The High Court of Madras upheld the condonation of delay in filing a contempt appeal against an order dated 02.09.2022 made in a specific sub-application and contempt petition. The bench directed the Registry to number the appeal and list it consecutively.
Condonation of delay in filing the Contempt Appeal.
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.
C.M.P.No.20375 of 2022 in Cont.A. SR No.128926 of 2022
P.N.PRAKASH.J., AND
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J.,
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH.J.,]
Heard Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Spl. Government Pleader for the petitioner
and Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel, who takes notice for the 1st respondent.
This miscellaneous petition is ordered and the delay in filing the Contempt Appeal against the order dated 02.09.2022 made in Sub Application No.98 of 2019 in Cont.P.No.830 of 2014 in W.P.No.34530 of 2012 is condoned.
kmk
Note: The Registry is directed to number the Contempt Appeal, if the papers are otherwise in order (print the name of Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader for the Appellant and G.Sankaran, learned counsel for R1 in Contempt Appeal) and list it along with Cont.A.No.11 of 2022
1 of 2
P.N.PRAKASH.J. AND G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J.,
kmk
C.M.P.No.20375 of 2022 in Cont.A. SR No.128926 of 2022
25..11..2022
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the contempt appeal should be condoned.
P.N.Praakash.J.
G.Chandrasekaran.J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
