V.A. Purushothaman v. E. Sundara Valli
Case brief
What is this about?
The court disposed of three contempt petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, closing them due to an order dated 22.2.2017 by the District Commissioner, while granting liberty to challenge the said order.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petitions closed with liberty to challenge the District Collector's order.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 : 01.3.2017
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
Contempt Petition Nos.102 to 104 of 2017
V.A.Purushothaman ...Petitioner in
Cont.P.102/2017
S.Nehru ...Petitioner in
Cont.P.103/2017
S.Veerachandran ...Petitioner in
Cont.P.104/2017
Vs
Ms.E.Sundaravalli, District Collector,
Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District. ...Respondent in
all the Cont.Ps.
PETITIONS under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for willful disobedience
of the common order of this Court dated 25.4.2016 made in
W.P.Nos.11114 to 11116 of 2016 for non compliance.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, SGP
COMMON ORDER
In view of the orders dated 22.2.2017 passed by the District Collector, Thiruvallur, these contempt petitions are closed giving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the said order before appropriate forum.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petitions should be closed in view of the compliance order by the District Collector.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V.A.Purushothaman
- petitioner
S.Nehru
- petitioner
S.Veerachandran
- respondent
Ms.E.Sundaravalli
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court