Disposed

S.Karuppasamy v. v.Saravanan

Madras HC1 Nov 2023CONT P(MD)/1536/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition alleged violation of an order directing the Tomer Corporation to consider a representation within eight weeks. The respondent submitted the representation had been considered and an order passed on 08.09.2023, leading the court to close the petition without an adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was closed. The petitioner was directed to challenge the order passed on 08.09.2023 if so advised.

S.Karuppasamy Vs v.Saravanan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Cont P(MD).No.1536 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

CONT.P(MD)No.1536 of 2023 in W.P(MD) No.19699 of 2022

¶7

S.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶8

Vs-

¶9

Mr.V.Saravanan, General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TVL) Limited, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli District. ... Contemnor/ 2^nd Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Contemnor/Respondent herein for his deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD) No.19699 of 2022, dated 25.08.2022.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul For Respondent : Mr.D.Jebaraj Standing Counsel

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

Cont P(MD).No.1536 of 2023

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court, dated 25.08.2022 in W.P.(MD) No.19699 of 2022. In the said order, this Court has directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the writ petitioner, dated 25.10.2021 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks.

¶17

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that that the representation of the writ petitioner was considered on merits and order was passed on 08.09.2023.

¶18

3. Recording the same, the Contempt Petition stands closed. The

¶19

petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order, if he is so advised.

¶20

01.11.2023

¶21

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No ebsi

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

Cont P(MD).No.1536 of 2023

¶25

¶26

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TVL) Limited, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli District.

¶27

3/4

¶28

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

¶29

Cont P(MD).No.1536 of 2023

¶30

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶31

ebsi

¶32

CONT P(MD)No.1536 of 2023

¶33

01.11.2023

¶34

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

¶35

4/4

S.Karuppasamy v. v.Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Karuppasamy v. v.Saravanan

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

Stalin. S Vs The District Collector

Muniswaran Vs The Director

Ananthammal S Vs The Personal Assistant to District Collector

K. Rajasekaran, Vs M. Balakrishnan

The Correspondent, Vs Kakarla Usha, I.A.S.

Rajasekaran.K Vs The Joint Commissioner (St)