V.Sigamani v. Ku.Muthukaruppan
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court dismissed the Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act without representation from the petitioner, as the matter was called and no appearance was made by the petitioner.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.07.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
Contempt Petition No.1930 of 2017
V.Sigamani S/o.Vellaigan ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Ku.Muthukaruppan, The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, Vazhuthareddu, Villupuram – 605 602. 2.N.Ramesh The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, Vellore Region, Vellore – 632 009. 3.M.Muniyan The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Employee Post Retirement Welfare Fund Scheme, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents
Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for noncompliance and willful disobedience of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.24345 of 2016 dated 15.07.2016.
For Petitioner : No appearance Mr.I.Abraham https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent : Mr.A.Antony Arockia Raja Standing Counsel *****
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Contempt Petition should be dismissed due to the non-appearance of the petitioner.
Did the Court dismiss the contempt petition for want of prosecution.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sigamani
- respondent
Ku. Muthukaruppan
- respondent
N. Ramesh
- respondent
M. Muniyan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court