Disposed¶33

N. Lakshmanan, v. Thiru. Karthikeyan and another

Madras HC7 Apr 2025CONT P/551/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt Petition No.551 of 2025 in WP.No.29331 of 2024; Madras High Court; N. Anand Venkatesh J.; 07.04.2025; Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; willful disobedience of directions dated 14.10.2024; quantum/arrears dispute Rs.1,85,702/- vs Rs.62,496/-; amount dispute cannot be decided in contempt proceedings; liberty to file fresh writ petition for shortfall; Block Development Officer Village Panchayats Valur Panchayat Union; Therkunam Village Panchayat President; Villupuram District; contempt petition closed without punishment.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was closed with no punishment imposed; the petitioner was given liberty to question the shortage in the amount payable by initiating a fresh writ petition. ¶33

N. Lakshmanan, Vs Thiru. Karthikeyan and another — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Contempt Petition No.551 of 2025 in W.P.No.29331 of 2024

¶7

N.Lakshmanan S/o.Nagamuthu No.3/37, Mariyamman Kovil Street Therkunam, Kiliyanur Village Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District-604 102.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

..Vs.

¶10

1.Thiru.Karthikeyan

¶11

Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Valur Panchayat Union Iruppur at Thiruchitrambalam X Road Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District-605 111.

¶12

2.Thiru.Vinothini Kumar

¶13

Prresident,Therkunam Village Panchayat Kiliyanur Post, Vanur Taluk Villupuram District-604 102.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for his willful and wanton disobedience of the directions/orders, dated 14.10.2024 passed by this Court in WP.No.29331 of 2024.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the order passed by this Court in WP.No.29331 of 2024, dated 14.10.2024, has been violated and the amount that is due and payable to the petitioner has not been paid to the petitioner.

¶22

2.When the contempt petition came up for hearing on 28.03.2025, this Court passed the following order:

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the total arrears payable to the petitioner is Rs.1,85,702/- and what has been paid till date is only Rs.17,518/-.On the other hand, The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the total amount payable to the petitioner is only Rs.62,496/- and out of the same, Rs.50,000/- has already been paid and the balance amount of Rs.12,496/- will be paid within two weeks.

¶24

2.There is a wide discrepancy in the amounts that is claimed by the petitioner and what is sought to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents. Hence, both sides shall file a memo of calculation in order to enable this Court to pass further orders.

¶25

3.Post this contempt petition on 07.04.2025 at 2.15

¶26

p.m.

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the proceedings of the BDO dated 30.11.2023 and also placing reliance upon the

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

payment details from 01.10.2017 to February 2025 submitted that the total amount of Rs.1,85,702/- is liable to be paid to the petitioner.

¶31

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the total amount that was due and payable to the petitioner is Rs.62,496/- and out of the same, Rs.50,000/- was already paid and the balance amount has also been paid and to substantiate the same, the extract of the statement of account and the calculation memo was placed before this Court.

¶32

5.In the considered view of this Court, the difference in the amount that is due and payable to the petitioner, cannot be gone into the contempt proceedings. There is clearly a dispute between both the parties with respect to the amount that is due and payable to the petitioner. This cannot be decided in the contempt proceedings. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the shortage of amount that is due and payable to the petitioner by the respondents, it is left open to the petitioner to question the same by initiating a fresh writ petition. Except giving this liberty, no further orders can be passed in this contempt petition.

¶33

6.Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed.

¶34

07.04.2025

¶35

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order KP

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶39