Y.Yesupatham v. Ramalingam
Case brief
What is this about?
In a contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner sought punishment of the Respondent for disobedience of an order. The Government Advocate submitted that the enquiry into the complaint had been concluded. The court closed the petition without adjudication on the merits.
What did the court decide?
The Contempt Petition stands closed based on the submission regarding the conclusion of the enquiry.
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
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 07.12 .2018
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.RAMESH
Contp.No.2435 of 2018
Y.Yesupatham .. Petitioner
Vs.
Ramalingam,
The Inspector of Police,
P4, Police Station,
Demlers Road, Pulianthoppu,
Chennai-12. .. Respondent
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the Respondent
herein for his act of deliberate, wilful and wanton
disobedience of the order of this Court dated 20.11.2017
made in Crl.O.P.No.24958 of 2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Chandran For Respondent : Mr.B.Arulmozhi Maran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R Heard Mr.B.Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Arulmozhi Maran, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.
2
2.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on instructions submitted that based on the petitioner's complaint dated 02.03.2018, enquiry has been conducted and closed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Y.Yesupatham
- respondent
Ramalingam
Coram
M.S.RAMESH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court