Disposed

V.Bharani v. Shashvat Saurabh I.A.S

Madras HC2 Jan 2020CONT P/707/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench contempt petition aimed to punish respondents for alleged disobedience of a prior order regarding a missing document. The court noted that a clarification was issued confirming the missing original document, effectively resolving the issue. Consequently, the court closed the contempt petition without punishing the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; no punishment awarded to respondents.

V.Bharani Vs Shashvat Saurabh I.A.S — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 02.01.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Cont.P.No.707 of 2019

¶7

V.Bharani
.. Petitioner
vs.
1.Mr.Shashvat Saurabh I.A.S.,
Deputy Collector (Revenue) South,
Villianur, Puducherry.
2.K.Gopalakrishnan
The Sub Registrar (SRO),
Bahour,
Puducherry.
..Respondents
Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act
to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of
the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1729 of 2018 dated
10.04.2018.

¶8

For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Thiagarajan

¶9

For Respondents .. Mr.D.Ravichandran,

¶10

Additional Government pleader.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondents for having willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1729 of 2018 dated 10.04.2018.

¶13

I am not going into the merits of the facts.

¶14

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

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

¶17

Mr.D.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government

¶18

Pleader, takes notice for R1 and R2.

¶19

respondent / Sub Collector (Revenue), South Villianur and which had been adopted by the 1^st and 3^rd respondents. The paragraph 10 of the said counter affidavit is extracted below for better appreciation:

¶20

of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bahour.”

¶21

It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said certificate as stated above has already been issued. However, it is the apprehension that in the future, the petitioner should not be question regarding to the original and under what circumstances he is producing the certificate, by any authority.

¶22

Consequently, a clarification is issued stating https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

that the Original Document in Document No.1204/2003 in the

¶24

¶25

office of the Sub-Registrar, Bahour is missing and Copy Document No.1206 dated 15.07.2019 is issued along with letter No.216/SRO (B) / 2019-20 / 125 dated 24.07.2019 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bahour. It is made clear that this certificate can be treated as the Original Document No.1204/2003 which had been missing as reported by the Sub Registrar, Bahour. 8. Recording the same, the Contempt Petition stands closed. SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) smv //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2020. 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. SMI/29/01/2020

¶26

To 1. The Deputy Collector (Revenue) South, Villianur, Puducherry.

¶27

The Sub Registrar (SRO), Bahour, Puducherry.

¶28

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

V.Bharani v. Shashvat Saurabh I.A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Bharani v. Shashvat Saurabh I.A.S

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

Lt Col Sasikumar(Retd) Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

P.Arivalagan, Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

V.B.Vignesh Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

D.Mathaiyan, Vs The Senior Area Manager

M/s.Aspinwall & Company Ltd. Vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate

B.G.Manjula, Vs The District Registrar