V.Rengapashyam v. R.Muthu Krishnan
Case brief
What is this about?
An application to re-open a contempt petition was disposed of when the penmen noted the respondent had vacated the premises and the applicant had no cause to proceed.
What the court decided
Sub Application (OS) No.29 of 2017 in Cont.P.No.2444 of 2015
Sub Application (OS) No.29 of 2017 in Cont.P.No.2444 of 2015
S.S. SUNDAR, J. and A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
[Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J. ]
This application is filed to re-open the Contempt Petition in
Cont.P.No.2444 of 2015 and punish the contemnor.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/contempt petitioner
reported that the petitioner has no cause now to re-open or prosecute the
Contempt Petition, as the respondent has vacated the premises.
3.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing
for the applicant/contempt petitioner, this Court is of the view that no
further investigation is required and hence, this application is closed.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Applicant/contempt petitioner
- respondent
Respondent
Coram
S.S. Sundar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court