Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

N.Venkatasamy Naicker Vs Balasubramanian — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
N.Venkatasamy Naicker Vs BalasubramanianN.Venkatasamy Naicker v. Balasubramanian

Disposed¶24

N.Venkatasamy Naicker v. Balasubramanian

Madras HC21 Nov 2025CONT P(MD)/914/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, CONT.P(MD)No.914 of 2019 in W.P(MD)No.24059 of 2018, decided 21.11.2025 by P.Velmurugan and B.Pugalendhi, JJ. Contempt under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged willful disobedience of order dated 10/01/2019 in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018. Respondents: Balasubramanian (Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli) and Subramanian (Block Development Officer, Sankarankovil Panchayat Union). Compliance recorded; petition closed without costs; directions to clear removed articles within one week and prevent repetition of same type of encroachment. Counsel: R.J.Karthick for petitioners; M.Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General, with Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate, for respondents.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed without costs; concerned Local Authorities directed to clear the removed articles within one week of receipt of a copy of the order and to ensure that the same type of encroachment is not repeated in future.

Why is it important?

The Court recorded the Additional Advocate General's submission that the order dated 10/01/2019 passed in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018 has been duly complied with. ¶23

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed without costs; concerned Local Authorities directed to clear the removed articles within one week of receipt of a copy of the order and to ensure that the same type of encroachment is not repeated in future.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018 dated 10/01/2019, warranting punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Court's answer

The Court recorded the Additional Advocate General's submission that the order dated 10/01/2019 passed in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018 has been duly complied with.

Ratio / Principle

Recording the above submissions, the Court closed the contempt petition without costs.

Key takeaways

The concerned Local Authorities were directed to take steps to clear the removed articles within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶29
The concerned authorities were further directed to ensure that the same type of encroachment is not repeated in future.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (CONT.P(MD)No.914 of 2019, filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act) by N.Venkatasamy Naicker, G.Kannan and R.Jayakumar against Balasubramanian, Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, and Subramanian, Block Development Officer, Sankarankovil Panchayat Union, alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 10/01/2019 in W.P(MD)No.24059 of 2018. At the hearing before P.Velmurugan and B.Pugalendhi, JJ., the Additional Advocate General submitted that the order had been duly complied with, while petitioners' counsel contended the removed articles remained uncleared. Recording the submission, the Court closed the petition on 21.11.2025 without costs, directing the Local Authorities to clear the removed articles within one week and to ensure the same type of encroachment is not repeated in future.

A

CONT.P(MD)No.914 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 21.11.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

CONT.P(MD)No.914 of 2019 in

W.P(MD)No.24059 of 2018

1.N.Venkatasamy Naicker

2.G.Kannan 3.R.Jayakumar : Petitioners

Vs

1.Balasubramanian Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli Dt.

2.Subramanian, Block Development Officer, Sankarankovil Panchayat Union, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

Prayer:- Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents herein for their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, in WP(MD)No. 24059 of 2018, dated 10/01/2019.

Page No.1 of 4

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

CONT.P(MD)No.914 of 2019

For Petitioners : Mr.R.J.Karthick

For Respondents : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUAN, J. )

This contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondents

herein for their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018, dated 10/01/2019.

2.Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would submit that the order of this Court, dated 10/01/2019 passed in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018 has been duly complied with. The said submission is recorded. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that removed articles have not be cleared so far.

3.Recording the above, this contempt petition is closed. No

costs. However, the concerned Local Authorities are directed to take

Page No.2 of 4

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

CONT.P(MD)No.914 of 2019

steps to clear the removed articles, within a period of one week from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. The concerned authorities are also directed to ensure that the same type of encroachment should not be repeated in future.

er

[P.V, J.] [B.P., J.] 21.11.2025

To,

1.The Tahsildar, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Block Development Officer, Sankarankovil,

Panchayat Union Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No.3 of 4

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

CONT.P(MD)No.914 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND B.PUGALENDHI, J.

er

CONT.P(MD)No.914 of 2019

21.11.2025

Page No.4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents committed willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018 dated 10/01/2019, warranting punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act.¶13
The court held
The Court recorded the Additional Advocate General's submission that the order dated 10/01/2019 passed in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018 has been duly complied with.ratio¶23

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Contempt of Courts Act11¶13

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018 dated 10/01/2019, willful disobedience of which by the respondents is alleged in this contempt petition.¶22
Madras High Court, Madurai Bench · 10/01/2019
Prior proceeding
Underlying writ petition W.P(MD)No.24059 of 2018, in which this Court passed the order dated 10/01/2019 now alleged to have been wilfully disobeyed.¶7
Prior proceeding
At the hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents submitted that the order dated 10/01/2019 in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018 has been duly complied with; the Court recorded the submission.¶23
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the removed articles had not been cleared so far.¶23

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
N.Venkatasamy Naicker¶8
R.J.Karthick
petitioner
G.Kannan¶9
R.J.Karthick
petitioner
R.Jayakumar¶9
R.J.Karthick
respondent
Balasubramanian Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli Dt.¶11
M.Ajmal Khan, Ramesh Arumugam
respondent
Subramanian, Block Development Officer, Sankarankovil Panchayat Union, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.¶12
M.Ajmal Khan, Ramesh Arumugam

Coram

AI extract

P.Velmuruganauthor¶20
B.Pugalendhimember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 21 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 22 Jul 2019
Case no.: CONT P(MD)/914/2019
CNR: HCMD010659692019
Topic: Contempt of Court
Bench: P.velmurugan B.pugalendhi
Disposal: CLOSED
Case type: CONT.P(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from P.velmurugan B.pugalendhi

M.Subramanian, Vs Hans Raj Verma
7 Nov 2025
M.Subramanian Vs Hans Raj Verma, I.A.S.
10 Oct 2025
S.Muthusami (S. No.195) Vs a.Radhakrishnan
24 Jan 2025
The State of Tamilnadu, Vs Arulmigu Balasubramania Swamy Temple
27 Feb 2026
Kongu Educational Trust Vs the Commissioner
27 Feb 2026
A.Radhakrishnan Vs P.Madhusudhanreddy I.A.S.
27 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

N.Venkatasamy Naicker v. Balasubramanian, CONT P(MD)/914/2019 (MAD), decided on 21 November 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Contempt of Courts Act11

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018 dated 10/01/2019, willful disobedience of which by the respondents is alleged in this contempt petition.Madras High Court, Madurai Bench · 10/01/2019
Underlying writ petition W.P(MD)No.24059 of 2018, in which this Court passed the order dated 10/01/2019 now alleged to have been wilfully disobeyed.
At the hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents submitted that the order dated 10/01/2019 in WP(MD)No.24059 of 2018 has been duly complied with; the Court recorded the submission.

View full history

Bench / Coram

P.Velmurugan and B.Pugalendhi

Parties & counsel