A.Siddiq v. Dr.B.Prem Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
Counsel for both parties submitted that the underlying order in W.P.No.12786 of 2013 complied with, rendering further adjudication unnecessary. The contempt petition was consequently closed.
What did the court decide?
Contention of compliance raised; contempt petition closed.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.11.2017
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Contempt Petition No.1294 of 2014
in
MP.No.2 of 2013
in W.P.No.12786 of 2013
A.Siddiq ... Petitioner
Vs.
Dr.B.Prem Kumar, M.B.B.S., D.P.H.,
The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Krishnagiri – 635 001. ... Respondent
Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for having committed willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2013 in W.P.No.12786 of 2013, dated 30.4.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvathirumurugan For Respondent : Mr.K.Dhananjayan, Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
A.+Siddiq
- respondent
Dr.+B.Prem+Kumar
Coram
S.M.+Subramaniam
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court