Disposed

S.K.Leathers Private Limited v. Sathya Murthy

Madras HC28 Oct 2020CONT P/132/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this closed contempt petition, the Court clarified that receipt of a reduced sub-lease amount and issuance of a No Objection Certificate does not affect the respondents' right to argue and sustain a previous impugned order in a pending writ petition.

What did the court decide?

No judgement or sanction for contempt; the petition was closed following clarification on rights. null

S.K.Leathers Private Limited Vs Sathya Murthy — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Contempt Petition No.132 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 28.10.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶6

Contempt Petition No.132 of 2020 S.K.Leathers Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Plot No.B-39, PIPDIC Industrial Estate, Mettupalayam, Puducherry-605 009. .. Petitioner Versus 1.Sathya Murthy, Managing Director, Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., No.60, Romain Rolland Street, Puducherry-605 001. 2.N.Suresh Nathan, General Manager (Development), Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., No.60, Romain Rolland Street, Puducherry-605 001. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the respondents for disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.M.P. No.30630 of 2019 in W.P. No.30574 of 2019 dated 25.10.2019 and being https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mentioned order dated 14.11.2019.

¶8

Contempt Petition No.132 of 2020

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ananda Ramani For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichandran, Standing Counsel

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Mr.D.Ravichandran, learned Standing Counsel fairly submitted that since

¶12

there was a direction to receive Rs.10,000/- towards sub lease amount instead of Rs.1,00,000/- and a consequential direction to issue NOC on receipt of the said

¶13

amount from the petitioner, the respondents have issued NOC to the petitioner subject to the result of the writ petition.

¶14

2.This Court hereby clarifies that receipt of Rs.10,000/- and the

¶15

consequential issuance of NOC will not affect their right of demand to sustain the impugned order, while arguing the writ petition before this Court.

¶16

3.With the above observation, the Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶17

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶18

vga

¶19

//Certified to be true copy//

¶20

Dated at Madras this the day of 2020.

¶21

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶22

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶24

Contempt Petition No.132 of 2020

¶25

SMI/10/11/2020

¶26

¶27

1.The Managing Director,
Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd.,
No.60, Romain Rolland Street,
Puducherry-605 001.
2.The General Manager (Development),
Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd.,
No.60, Romain Rolland Street,
Puducherry-605 001.

¶28

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

S.K.Leathers Private Limited v. Sathya Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.Leathers Private Limited v. Sathya Murthy

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

Meena Thiyagarajan Vs M.K. Arvind Bose

Bhuvaneshwari at Puvaneshwari Vs Mohan

K.Padma Vs Nil

V.Parimala Vs Lakshmi Rajaram

S.Anuradha Vs S.Saravanan

A.Gayathri Vs M.Arivazhagan