In this contempt petition filed for non-compliance of a previous order, the petitioners entered into a compromise with the respondent. The Court accepted this compromise and closed the proceedings without assigning specific punishment.
Contempt proceedings were closed based on the compromise between the parties.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
Contempt Petition No.634 OF 2016
Minor.Santhosh Raja Rep.by his mother, Anitha Nirmal .. Petitioner
Raja .. Respondent Contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent with maximum punishment for his non compliance of the order of this Court made in Crl.R.C.No.1241 of 2014 dated 05.10.2015.
For Petitioner : M/s.Sai, Bharath & Ilan For Respondent : Mr.C.D.Johnson
Both the parties and their respective counsel are
present. The respondent has entered into a compromise
with the petitioner and they have also filed a compromise memo. The said compromise memo is recorded. In the said compromise memo, it is stated that the petitioner has no objection for quashing the proceedings, which reads as follows:
Magistrate Court, Perambalur;
Mahila Court, Perambalur;
2
Court, Perambalur;
One CC to Mr.C.D.Johnson, Advpcate, SR.10246/2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present contempt petition should be closed based on the compromise entered between the parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Minor. Santhosh Raja Rep. by his mother, Anitha Nirmal
Raja
B. RAJENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
