Disposed

Francis Markus v. Sabarish

Madras HC31 Oct 2025CONT P(MD)/2914/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a writ direction to vacate land. Respondent produced proceedings dated 04.05.2023 showing 294.56 sq.ft. was handed over per a lease deed. The Court recorded this and closed the petition, directing the respondent to furnish a copy of the proceedings so the petitioner could pursue his remedy for compensation before the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; respondent directed to furnish a copy of proceedings dated 04.05.2023 to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum.

Francis Markus Vs Sabarish — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD)No.2914 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 31.10.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

Cont.P.(MD)No.2914 of 2025

Francis Markus

... Petitioner

Vs.

Mr.Sabarish The Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Plot No.167-172, Sidco Industrial Area, South Phase, Kappalur-NA, Madurai District. Presently at The Deputy General Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1^st Floor, BSNL CMTS Bhavan, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-625 016.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the Contemnor/4^th Respondent for their wilful non-compliance on the order of this Court made in WP.(MD)No.1894 of 2014 dated 17.04.2023.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.M.Sridhar

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Cont.P.(MD)No.2914 of 2025

¶19

This contempt petition has been filed as if the orders of this Court in WP.(MD)No.1894 of 2014 dated 17.04.2023 has not been complied with.

¶20

2.This Court while disposing the above said writ petition has issued a direction to the respondent herein to vacate the petitioner’s land on or before 10.05.2023. This Court has also recorded that the petitioner has to workout his remedy for any compensation as against the respondent in the manner known to law. The petitioner has now filed the present contempt petition that the direction of this Court has not been complied with by the respondent herein.

¶21

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent by referring to the proceedings dated 04.05.2023 submits that piece of land to the extent 294.56 sq.ft., at T.S.No.470/1 was handed over to the petitioner pursuant to this proceedings.

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

Cont.P.(MD)No.2914 of 2025

¶25

4.The petitioner has disputed the same that the respondent

¶26

herein is in possession of 3821 sq.ft whereas they have handed

¶27

over only 294.56 sq.ft.

¶28

5.The learned counsel for the respondent submits that they

¶29

are in possession of this 294.56 sq.ft., pursuant to the lease deed entered by the petitioner’s predecessors. As per the terms of the lease deed of the petitioner’s predecessors, the land was handed over, on 04.05.2023.

¶30

6.Recording the above submission of the learned counsel for

¶31

the respondent, this contempt petition is closed with a direction to the respondent to furnish a copy of the proceedings dated 04.05.2023 to the petitioner enabling him to workout his remedy before the appropriate forum.

31.10.2025

NCC:Yes/No gns

3/5

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

¶36

Cont.P.(MD)No.2914 of 2025

¶37

¶38

The Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Plot No.167-172, Sidco Industrial Area, South Phase, Kappalur-NA, Madurai District. Presently at The Deputy General Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1^st Floor, BSNL CMTS Bhavan, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-625 016.

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

Cont.P.(MD)No.2914 of 2025

¶42

B.PUGALENDHI,J

¶43

gns

¶44

Cont.P.(MD)No.2914 of 2025

¶45

31.10.2025

¶46

5/5

¶47

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

Francis Markus v. Sabarish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis Markus v. Sabarish

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

The Management Vs General Secretary

The Management Vs General Secretary

M/s. J J College of Engg. Technology Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,I

K. Raja Vs R.T.Shalini

M/S Sri Krishnasamy Fire Works Industries Vs the Deputy Director

Rajeshwaran Vs Senthilkumar