Disposed¶20

P.Suresh v. Vikram and Another

Madras HC23 Mar 2026CONT P/159/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition closed - compliance with writ direction noted; disobedience alleged of Madras HC order dated 02.09.2024 in W.P.No.24731 of 2024; Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk passed compliance order 12.03.2026 in proceedings e/f/vz;/rp2/4587/2024; Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act 1971; no sanction imposed; liberty to challenge Tahsildar's order in the manner known to law; S. Sounthar, J.; 23-03-2026; P. Suresh v. Vikram, Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk & M/s. Sally Road Systems Pvt Ltd.; CONT P No. 159 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

No punishment or other relief; the contempt petition was closed on compliance being shown, with liberty to the petitioner to contest the Tahsildar's fresh order through ordinary legal remedies if aggrieved. ¶20

P.Suresh Vs Vikram and Another — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents complied with the direction contained in this Court's order dated 02.09.2024 in W.P.No.24731 of 2024, such that the contempt petition seeking punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 could be closed.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the Government Advocate's report that, pursuant to the Court's direction, the 1st respondent Tahsildar passed an order on 12.03.2026 in proceedings e/f/vz;/rp2/4587/2024 considering the petitioner's application, the Court concluded that the direction issued in W.P.No.24731 of 2024 has been complied with and therefore closed the contempt petition without imposing any sanction.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petitioner is left at liberty: if aggrieved by the fresh order passed by the Tahsildar, he may challenge it in the manner known to law.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J., order dated 23-03-2026) closed Contempt Petition CONT P No. 159 of 2026 filed by P. Suresh under Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking punishment of the respondents - Vikram, Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk (R1), and M/s. Sally Road Systems Pvt Ltd. (R2) - for alleged deliberate and willful disobedience of the Court's order dated 02.09.2024 in W.P.No.24731 of 2024. On the petition being taken up, the Government Advocate for R1 submitted that, pursuant to the Court's direction, the Tahsildar had passed an order on 12.03.2026 in proceedings e/f/vz;/rp2/4587/2024, and a copy was handed to the petitioner's counsel. Holding that the writ direction had been complied with, the Court closed the contempt petition without imposing any sanction and observed that, if aggrieved by the Tahsildar's order, the petitioner may challenge it in the manner known to law.

¶1

CONT P No. 159 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CONT P No. 159 of 2026

P.Suresh

..Petitioner(s)

Vikram, The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Near TI Cycles India Ltd., Thiruvallur High Road, Ambattur, Chennai 53.

¶11

M/s.Sally Road Systems Pvt Ltd., Director S.Manoharan, No.46, 2nd Main Road, Defence Officers Colony, Nandambakkam, Chennai 600 032.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24731 of 2024.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Vijayaganesh For Respondent(s): Mr.Abishek Murthy Government Advocate for R1

¶15

__________ Page1 of 3

¶16

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

¶17

CONT P No. 159 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

When the contempt petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate for the 1^st respondent would submits that, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Tahsildar passed an order in proceedings e/f/vz;/rp2/4587/2024 dated 12.03.2026. A copy of the said order has also been handed over to the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

Since the direction issued in the writ petition has been complied with and the 1^st respondent passed an order considering the application of the petitioner, the contempt petition is closed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar, he can challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶21

23-03-2026

¶22

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶23

VEDA

¶24

To The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Near TI Cycles India Ltd., Thiruvallur High Road, Ambattur, Chennai 53.

¶25

__________ Page2 of 3

¶26

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