Dismissed

Ivarkularaja v. Mr.AshokKumar

Madras HC2 Aug 2017CONT P/1082/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court held that the petition is closed because the impugned order was modified by a subsequent Division Bench order, and the competent authority complied with that modified order.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed as no consideration remains due to compliance with the modified appellate order.

Ivarkularaja Vs Mr.AshokKumar — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.08.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

Cont.P.No.1082 of 2016
Ivarkularaja,
S/o.Ramaiah,
No.23, 'U' Block,
Kondithope Police Quarters,
Chennai 600 079. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.Ashok Kumar
The Director General of Police,
Chennai 600 004.
2.Mr.K.Joshi Nirmal Kumar,
The Joint Commissioner of Police,
North Range,
Chennai.
3.Mr.S.Selvakumar,
The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Washermenpet,
Chennai City. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for having willfully disobeyed the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 25.03.2013, in W.P.No.8752 of 2007, under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.S.Bharathy Anandraj For Respondents :Mr.K.Venkat Ramani Addl. Advocate General VII Assisted by Mr.R.Vijayakumar Addl. Government Pleader for RR1 to 3

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner has filed this contempt petition stating that the order

¶13

passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.03.2013, in W.P.No.8752 of 2007, has not been complied with by the respondents/contemners.

¶14

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is represented by

¶15

the learned Additional Advocate General that the State has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, against the order of the learned Single Judge. The Hon'ble Division Bench while, passing its order dated 14.11.2016, has modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge by substituting the punishment of "removal from service" into that of

¶16

"compulsory retirement from service".

¶17

In pursuance of the modified order passed by the Hon'ble Division

¶18

Bench, by order dated 04.04.2017, the competent authority has substituted the punishment of "compulsory retirement from service" in the place of "removal from service" with effect from 24.04.2006.

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

In view of the subsequent development as stated above, nothing
survives for consideration in this matter. Hence the contempt petition is
closed.
02.08.2017
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
gsk
To
1.Mr.Ashok Kumar
The Director General of Police,
Chennai 600 004.
2.Mr.K.Joshi Nirmal Kumar,
The Joint Commissioner of Police,
North Range,
Chennai.
3.Mr.S.Selvakumar,
The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Washermenpet,
Chennai City.

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

V.PARTHIBAN,J.

gsk

Cont.P.No.1082 of 2016

¶27

02.08.2017

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

Ivarkularaja v. Mr.AshokKumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ivarkularaja v. Mr.AshokKumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Kannan, Vs the Govt. of Tamilandu

P. Murugesan, Vs Mr. v. Sampath, IAS

C.Gunasekaran Vs Tmt.Janaki Raveendran

Dr.P.Thambidurai Vs Union of India

M/s.Teamlease Service (P) Ltd. Vs The Central Government

K.Nandakumar Vs Executive Director