Sathya v. Thiru. Murugesan
Case brief
What is this about?
In this contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, petitioner challenged a Revenue Divisional Officer for disobeying a writ order regarding land acquisition compensation. The court found that the amount was already paid to Kuppusamy, the petitioner's uncle, with his consent. It held no contempt was made out and closed the petition.
What did the court decide?
Petition closed; no contempt found; no costs.
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.2984 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Contempt Petition No.2984 of 2024 in W.P.No.11377 of 2024
Sathya
... Petitioner/Petitioner
-vs-
Thiru.Murugesan The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition), N.H.No.844, Ottapatti, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondent/1st Respondent
Prayer : Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for having committed contempt of this Court by disobeying the order in W.P.No.11377 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muruganantham For Respondent : Mr.A.Selvendran Spl. Govt. Pleader *********
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent is liable for contempt for alleged non-deposit of compensation amount promised in a writ order.
Whether the petitioner has established that contempt has been made out against the respondent.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sathya
- respondent
Thiru. Murugesan The Revenue Divisional Officer
Coram
N. SATHISH KUMAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court