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.

Lakshmi Jeeva Vs Gagandeep Singh Bedi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
Lakshmi Jeeva Vs Gagandeep Singh BediLakshmi Jeeva v. Gagandeep Singh Bedi

Disposed¶39

Lakshmi Jeeva v. Gagandeep Singh Bedi

Contempt Petition – wilful disobedience of writ order

Madras HC9 Jul 2026CONT P/1099/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Cont.P.No.1099 of 2021, decided 09.07.2026, order by G. Arul Murugan, J. (bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ). Petitioner Lakshmi Jeeva; contemnors/respondents Gagandeep Singh Bedi (Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai), Saravanan (Executive Engineer Zone-6) and Anshul Mishra (Member Secretary, CMDA). Alleged wilful disobedience of order dated 05.10.2016 in W.P.No.35378 of 2016; Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Compliance shown via lock and seal notice and de-occupation notice; related writs W.P.No.34753 of 2023 (disposed 13.12.2023) and W.P.No.407 of 2022 (flat owners, disposed 08.03.2024). Undertaking non-compliance left to respective writ petitioners. Petition closed (mapped to 'disposed').

What did the court decide?

The lock and seal notice followed by the de-occupation notice issued by the Corporation constitute compliance with the order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35378 of 2016; accordingly, the contempt petition is closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/contemnors committed wilful disobedience of the order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35378 of 2016, i.e., whether that order has been complied with. +1 more

Court's answer

The lock and seal notice followed by the de-occupation notice issued by the Corporation constitute compliance with the order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35378 of 2016; accordingly, the contempt petition is closed.

Ratio / Principle

If the undertakings given in the subsequent writ petitions have not been complied with, the remedy lies with the petitioners in those writ proceedings, who must themselves initiate contempt proceedings; such non-compliance does not sustain the present petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition — wilful disobedience of writ order — Cont.P.No.1099 of 2021 filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by Lakshmi Jeeva against the Commissioner and an Executive Engineer of the Corporation of Chennai and the Member Secretary, CMDA, alleging disobedience of the order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35378 of 2016 — Additional Advocate General submitted that a lock and seal notice followed by a de-occupation notice had been issued in compliance of the writ order, and that challenges thereto (W.P.No.34753 of 2023, disposed 13.12.2023; W.P.No.407 of 2022, disposed 08.03.2024) had already been dealt with — Held (G. Arul Murugan, J.): issuance of the lock and seal notice followed by the de-occupation notice amounts to compliance of the order dated 05.10.2016; further, any non-compliance with undertakings recorded in the subsequent writ petitions is a matter for the petitioners therein to agitate by initiating their own contempt proceedings — Contempt petition closed.

A

Cont.P.No.1099 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.07.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

Cont.P.No.1099 of 2021

Lakshmi Jeeva W/o. Jeevarathinam No.36, Sachidanandam Street Backside Kosapet, Chennai-600012.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

Gagandeep Singh Bedi The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Building, Chennai-3.

Saravanan The Executive Engineer Zone-6, Division No.78, Corporation of Chennai No. 158, Strahans Road (opposite To Mahalakshmi Theatre), Dashamakan, Otteri, Chennai-600012. Previously Zonal Office At No. 5, Anderson Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023.

___________ Page 1 of 5_

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

Cont.P.No.1099 of 2021

Anshul Mishra

The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-8.

Contemnor(s)

Prayer : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking to punish respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35378 of 2016.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan, For Contemnor(s): Mr.T.Gowthaman Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for R1 & R2 Mrs.P.Veena Suresh Standing Counsel for R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.Arul Murugan,J)

This contempt petition has been filed alleging disobedience of

the order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35378 of 2016.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in

___________ Page 2 of 5_

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

Cont.P.No.1099 of 2021

compliance of the order, already lock and seal notice, followed by de-occupation notice, was issued and thereby, the order dated 05.10.2016 stands complied with.

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that challenging the de-occupation notice, fourth respondent in the writ petition has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.34753 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by order dated 13.12.2023 with certain directions. Further, another writ petition was filed by some flat owners in W.P.No.407 of 2022 and the same was also disposed of by order dated 08.03.2024.

The only contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that

in the subsequent writ petitions, certain undertakings have been given and the same were not complied with.

