Disposed

A.Nagalingam v. Sakkarai Ammal

Madras HC12 Aug 2020CONT P(MD)/78/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition challenged the contemnor's alleged non-compliance with an interim order allowing the petitioner-poojari to perform duties unhindered. The contemnor argued she had not assumed charge of the temple yet and promised full compliance. The proceeding was closed based on this assurance.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was closed in light of the contemnor's assurance of compliance with the interim order.

A.Nagalingam Vs Sakkarai Ammal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Cont P(MD).No.78 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.08.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Cont P(MD).No.78 of 2020 in

¶4

W.P.(MD).No.16876 of 2019

¶5

A.Nagalingam

¶6

...Petitioner/Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sakkarai Ammal,

¶9

The Executive Officer / Fit Person, Arulmighu Thandayuthapani Thirukovil, Nethaji Salai,

¶10

Madurai.

¶11

...Contemnor/4^th Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contemnor, for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 30.07.2019 made in W.M.P.(MD).No.13457 of 2019 in W.P.(MD).No.16876 of 2019.

¶13

Prayer in WMP(MD). 13457/ 2019 :

¶14

Writ Miscellaneous Pettition is fuled under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, praying this Hon'ble Court to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.368/2018/E3 dated 09-07-2019, pending disposal of the writ petition(MD) No.16876 2019

¶15

Prayer in WP(MD). 13876/ 2019 :

¶16

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Hon'ble Court to call for Records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd Respondnent in his proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.368/2018/E3 dated 09.07.2019 and quash the same as illegal

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanan

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶20

2.The petitioner alleges breach of the interim order granted by this Court. The interim order reads that the petitioner, who is the Poojari shall carry on the regular pooja related duties unhindered.

¶21

3.The learned counsel appearing for the contemnor states that the contemnor is yet to take charge of the Temple. She has only given letter to the Management to handover the charge. Till date, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

1/2

¶23

Cont P(MD).No.78 of 2020

¶24

she is yet to assume charge. The contemnor, who is also present through video conferencing states that even thereafter the interim order given by this Court will be complied with in letter and spirit. Recording the said submission, the Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶25

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

tsg

¶27

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.M. SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-14046[F] dated 13/08/2020 )

¶29

Cont P(MD).No.78 of 2020 in W.P.(MD).No.16876 of 2019 12.08.2020

¶30

KB(21.08.2020) 2P 2C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

A.Nagalingam v. Sakkarai Ammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Nagalingam v. Sakkarai Ammal

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

M/S.K.S.Wind and Renewables India Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Collector

Karthick Balachandran Vs The Inspector of Police

Subramani Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Seenivasan Vs the District Collector

Nagappan Chettiar, Vs the Assistant Director

Jansirani, Vs the Commissioner