A.Gnanamaheswari v. C.Murali
Case brief
What is this about?
Contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was disposed of. The court held that the impugned order dated 30.03.2012 was complied with by conducting an enquiry, and since a civil dispute between parties is pending, no further action was required; the petition was closed.
What did the court decide?
The contempt petition is closed as the prior order has been complied with and no merits are 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.2800 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Cont.P.No.2800 of 2014
A.Gnanamaheswari No.12/7, Rajashanmugam Nagar, 9th Street, Thiruvotiyur, Chennai – 19 ... Petitioner/ Petitioner Vs C.Murali, Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vaysarpadi North Division, Chennai – 39. ... Respondent/1st Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent under Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the order dated 30.03.2012 in W.P.No.8067 of 2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Nandagopal For Respondent : Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar
ORDER
The learned counsel for the respondent confirms that the order dated
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition has merit given that the prior order was complied with and a civil dispute is pending.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
A. Gnanamaheswari
- respondent
C. Murali
Coram
C. Saravanan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court