Arul Raj v. T.Ilango
Case brief
What is this about?
This is a contempt petition challenging non-compliance with an interim stay order in a writ petition concerning a government employee transfer. After the respondents produced evidence of compliance and offered an apology, the court closed the petition without imposing punishment.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petition closed. Future presence of respondents dispensed with. No costs.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
CONT P (MD) No.1633 of 2016 in W.M.P.(MD) No.17037 of 2016 in W.P.(MD) No.23703 of 2016
Arul Raj ... Petitioner/Petitioner/
Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.T.Ilango The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai.
2.Mr.M.Kannan, The Tahsildar, Karaikudi. ... Contemnors/Respondents
1&3/Respondents 1&3
PRAYER : This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, praying to punish the contemnors/respondents for their willful disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 07.12.2016 in W.M.P. (MD) No.17037 of 2016 in W.P.(MD) No.23703 of 2016.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contemnors should be punished for willful disobedience of an interim stay order regarding a government transfer.
Whether the contempt petition should be closed given the subsequent compliance and apology by the respondents.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Arul Raj
- respondent
Mr. T. Ilango
- respondent
Mr. M. Kannan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court