Dismissed

Menon Technical Service P.Ltd v. S.Eswar Reddy

Madras HC16 Mar 2021CONT P/588/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 concerning willful disobedience of an order in W.P.No.3786 of 2011. The court noted that although compliance with the order was belated, it was ultimately fulfilled. Consequently, the petition was closed with liberty to challenge the belated compliance order.

What did the court decide?

This Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to file application/petition against the order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the respondent.

Menon Technical Service P.Ltd Vs S.Eswar Reddy — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Cont.P.No.588 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

Cont.P.No.588 of 2014

¶6

¶7

W.P.No.3786 of 2011

¶8

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶9

M/s. Menon Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Mr.K.K.Menon, 305, B-Block, Mittal Towers, M.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 001.

... Petitioner

Vs.

Mr.S.Eswar Reddy,

The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for deliberately and willful disobedience of the order dated 03.04.2013 of the Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.3786 of 2011.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior

¶19

Standing Counsel for the respondent submit that order dated 03.04.2013 in

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.3786 of 2011 has been complied on 09.10.2018.

¶21

Page No 1 of 2

¶22

Cont.P.No.588 of 2014

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has

¶24

been complied belatedly by the respondent though he was directed to pass an

¶25

order within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the said order.

¶26

Since the order has been complied, I do not find no merits in the

¶27

Contempt Petition though its implementation is belated. Therefore, this

¶28

Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to file application /

¶29

petition, if any, against the order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the respondent.

¶30

No cost.

¶31

SD/-

¶32

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶33

jen

¶34

//Certified to be true copy//

¶35

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶36

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. GS/15/06/2021

¶37

¶38

The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶39

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

¶40

Page No 2 of 2

Menon Technical Service P.Ltd v. S.Eswar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Menon Technical Service P.Ltd v. S.Eswar Reddy

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

Shanthi Vs The Chairman

R.Mahendran, Vs The Chairman

M.H.Samsudin Vs Divisional Engineer (North)

M/s.Subaya Constructions Vs The Chairman

Amudha Sukumar, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Raja Binding Works Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer