In a contempt petition filed alleging violation of a prior order, the respondent counsel submitted compliance. Both parties accepted this submission, leading the court to close the petition without costs.
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:12.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
CONTEMPT PETITION No.458 of 2017
D.Gurumanickam
... Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs
Dhanabalan,
The Secretary,
Balar Kalvi Nilayam,
Moolapalayam, Erode-2,
Erode District.
... Respondent/Respondent
Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1970/1971, to punish the respondents
herein for contempt for willful disobedience of the order of
this Court dated 04.03.2010 in W.P.No.740 of 2009.
For Petitioner :Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail
For Respondents :Mr.C.Munusamy
ORDER
This contempt petition has been filed alleged that the respondents have violated the order of this Court dated 04.03.2010 in W.P.No.740 of 2009.
has submitted that the order passed by this Court dated 04.03.2010 in W.P.No.740 of 2009 has been complied with by the
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent. Hence, this contempt petition may be closed.
2
counsel appearing for the respondent, this contempt petition is closed. No costs.
SD/-
JOINT REGISTRAR(OS)
//Certified to be true copy//
UB
Dated at Madras this the day of 2017.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
from 25 th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.
KR/CO/01/12/2017
one cc to M/s.C.Munusamy, Advocate, Sr.No.11988/17
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Gurumanickam
Dhanabalan
M.V.Muralidaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
