Periasamy v. S.Manokaran
Case brief
What is this about?
In this contempt petition filed for willful disobedience of an earlier order, the court noted that the respondent Tahsildar had filed a compliance report indicating compliance. Consequently, the court closed the contempt petition without adjudicating on the merits or granting specific relief.
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: 26.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
Cont.P.No.1490 of 2016
Periasamy ... Petitioner Vs. Mr.S.Manokaran The Tahsildar, Attur Taluk, Taluk Office, Attur - 636 102, Salem District. ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order dated 11.08.2015 in W.P.No.19093 of 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Muruga Manickam
For Respondent : Mr.M.Elumalai,
Government Advocate
O R D E R
The compliance report filed by the Tahsildar, Attur, indicates that the direction given by this Court has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ already been complied with.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Periasamy
- respondent
Mr.S.Manokaran The Tahsildar
Coram
K.K.Sasidharan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court