Dismissed

M.Ramadoss v. a.Anbu Abraham

Madras HC18 Aug 2023CONT P/326/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a contempt petition for wilful disobedience of an order dated 10.10.2022. The respondent submitted an order dated 08.08.2023, which was returned with the endorsement 'No such person'. The court held the order was complied with but dismissed the suit asking petitioner to challenge the returned order separately.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition closed; liberty granted to petitioner to challenge the order dated 08.08.2023.

M.Ramadoss Vs a.Anbu Abraham — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Cont.P.No.326 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Cont.P.No.326 of 2023

Mr.M. Ramadoss

... Petitioner

Vs.

Mr.A. Anbu Abraham, The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondent for his wilful disobedience of the order dated 10.10.2022, passed by this Court in WP.No.26861 of 2022 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R. Karthikeyan

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.A. Vinoth Raj

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

Cont.P.No.326 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed before this

¶19

Court the order of the respondent dated 08.08.2023, in compliance with the

¶20

directions given by this Court which is the subject matter of this Contempt Petition.

¶21

2. The order dated 08.08.2023 has also been sent to the petitioner which has been returned with an endorsement 'No such person'. A Xerox copy of the returned order with an endorsement has also been produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

3. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order dated 08.08.2023 does not amount to full compliance of the order passed by this Court.

¶23

4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2023, he will have to challenge the same in the manner known to him under law.

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

Cont.P.No.326 of 2023

¶27

5. Since the order of this Court dated 10.10.2022 passed in WP.No.26861 of 2022, which is the subject matter of this Contempt Petition, has been complied with by the respondent, this Contempt Petition stands closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the respondent in the manner known to him under law.

¶28

18.08.2023

¶29

Index: Yes/ No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶30

Sni

¶31

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

¶32

3/4

¶33

Cont.P.No.326 of 2023

¶34

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶35

Sni

¶36

Cont.P.No.326 of 2023

¶37

18.08.2023

¶38

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

¶39

4/4

M.Ramadoss v. a.Anbu Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ramadoss v. a.Anbu Abraham

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

M/s Sharvika Properties, Rep.by its Managing partner B.Gopi, Vs K.N.Sampath

Va Tech Wabag Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram Vs M/s Sunshine Sheet Piling Projects India

Mr.J.v.Venkata Rao Vs Dr.Suresh Chandra Nayak

The Official Assignee Vs Vasavi Communications

D.Ramachandran Vs IG3 Infra Ltd.

M/s.Urc Construction (P)Ltd Vs M/s.Airports Authority of India