A petitioner in a contempt petition filed under Section 11 did not appear. The High Court found the respondent had produced compliance proceedings regarding a prior order. The Court closed the contempt petition.
Contempt petition was closed due to compliance by the respondent.
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: 26.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
Cont.P.No.1405 of 2016
N.Ramachandran ... Petitioner
Vs.
Mr.K.Ramamurthi
Revenue Divisional Officer
Dharmapuri
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondent
Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act to punish the respondent for willful
disobedience of the order dated 30.10.2015 in W.P.No.34873
of 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Elumalai, Government Advocate
O R D E R
None appears for the petitioner.
the proceedings dated 14.11.2016, which according to him https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
was in compliance of the direction issued by this Court.
2
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.
THS/09/04/2019
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer
Dharmapuri
Dharmapuri District.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Ramachandran
Mr.K.Ramamurthi Revenue Divisional Officer
K.K.SASIDHARAN
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
