Dismissed

P.Ranjitham v. Mr.Muthuvijayakumar

Madras HC16 Jul 2021CONT P(MD)/821/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition was filed alleging disobedience of an order mandating joint patta issuance. The respondent filed a compliance order, the petitioner claimed non-receipt, and the court accepted the compliance filing, served the order copy, closed the petition, leaving remedies open if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed upon satisfaction of compliance; copy of respondent's order to be served.

P.Ranjitham Vs Mr.Muthuvijayakumar — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD).No.821 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.07.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Cont.P.(MD).No.821 of 2021

¶7

P.Ranjitham

¶8

...Petitioner/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Mr.Muthuvijayakumar, The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. ... Contemnor/Respondent No.3 Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the contemnor/respondent 3 for his deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.16647 of 2020, dated 24.11.2020.

¶11

Prayer in WP(MD). 16647/ 2020 :

¶12

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue the separate joint patta to the petitioner and her sister for lands having extent of 6.5 cents and 6.5 cents respectively in Survey Nos.37/9A1 and 37/8B, at Kallanthiri Bit Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District on the basis of the petitioners representation dated 26-09-2020.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.M.Lingadurai Government Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The learned Government Advocate submitted that the order passed by this Court has been complied with and an order has been passed by the respondent, on 15.07.2021.

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order has not been received by the petitioner.

¶18

3.The learned Government Advocate shall serve the copy of the order passed by the respondent on the counsel for the petitioner immediately. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, it is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/2

¶20

Cont.P.(MD).No.821 of 2021

¶21

4.Recording the same, this contempt petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

¶27

NOTE:

¶28

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.

¶29

¶30

Mr.Muthuvijayakumar, The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

¶31

Cont.P.(MD).No.821 of 2021 16.07.2021

¶32

MGJ(26.07.2021) 2P 2C

¶33

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

¶34

2/2

P.Ranjitham v. Mr.Muthuvijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ranjitham v. Mr.Muthuvijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary Vs the National Council for Teacher Education

Vellaisamy Vs The Inspector of Police

Nagaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Grama Munnettra Sangam, Vs the State Rep.by the Secretary

Mathina Vs K.Senthilraj

Narayanasamy Naicker Vs S.Raja Hussain