Dismissed

Mr.C.Babu, v. Mr.Kannappan

Madras HC7 Jul 2022CONT P/2374/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of an interim stay order. The Court held that since disciplinary proceedings had commenced and the petitioner needed to participate for defense, no further adjudication was required and the petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition stands closed and the petitioner is at liberty to participate in disciplinary proceedings.

Mr.C.Babu, Vs Mr.Kannappan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Contempt Petition No.2374 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.07.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM CONTEMPT PETITION No.2374 of 2016

C.Babu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Mr.Kannappan Director of School Education, College Road, DPI Campus, Chennai-600006.

¶10

2.Mr.Naresh,

¶11

Joint Director of Secondary Education, College Road, DPI Campus, Chennai-600006.

¶12

3.Mrs.Anitha,

¶13

Chief Educational Officer, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-600015.

¶14

4.Mr.Edison,

¶15

District Educational Officer, Chennai East, Choolaimedu High Road, Chennai-600094.

¶16

5.Mr.C.Rajendra,

¶17

Secretary, School Committee,

¶18

Rao Bahadur Allathure Nathamoony Chetty Higher Secondary School, No.26, Samy Street, Chennai-600002.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for contempt of Court, for wilful disobeying the order dated 22.09.2015 made in M.P.No.2 of 2014 in W.P.No.31419 of 2014 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.

¶21

Page No.1 of 2

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Contempt Petition No.2374 of 2016

¶24

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

¶25

Psa

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ravi Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Anitha (for R1 to R4) Special Government Pleader Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi (for R5)

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The contempt petition filed against the interim order of stay.

¶29

2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf

¶30

of the respondents made a submission that the contempt petitioner has not approached the management during the relevant point of time. The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent / School made a submission that the order of suspension is valid for about 2 months and now the enquiry proceedings have already commenced and the petitioner has to participate in the enquiry for the purpose of defending the case.

¶31

3. This being the fact, no further adjudication needs to be undertaken in respect of the contempt proceedings. The petitioner is at liberty to participate in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶32

4. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.

¶33

07.07.2022

¶34

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Psa/mrm

¶35

CONT. PETETION. No.2374 of 2016

¶36

Page No.2 of 2

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mr.C.Babu, v. Mr.Kannappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.C.Babu, v. Mr.Kannappan

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

S.Chandra Vs State of Tamilnadu

D.Jeyakumar Peter, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Veerakumar Vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation

Tmt.C.Rani Vs Director of Collegiate

C.Govindaraju Vs The Secretary to Government

A.Gajendiran Vs The Deputy Registrar of