K.Babu v. D.Chandrasekaran
Case brief
What is this about?
In this contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, the petitioner sought punishment for the respondent's alleged violation of an order. The court observed that notice was returned as insufficient address and the petition was pending since 2016. It closed the petition, allowing the petitioner to file a fresh one if the respondent's address is found.
What did the court decide?
The contempt petition is closed; petitioner may file a fresh petition if respondent's address is found.
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.
Cont.P.No.601 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Cont.P.No.601 of 2016
K.Babu, Raja Street,(NEar Water Tank), Athur, Sozhavaram Post, Madras 600 067 ... Petitioner
Versus
D.Chandrasekaran, Director, Sulochana Bevarages Pvt Ltd., No.65, Periyapalayam Road, Alinjiwakkam, Sozhawaram Post, Chennai – 600 067. ... Respondent PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying to punish the respondent for having violated and willfully disobeyed the order dated 10.12.2014 passed in W.P.M.P.No.556 of 2008 in W.P.No.13488 of 2006.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Elango For Respondent : No appearance
O R D E R
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to dismiss a contempt petition where notice to respondent was returned as insufficient address.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K. Babu
- respondent
D. Chandrasekaran
Coram
P. Velmurgan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court