Disposed

G.Kaliammal v. Tmt. v.E.Vasantha Meenakshi

Madras HC22 Nov 2019CONT P/693/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1972 was closed. The Court found that the respondent assistant engineer had complied with the earlier order by granting the water and sewerage connection and communicating the same to the petitioner, rendering adjudication unnecessary. The petitioner was advised to challenge any grievance using lawful means.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was closed as the respondent had complied with the earlier order of this Court.

G.Kaliammal Vs Tmt. v.E.Vasantha… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Cont. P.No.693 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

Cont. P.No.693 of 2019

¶7

G. Kaliammal ... Petitioner Vs. Tmt. V.E.Vasantha Meenakshi, the Assistant Engineer, Chennai Metro Water Supply and sewerage Board, Rajalaksmi Nagar, 8th Cross Street, Velacherry, Chennai 600 002 ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1972 to punish the respondent for having willfully and deliberately committed contempt of the order dated 27.09.2018 in W.P.No.24470 of 2018.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. K.R. Pughazhendhi For Respondent : Mr. Jeyaganesh

¶10

ORDER

¶11

consider the petitioner's representation for grant of water

¶12

and sewerage connection to the petitioner's premises within

¶13

a period of four weeks. Since the order has not been

¶14

complied with, the present Contempt Petition has been

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Cont. P.No.693 of 2019

¶18

filed.

¶19

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the respondent has passed an order and also communicated the same to the petitioner.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted the said fact.

¶21

Recording the said submissions and also the fact that since the order passed by this Court has been complied with, this contempt petition is closed, as no further adjudication is required in this petition. If the petitioner has any grievance over the same, it is always open to him to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶22

mrp

¶23

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

¶24

Dated at Madras this the day of 2020.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

Cont. P.No.693 of 2019

¶29

SMI/29/01/2020

¶30

¶31

The Assistant Engineer, Chennai Metro Water Supply and sewerage Board, Rajalaksmi Nagar, 8th Cross Street, Velacherry, Chennai 600 002.

¶32

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

¶33

G.Kaliammal v. Tmt. v.E.Vasantha Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Kaliammal v. Tmt. v.E.Vasantha Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Mallika Bhan Vs the Panchayat President

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs Tahsildar

Vijay Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its

N.Shanmugam Vs K.a.Periyasamy

V.P.R. Auto Components, Vs The Managing Director,Tamil

P.Bakthavachalu Vs Thiru.P.Sivasankaran IAS