receive the same and allow the petitioner to run the shop. The respondent is directed to grant license for running the shop. However, the same is subject to the result of the Writ Appeal that has been filed by the respondent as against the order passed in W.P.No.27362 of 2015.

¶26

With this observation, this Contempt Petition is closed. mvs. SD/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR(OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2016. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. SS/CO/06/04/2016 One CC to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, SR.4040 One CC to Mr.C.Kasirajan, Advocate, SR.4011 To The District Manager TASMAC Ltd Thiruvallur East District No.1 Bangalore High Road Sembaarambakkam Thirumazhisai Thiruvallur District 602 103.

¶27

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

S.Umapathy v. Manickam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Umapathy v. Manickam

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

M/s.Sri Karunya Hosiery Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

S.Govindaraj, Vs The Tamilnadu State Marketing

Tvl.Eswari Agencies Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M.Chellappan, Vs The State Transport Authority

Mahindra Residential Vs The Principal Commissioner of

G.Jothiramalingam, Vs The District Collector