M. Balaiyan, v. Thiru. v Balaji
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court closed a contempt petition and a review application filed against an earlier order. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 05.06.2017 had been complied with, evidenced by submitted proceedings. Consequently, the court closed both matters without costs.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petition and review application closed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Cont.P.No.848 of 2018 & Rev.Appl.No.50 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Cont.P.No.848 of 2018 and Rev.Appl.No.50 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.7204 of 2020
Cont.P.No.848 of 2018
M.Balaiyan ...Petitioner
Vs
1.Thiru V.Balaji, The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2.Thiru M.Balasubramanian, Chief Engineer / Personnel, Administrative Branch, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 5
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition should be dismissed after the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been complied with.
Whether the review application should be closed following the admission of compliance with the order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.Balaiyan
- respondent
V.Balaji, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
- respondent
M.Balasubramanian, Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court