Dismissed

S. Sankar v. Muthukannan

Madras HC19 Mar 2021CONT P(MD)/155/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a contempt petition filed for willful disobedience of an order, the single judge held that the earlier consensual order became unworkable. In interest of justice, the order was recalled and the writ petition remanded for adjudication on merits. Contempt petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 11.09.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.5989 of 2020 recalled; contempt petition closed; writ petition remanded to Roster Judge.

S. Sankar Vs Muthukannan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

1 CONT.P.(MD)NO.155 OF 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2021

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN CONT.P.(MD)No.155 of 2021 in W.P.(MD)No.5989 of 2020

¶4

S.Sankar

¶5

... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Muthukannan, Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu General & Distribution Corporation, TANGEDCO, Maravamangalam, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District. ... Contemnor/3^rd Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent herein for his willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.5989 of 2020, dated 11.09.2020.

¶9

Prayer in WP(MD). 5989/ 2020 :

¶10

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to directing the respondents to provide new electricity connection to the petitioners house bearing House Tax Assessment no.1502 situated in S.no.261/10B2 of Paulkulam Group, Maravamangalam Village and post, Kalaiyarkovil tk, Sivagangai dist

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan,

¶12

for Mr.R.Subramanian.

¶13

For Respondent : Mrs.M.Parameswari,

¶14

for Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha. O R D E R

¶15

Vide Order dated 11.09.2020, I had disposed of W.P.(MD) No.5989 of 2020 based on a consensual submission made by the learned counsel. It appears that the said order has become unworkable. For enforcing the said order, this contempt petition has been filed.

¶16

I am of the view that in the interest of justice, the order dated 11.09.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.5989 of 2020 has to be recalled. The matter may have to be adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the order dated 11.09.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.5989 of 2020 is suo motu recalled. This contempt petition is closed.

¶17

Registry is directed to place the writ petition for disposal before the Roster Judge, since the order dated 11.09.2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/3

¶19

2 CONT.P.(MD)NO.155 OF 2021

¶20

passed by this Court has been recalled.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

pmu

¶26

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.

¶27

To:

¶28

1.Mr.MMuthukannan, The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu General & Distribution Corporation, TANGEDCO, Maravamangalam, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District. 2.The Section Officer, Writ Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3. The Section Officer, Contempt Section (to place the writ petition for disposal before the Roster Judge) Copy to The Registrar (Judicial) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1 CC to M/s.R.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-12650[F] dated 22/03/2021 )

¶29

CONT.P.(MD)No.155 of 2021 in W.P.(MD)No.5989 of 2020 19.03.2021

¶30

CN(19.05.2021) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

2/3

S. Sankar v. Muthukannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Sankar v. Muthukannan

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

Raveendren Vs The District Revenue Officer / Competent Authority

M/s.Sree Maruthi Traders, Vs The State Tax Officer, (Inspecton Cell)

Shri. Mohamed Siddiq Rahman Vs the Joint Commissioner of

M/S. Adsorbent Carbons Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Cgst and

M/S.K.a.M Mines and Minerals Vs the Director of Geology and Mining

Muthupandi.K Vs the Addl District Superintendent of Police