Disposed

P.Subramaniam, v. Thiru. G.Selvan

Madras HC19 Jun 2026CONT P/4260/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of a 2013 writ order; petitions closed without adjudication since review applications against the related division bench order were pending and petitioners agreed not to precipitate, with liberty to seek revival after disposal of the reviews.

What did the court decide?

Petitions closed with liberty to seek revival after disposal of pending Review Applications.

P.Subramaniam, Vs Thiru. G.Selvan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Cont.P.Nos.4260 & 4261 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.06.2026 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶4

Cont.P.Nos.4260 & 4261 of 20 25

¶5

P.Subramaniam ...Petitioner in Cont.P.No.4260/2025 L.Karpagavalli ...Petitioner in Cont.P.No.4261/2025 Vs.

¶6

Thiru.G.Selvan The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division) Ltd., Chennimalai Road Erode 638 001. ...Respondents in both Cont.P.Nos.

¶7

Prayer in Cont.P.No.4260/2025: This Contempt Petition is filed Section

¶8

11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 11.01.2013 in W.P.No.31323 of 2005.

¶9

1/4

¶10

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

¶11

Cont.P.Nos.4260 & 4261 of 2025 Prayer in Cont.P.No.4261//2025: This Contempt Petition is filed Section

¶12

11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents under

¶13

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 11.01.2013 in W.P.No.31322 of 2005.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.K.Ponraj in both Cont.P.Nos.

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Murali Vinodh in both Cont.P.Nos. Standing Counsel

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

When the Contempt Petitions are taken up for hearing today, the

¶18

learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that Review Applications have been filed against the order in W.A.Nos.2871 & 2872 of 2018 and the said Review Applications are pending consideration.

¶19

2. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had

¶20

informed the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court that they would not precipitate the present Contempt Petitions, pending disposal of the Review Applications. 2/4

¶21

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

¶22

Cont.P.Nos.4260 & 4261 of 2025

¶23

3. Since the petitioners had agreed not to precipitate the Contempt

¶24

Petitions till the Review Applications are decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the present Contempt Petitions.

¶25

4. Accordingly, the Contempt Petitions are closed. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to seek revival of the Contempt Petitions after disposal of the Review Applications by the Hon’ble Division Bench, if the cause of action survives.

¶26

19.06.2026

¶27

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No dna

¶28

3/4

¶29

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

¶30

Cont.P.Nos.4260 & 4261 of 2025 T.VINOD KUMAR, J.

¶31

dna

¶32

Cont.P.Nos.4260 & 4261 of 2025

¶33

19.06.2026

¶34

4/4

¶35

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

P.Subramaniam, v. Thiru. G.Selvan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Subramaniam, v. Thiru. G.Selvan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Arunraj Vs the State of Tamilnadu

A.Ahmed Ibrahim Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

P.Kandasamy Vs the Registrar

R.Govindarajan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.a.Divyalakshmi Vs v.Amuthavalli, IAS

S.Subatra Vs Dr.B.Chandra Mohan IAS and Another