Dismissed

N.Ramakrishnan, v. S.Prabakar, IAS

Madras HC6 Apr 2023CONT P(MD)/291/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition by N. Ramakrishnan alleged wilful disobedience of an order dated 03.11.2020. The respondents argued they had preferred a writ appeal against the order. The court disposed of the petition by closing it, allowing the petitioner to reopen it post-disposal of the appeal. No specific provision was applied.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to reopen the same after the disposal of the Writ Appeal.

N.Ramakrishnan, Vs S.Prabakar, IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD).No.291 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

Cont.P.(MD).No.291 of 2021 In W.P.(MD).No.20357 of 2014

¶7

N.Ramakrishnan

¶8

... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Dr.S.Prabakar, I.A.S.,

¶11

The Commissioner/HR & CE, Administration Department, Nungambakkam,

¶12

Chennai – 600 034.

¶13

2.Mrs.C.Kalyani,

¶14

The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameshwaram (P.O), Ramanathapuram District.

¶15

3.Mr.Kumaran Sethupathy, The Board of Trustee, Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameshwaram (P.O), Ramanathapuram District.

¶16

... Contemnors/Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the contemnors for wilfully disobeying and not complying with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the order of this Court, dated 03.11.2020, in W.P.(MD).No.20357 of 2014.

¶18

1/4

¶19

Cont.P.(MD).No.291 of 2021

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumurthy

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar, Government Advocate.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.20357 of 2014 dated 03.11.2020, the Contempt Petition has been

¶24

filed.

¶25

It is submitted by the respondents that against the order of this Court they preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.969 of 2021. Since the Writ Appeal is preferred, this Court is not incliend to take up this Contempt Petition.

¶26

Hence, this Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to reopen the Contempt Petition after the disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶27

06.04.2023

¶28

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Nsr

¶29

2/4

¶30

Cont.P.(MD).No.291 of 2021

¶31

¶32

1.The Commissioner/HR & CE, Administration Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶33

2.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameshwaram (P.O), Ramanathapuram District.

¶34

3.The Board of Trustee, Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameshwaram (P.O), Ramanathapuram District.

¶35

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

¶36

3/4

¶37

Cont.P.(MD).No.291 of 2021

¶38

S.SRIMATHY, J

¶39

Nsr

¶40

Order made in Cont.P.(MD).No.291 of 2021

¶41

06.04.2023

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

N.Ramakrishnan, v. S.Prabakar, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ramakrishnan, v. S.Prabakar, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Gopala Krishnan Vs the Executive Officer

M.Malarkandan, Vs the Principal Secretary to

Central Board of Trustee, Vs the Presiding Officer

I.Salaludeen Ibrahim, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.Suganthi, D/O.R.Pandi (Late) Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Palaniappan Vs the Managing Director