A.Amal Antony v. S.Sivasubramanian
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madurai Bench dismissed a contempt petition filed by a third respondent alleging willful disobedience of an order in a review application. The court held no case of contempt was made out as the third respondent was not a party to the original order and the matter was subsequently approved by the Empowered Committee.
What did the court decide?
The contempt petition is closed and the contemnors are discharged.
What the court decided
Contempt Petition(MD)No.417 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.09.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Contempt Petition(MD)No.417 of 2020 in
Review Application (MD)No.14 of 2018
A.Amal Antony ..Petitioner/Petitioner/3rd respondent
Vs.
- S.Sivasubramanian,
Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.
- Selvaraj,
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a third respondent not made a party to the original order can be found guilty of contempt.
Whether subsequent approval by the Empowered Committee negates the allegation of willful disobedience.
Whether the contempt petition is maintainable given that the impugned order has been effectively stayed/revised.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
A.Amal Antony
- respondent
S.Sivasubramanian
- respondent
Selvaraj
- respondent
Rajesh Lakhoni
- respondent
M.Dhayanidhi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court