M.Lakshmi Vs Thangaraj — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

M.Lakshmi Vs Thangaraj — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed without punitive action; the Court directed the contemnor/respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as litigation expenses, and the contemnor remained bound to pay the amount directly to the petitioner (not by deposit before the Labour Court) as directed in the writ-petition order of 25.04.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of this Court in WP.(MD)No.30910 of 2024 dated 25.04.2025, directing payment directly to the petitioner, has been complied with by the contemnor/respondent (then the fifth respondent in that writ petition). +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the manner in which the contemnor/respondent drove the petitioner to file this contempt petition to implement the Court's order, this Court directed the contemnor/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as litigation expenses, and accordingly closed the contempt petition.

Ratio / Principle

This Court held that, since its order in the writ petition directed payment of the amount only to the petitioner, the contemnor in all fairness ought to have sought clarification, if needed, before the concerned Court rather than depositing the amount before the Labour Court, and the contemnor/respondent cannot take a plea in this contempt petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), B. Pugalandhi, J., 21.11.2025 — Cont.P.(MD)No.3080 of 2025: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act by M. Lakshmi against Thangaraj, Proprietor of M/s.Karpaga Vinayagar Modern Rice Mill/Management (the contemnor, formerly the fifth respondent in the parent writ case), for failure to comply with the order dated 25.04.2025 in WP.(MD)No.30910 of 2024. In that writ petition the petitioner had been the second respondent, and on disposing of it this Court directed the contemnor to pay the amount directly to the petitioner. When counsel for the contemnor produced a demand draft of Rs.3,00,000/- stating an intent to deposit it before the Labour Court, the Court found that stand improper: the contemnor in all fairness ought to have obtained clarification, if needed, before the concerned Court and cannot take a plea in the contempt petition. Considering that he drove the petitioner to file the contempt petition, the Court directed him to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as litigation expenses and accordingly closed the contempt petition.

Cont.P.(MD)No.3080 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 21.11.2025

CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

Cont.P.(MD)No.3080 of 2025

M.Lakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

Thangaraj, The Proprietor of M/s.Karpaga Vinayagar Modern Rice Mill/Management, No.160/4W, Ilanthiraikondan Main Road, Dhalavaipuram Post, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

... Respondent

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the contemnor / 5^th respondent for his wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 25.04.2025 passed in WP.(MD)No.30910 of 2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajamohan For Respondent : Mrs.V.Muthukamatchi

1/4

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

Cont.P.(MD)No.3080 of 2025

ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court that the order of this Court in WP.(MD)No.30910 of 2024 dated 25.04.2025 has not been complied with. The petitioner herein is the second respondent and the contemnor is the fifth respondent in the writ petition in WP.(MD)No.30910 of 2024.

2.The learned counsel for the contemnor/respondent has produced a demand draft for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and submits that the contemnor/ respondent is intending to deposit the same before the Labour Court.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that this Court, while disposing the writ petition in WP.(MD)No.30910 of 2024 has issued a direction to the contemnor/respondent herein to pay the amount directly to the petitioner herein. While so, the stand of the contemnor/respondent in depositing the amount before the Labour Court is not proper.

4.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the available records.

2/4

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

Cont.P.(MD)No.3080 of 2025

5.Since this Court while disposing the writ petition, has issued a direction to the contemnor/respondent to pay the amount only to the petitioner herein, the contemnor in all fairness ought to have get clarification, if needed, before the concerned Court. The contemnor/respondent cannot take a plea in this contempt petition. Considering the manner in which the contemnor/ respondent has driven the petitioner to file this contempt petition to implement the order passed by this Court, this Court directs the contemnor/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as litigation expenses. Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed.

21.11.2025

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns

To Thangaraj, The Proprietor of M/s.Karpaga Vinayagar Modern Rice Mill/Management, No.160/4W, Ilanthiraikondan Main Road, Dhalavaipuram Post, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

3/4

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

Cont.P.(MD)No.3080 of 2025

B.PUGALENDHI,J

gns

Cont.P.(MD)No.3080 of 2025

21.11.2025

4/4

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