If the undertakings given in the subsequent writ petitions have not been complied with, it is for those petitioners to initiate contempt proceedings.

___________ Page 3 of 5_

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

Cont.P.No.1099 of 2021

In view of the fact that Corporation issued lock and seal

notice, followed by de-occupation notice, which is in compliance of

the order dated 05.10.2016, this contempt petition is closed.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 09.07.2026

kpl

___________ Page 4 of 5_

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

Cont.P.No.1099 of 2021

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(kpl)

Cont.P.No.1099 of 2021

09.07.2026

___________ Page 5 of 5_

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents/contemnors committed wilful disobedience of the order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35378 of 2016, i.e., whether that order has been complied with.¶19
The court held
The lock and seal notice followed by the de-occupation notice issued by the Corporation constitute compliance with the order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35378 of 2016; accordingly, the contempt petition is closed.ratio¶37-39
2.
Whether non-compliance with the undertakings given in the subsequent writ petitions (W.P.No.34753 of 2023 and W.P.No.407 of 2022) sustains the present contempt petition against these respondents.¶32
The court held
If the undertakings given in the subsequent writ petitions have not been complied with, the remedy lies with the petitioners in those writ proceedings, who must themselves initiate contempt proceedings; such non-compliance does not sustain the present petition.ratio¶33

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

W.P.No.35378 of 2016Referred¶24
W.P.No.34753 of 2023Referred¶30
W.P.No.407 of 2022Referred¶30

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Contempt of Courts Act, 197111¶19

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35378 of 2016, wilful disobedience of which is alleged in this contempt petition.¶19
05.10.2016
Prior proceeding
As submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, in compliance of the order dated 05.10.2016 a lock and seal notice, followed by a de-occupation notice, was issued and the writ order thereby stands complied with.¶29
Prior proceeding
Fourth respondent in W.P.No.35378 of 2016 challenged the de-occupation notice by filing W.P.No.34753 of 2023, which was disposed of by order dated 13.12.2023 with certain directions.¶30
Prior proceeding
Some flat owners filed W.P.No.407 of 2022, which was also disposed of by order dated 08.03.2024.¶30

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Lakshmi Jeeva W/o. Jeevarathinam¶8
Mr. Manoj Sreevalsan
respondent
Gagandeep Singh Bedi, The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai¶11
Mr. T. Gowthaman, Mr. D.B.R. Prabhu
respondent
Saravanan, The Executive Engineer Zone-6, Division No.78, Corporation of Chennai¶12
Mr. T. Gowthaman, Mr. D.B.R. Prabhu
respondent
Anshul Mishra, The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority¶17
Mrs. P. Veena Suresh

Coram

AI extract

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikarimember¶5
G. Arul Muruganauthor¶22

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 9 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 23 Aug 2021
Case no.: CONT P/1099/2021
CNR: HCMA010987832021
Topic: Contempt of Court
Bench: G.arul Murugan
Disposal: CLOSED
Case type: Cont.P.

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.arul Murugan

Anbu Nagar Residents Welfare Association Vs the Commissioner of Police
8 Jul 2026
Kovai Kilakku Mavatta Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal
8 Jul 2026
The Commissioner Vs M.Athiappan
8 Jul 2026
The Managing Director, Vs M Umarani
9 Jul 2026
The Managing Director Vs Poongodi C
9 Jul 2026
The Registrar Vs Muthukumar
9 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Lakshmi Jeeva v. Gagandeep Singh Bedi, CONT P/1099/2021 (MAD), decided on 9 July 2026.

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

Cases cited3

W.P.No.35378 of 2016Referred¶24
W.P.No.34753 of 2023Referred¶30
W.P.No.407 of 2022Referred¶30

Open Authorities

Statutes1

Contempt of Courts Act, 197111

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35378 of 2016, wilful disobedience of which is alleged in this contempt petition.05.10.2016
As submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, in compliance of the order dated 05.10.2016 a lock and seal notice, followed by a de-occupation notice, was issued and the writ order thereby stands complied with.
Fourth respondent in W.P.No.35378 of 2016 challenged the de-occupation notice by filing W.P.No.34753 of 2023, which was disposed of by order dated 13.12.2023 with certain directions.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and G. Arul Murugan

Parties & counsel