K. Pugazhenthi v. M.S.Sangeetha
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court closed a contempt filed to punish respondents wilfully disobeying a prior order, having accepted counsel's submission that compliance had been effected.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petition closed without imposing any punishment upon the respondents.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 21.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
Cont.P.No.2182 of 2018
K.Pugazhenthi ...Petitioner
Vs
Mrs.M.Sangeetha
The Deputy Commissioner (Excise)
District Collector Office
Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
...Respondent
PETITION under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience
of the order dated 25.04.2018 in W.P.No.10566 of 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nagarajan
For Respondent : Mr.J.Purushothaman,
Government Advocate
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by this Court has been complied with.
2
- Recording the said submission, the above contempt
petition is closed.
SD/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
svki
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.
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.
Ps/23/01/2019
To
The Deputy Commissioner (Excise)
District Collector Office
Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition should be closed given the submission that the impugned order was complied with.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K. Pugazhenthi
- respondent
Mrs. M. Sangeetha
- respondent
The Deputy Commissioner (Excise)
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court