Dismissed

L.Sabjan v. D.Gopinath

Madras HC26 Jul 2019CONT P/656/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition filed under Section 11 sought punishment for alleged disobedience of an order dated 03.11.2011. The court held that the petitioner failed to comply with directions, making there no disobedience. The petition was dismissed stating the request for directions regarding dealership policy could not be acceded to.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dismissed for failure of the petitioner to comply with the earlier order.

L.Sabjan Vs D.Gopinath — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.07.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Contempt Petition No.656 of 2019

¶7

L.Sabjan

¶8

Mr.T.Gopinath The Chief Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Coimbatore Regional Office 18/3, Big Bazaar Street Coimbatore District – 641 001.

¶9

Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dated 03.11.2011 made in W.P.No.7123 of 2009.

¶10

Heard Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Ms.Rakhi, learned counsel and Mr.Vijayan, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶11

Admittedly, the petitioner has complied with the

¶12

directions issued by this Court dated 03.11.2011 in

¶13

W.P.No.7123 of 2009. The stand taken before me today is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

that the copy of the representation is not available with

¶15

¶16

the petitioner. As noted in the order dated 03.11.2011, the

¶17

entire policy regarding the grant of dealership has undergone a change and therefore, at this juncture, the request of the petitioner to issue directions to the respondent, cannot be acceded to.

¶18

Further more, this Court finds that there is no disobedience of the order and directions issued by this Court, much less, wilful disobedience. It is the petitioner, who has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed.

¶19

SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) kst //Certified to be true copy//

¶20

Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.

¶21

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶22

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶23

Mv/05/08/2019

¶24

¶25

The Chief Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Coimbatore Regional Office https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18/3, Big Bazaar Street Coimbatore District – 641 001.

L.Sabjan v. D.Gopinath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Sabjan v. D.Gopinath

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

Mohana Jayaraj Vs Thiru N.S.Siraj Babu

T.Arumugam Vs Lakshmanan B.E

A.K.Hamza Vs The General Manager

D.Nagarajan Vs K.C.Kanagaraj

M.Vinayagam Vs Tmt.Mageswari Ravikumar

A.Subbarayalu Vs v.Veerappan