Disposed

Mohana Jayaraj v. Thiru N.S.Siraj Babu

Madras HC12 Jul 2019CONT P/427/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a notice for contempt for respondent Tahsildars' failure to comply with past orders. The court directed the respondents to correct the petitioner's name in the computerized patta within two weeks and closed the contempt proceedings without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to effect change of name in computerized patta within two weeks of receipt of order.

Mohana Jayaraj Vs Thiru N.S.Siraj Babu — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.07.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Cont.P.No.427 of 2019

¶7

Mohana Jayaraj .... Petitioner
--Vs--
1.Thiru N.S.Siraj Babu,
The Tahsildar,
Ambattur,
Tamil Nadu
2.Thiru Senthilvel,
Tahsildar,
Madhuravoyal
(The subject property was transferred
to Maduravoyal following the bifurcation
of Ambattur Taluk)
3.Thirumathi Punithavathy,K.
The Tahsildar
Poonamallee Taluk
(The subject property is said to be
transferred to Poonamallee Taluk)
....Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : CONTEMPT PETITION filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 praying to issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for having committed contempt of this Hon'ble Courts order in W.P.No.7022 of 2015 dated 12.03.2015 and Contempt Petition No.1064 of 2016 dated 19.08.2016.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Tanushree Arvind for

¶10

Mr.R.Parthasarthy For Respondent : Mr.M.Elumalai Government Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard Ms.Tanushree Arvind, learned counsel for Mr.R.Parthasarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The learned Government Advocate has produced a copy of the computerized patta and Ms.Tanushree Arvind, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the patta the name of the petitioner is shown as Mohana whereas in all the records it is Mohana Jayaraj. The Tahsildar who is present in Court submitted that there is no difficulty in effecting change and an application is required to be made in this regard.

¶15

In my considered view, at this juncture, once again asking the petitioner to make an application would amount to putting the petitioner in trouble. Therefore, I direct the respondents to effect the change of name of the petitioner in the computerized patta by mentioning the name of the petitioner as Mohana Jayaraj instead of Mohana. This correction shall be effected by the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

With above observations, the contempt petition is closed.
No costs.
SD/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
SKA
//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.
CO/16/07/2019
To
1. The Tahsildar,
Ambattur,
Tamil Nadu.
2. The Tahsildar,
Madhuravoyal.
3. The Tahsildar,
Poonamallee Taluk.

¶19

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

Mohana Jayaraj v. Thiru N.S.Siraj Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohana Jayaraj v. Thiru N.S.Siraj Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milestone Trusteeship Services Vs Land Marvel Projects India

M/s.The Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Tvl.Aishvarayhia Flat Promoters

T.Arumugam Vs Lakshmanan B.E

A.K.Hamza Vs The General Manager

D.Nagarajan Vs K.C.Kanagaraj