Dismissed¶23

M.Chandrasekaran v. Ilangovan

Madras HC11 Sept 2025CONT P(MD)/1857/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition closed after reported compliance - Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - alleged willful disobedience of writ order in W.P(MD) No.5819 of 2025 dated 12.03.2025 - respondents Ilangovan (MD) and Muthukrishnan (GM), Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Mdu) Ltd. - compliance evidenced by order dated 10.09.2025 and cheque of Rs.28,521/- to petitioner - petitioner made no representation - Madurai Bench, Madras High Court - K. Kumaresh Babu, J. - 11/09/2025 - closed, No costs.

What did the court decide?

Accepting the compliance reported on the respondents' side, the Court found no ground to pursue the contempt proceedings and closed the Contempt Petition, directing that no costs be levied; no sanction or punishment for contempt was pronounced. ¶23

M.Chandrasekaran Vs Ilangovan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CONT P(MD). No.1857 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 11/09/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

CONT P(MD). No.1857 of 2025

¶7

M.Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Ilangovan, Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Mdu) Ltd., Bye Pass Road, Madurai-10.

¶10

Muthukrishnan,, The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Mdu) Ltd., Collectorate Post, Bye-Pass Road, Dindigul 624 004. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER :-

¶12

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Contemnors/ respondents herein for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD) No.5819 of 2025 dated 12.03.2025.

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

CONT P(MD). No.1857 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Contemnors are present before this Court.

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the order had been

¶21

strictly complied with and he had placed on record the order dated 10.09.2025 addressed to the petitioner with a photocopy of the cheque for a sum of Rs.28,521/- in the name of the petitioner.

¶22