Kabees @ Mohamed Kabees v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Oct 2018CRL OP(MD)/14188/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was filed for wilful disobedience of a previous court order. The petitioner's complaint was that the respondents had failed to clear encroachment. The present judgment states that the issue was resolved by the respondents in the interim after issuing proceedings to direct encroachers to vacate the place.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kabees @ Mohamed Kabees Vs the Inspector of Police — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.10.2018 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶4

Cont.P.(MD)No.1327 of 2018 in W.P.(MD).No.3977 of 2013

V.Jeyachandran

... Petitioner

Vs.

Mr.S.Sethuraman, The Tahsildar, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶9

The Block Development Officer, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District. (suo motu impleaded as per the order of this Court, dated 27.09.2018)

¶10

PRAYER: The Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the third respondent / Contemnor for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.3977 of 2013, dated 24.07.2017.

¶11

[Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA,J.]

¶12

The Contempt Petition is filed to punish the third respondent / Contemnor for his wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.3977 of 2013, dated 24.07.2017.

¶13

Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents producing the copy of the proceedings issued by the Block Development Officer, Sathankulam, dated 08.10.2018, submitted that notice has been isued directing the encroachers to vacate the place in question. Therefore, the order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been duly complied with.

¶14

3.In view of the action taken by the Block Development Officer, Sathankulam, as per the proceedings dated 08.10.2018, the Contempt Petition stands closed. Liberty is given to the

¶15

¶16

clear.

¶17

petitioner to approach us, in case the encroachment is not clear.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶20

/True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶22

¶23

Mr.S.Sethuraman, The Tahsildar, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶24

The Block Development Officer, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.R.Balakrishnan Advocate in SR.No.90778 +1cc to Mr.Special Government Pleader in SR.No.90803

¶26

Cont.P.(MD)No.1327 of 2018 in W.P.(MD).No.3977 of 2013 12.10.2018

¶27

AKV

¶28

NM SKN SAR2 28/11/2018 2P 5C

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kabees @ Mohamed Kabees v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kabees @ Mohamed Kabees v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramadass Vs the Deputy Superintendent

Selvaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Raja Thevar @ Veraputhira Vs Maheshwari

Sivanaintha Perumal Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramar Ammal @ Ramalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

Manoj Vs the Sub Inspector of Police