Dismissed

P.Balakrishnan v. Barathi

Madras HC13 Feb 2024CONT P(MD)/2220/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that a writ appeal has been preferred against the underlying order and an interim stay granted. Consequently, the court closed the contempt petition, granting liberty to reopen it after the appeal's disposal.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed with liberty to reopen after disposal of the writ appeal. No costs.

P.Balakrishnan Vs Barathi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CONT P(MD)No.2220 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

CONT P(MD)No.2220 of 2023

¶7

P.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.Barathi,

¶10

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 542/30, Plot No.49, M.R.S.Nagar, Mullippadi, Seelappadi Post, Dindigul District.

¶11

2.Bala Saravanan, The Executive Officer, Vandikaliamman Temple, Office of the Sithivinayagar Kovil, Near Railway Station, Dindigul District. ... Contemnors

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying and not complying with the order of this Court, dated 17.07.2023, in W.P.(MD)No.11117 of 2023.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Jasima Jasmin For Contemnors : Mr.M.Ramesh Government Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

CONT P(MD)No.2220 of 2023

¶18

The learned Counsel appearing for the contemnor submitted that a

¶19

writ appeal has been preferred against the order passed in the writ petition and an order of interim stay has been granted in the writ appeal.

¶20

2.Hence, the contempt petition is closed. No costs. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to reopen the contempt petition after the disposal of the writ appeal.

¶21

Index : Yes / No 13.02.2024 Internet : Yes Tmg

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

CONT P(MD)No.2220 of 2023

¶25

¶26

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 542/30, Plot No.49, M.R.S.Nagar, Mullippadi, Seelappadi Post, Dindigul District.

¶27

2.The Executive Officer, Vandikaliamman Temple, Office of the Sithivinayagar Kovil, Near Railway Station, Dindigul District

¶28

3/4

¶29

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

¶30

CONT P(MD)No.2220 of 2023

¶31

S.SRIMATHY, J

¶32

Tmg

¶33

Order made in CONT P(MD)No.2220 of 2023

¶34

13.02.2024

¶35

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

¶36

4/4

P.Balakrishnan v. Barathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Balakrishnan v. Barathi

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

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs Arasangam

Packiyaraj Vs Balakrishnan

Chengan (Died and Exonerated), C. Veeramani, Vs C.Kannan

Balasubramanian, Vs R.Chandra

Ganesapandian, Vs Balamurugan

Paramasivam Vs Vivek