Disposed

Francis Marcus v. a.Palanisamy

Madras HC22 Mar 2024CONT P(MD)/91/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court closed a contempt petition under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The respondent explained that compliance with the earlier judgment was delayed due to absent documents, which have since been furnished, and ordered the matter to be disposed within one week.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; further orders to be passed within one week.

Francis Marcus Vs a.Palanisamy — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CONT.P.(MD)No.91 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.03.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶5

CONT.P.(MD)No.91 of 2024 in WP(MD) No.17516 of 2016

¶6

Francis Marcus ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Mr.A.Palanisamy, The Assistant Commissioner, Madurai Corporation South Zone, West Marret Street, Madurai – 1. ...Contemnor/Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying this Court to punish the contemnors/respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court in WP(MD) No.17516 of 2016, dated 03.04.2023.

¶10

For Petitioner :Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondent :Mr.F.Deepak Standing Counsel

¶11

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

¶12

1/4

¶13

CONT.P.(MD)No.91 of 2024

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This contempt petition is filed that the order of this

¶16

Court in WP(MD) No.17516 of 2016, dated 03.04.2023 has not been complied with.

¶17

2.Today(22.03.2024), when this contempt petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that for want of certain documents from the petitioner, the order of this Court could not be complied with. Now the documents have been furnished by the petitioner and necessary

¶18

orders would be taken within a period of one week.

¶19

3.Recording the submission made by the learned

¶20

standing counsel for the respondent, this contempt petition is closed.

¶21

22.03.2024

¶22

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vrn

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

CONT.P.(MD)No.91 of 2024

¶26

¶27

Mr.A.Palanisamy, The Assistant Commissioner, Madurai Corporation South Zone, West Marret Street, Madurai – 1.

¶28

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

¶29

3/4

¶30

CONT.P.(MD)No.91 of 2024

¶31

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶32

vrn

¶33

Order made in CONT.P.(MD)No.91 of 2024 in WP(MD) No.17516 of 2016

¶34

22.03.2024

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Francis Marcus v. a.Palanisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis Marcus v. a.Palanisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Subaitha Beevi Vs The District Collector

Manoharan.G Vs The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise

Chandrasekara Pandian v Vs The Secretary to Government

Manglesh Vs The Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise

Dhandayuthapani, Vs Sheik Abdullah

A.Meganathan Vs Manimurugan