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.

Raguraman Vs Vikram Kapur, IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
Raguraman Vs Vikram Kapur, IASRaguraman v. Vikram Kapur, IAS

Disposed¶38

Raguraman v. Vikram Kapur, IAS

Madras HC14 Jul 2026CONT P/589/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Courts Act Section 11 petition for willful disobedience of writ order dated 15.04.2015 directing Chennai Corporation to remove unauthorised construction on Sarkar poramboke used as public street; demolition notice issued in compliance; appeal under Section 80A Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 dismissed; de-occupation notice stayed in WP No.26120 of 2025; compliance held complete, no contempt made out; Cont.P. 589/2016 and Sub.Appl. 349, 350, 544/2022 closed with liberty to seek remedies. Bench: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari with Justice G. Arul Murugan. Petitioners Raguraman, Nirmala, Amudha against Commissioner Corporation of Chennai (Vikram Kapur), Housing and Urban Development Secretary, District Collector Chennai and Tahsildar Mambalam Guindy.

What did the court decide?

No punishment imposed; no contempt found. The contempt petition and Sub. Appl. Nos.349 & 350 of 2022 and 544 of 2022 were closed, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.

Why is it important?

Since the de-occupation notice issued by the Chennai Corporation has been stayed in WP No.26120 of 2025 filed by the encroacher, the order dated 15.04.2015 stands complied with in full and no contempt is made out. ¶37

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No punishment imposed; no contempt found. The contempt petition and Sub. Appl. Nos.349 & 350 of 2022 and 544 of 2022 were closed, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent(s) committed wilful disobedience of the order dated 15.04.2015 passed in the writ petition, warranting punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the de-occupation notice issued by the Chennai Corporation has been stayed in WP No.26120 of 2025 filed by the encroacher, the order dated 15.04.2015 stands complied with in full and no contempt is made out.

Ratio / Principle

The contempt petition and the Sub.Applications (Nos.349 & 350 of 2022 and 544 of 2022) were closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras HC (Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ. and G. Arul Murugan, J.), Order dated 14.07.2026 in Cont. P. No.589 of 2016 with Sub. Appl. Nos.349 & 350 of 2022 and 544 of 2022: Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 15.04.2015 passed in WP No.2686 of 2015 (styled WP.No.6286 of 2015 in the prayer), whereby the Chennai Corporation was directed to act against an unauthorised construction on the Sarkar poramboke, allegedly used as public street, within eight weeks. In compliance, the Corporation issued a demolition notice, whose challenge under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 failed; it then issued a de-occupation notice, which the encroacher got stayed in WP No.26120 of 2025. Holding that the order impugned stood complied with in full, the Court found no contempt made out, closed the petition and the Sub.Applications, and left the petitioner at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

A

Cont. P. No.589 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.07.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

Cont. P. No.589 of 2016 and Sub. Appl. Nos.349 & 350 of 2022 and 544 of 2022

Raguraman

Nirmala

Amudha .. Petitioners

-vs-

Mr.Vikram Kapur, I.A.S., The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-3.

The Secretary to Governmen,t Housing and Urban Development Dept., Chennai.

The District Collector, Chennai.

The Tahsildar, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk, Chennai. (RR 2 to 4 Suo Motu impleaded as per the Order of Court dated 11.03.2025 made in Cont.P.) .. Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for his willful disobedience of the order dated Page 1 of 4

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

Cont. P. No.589 of 2016

15.04.2015 passed in WP.No.6286 of 2015.

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar For Respondents : Mrs.Aswini Devi Stdg. Counsel for R-1 : Mr.R.Veeramani Govt. Pleader for RR 2 to 4.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This contempt petition alleges non-compliance of the order dated

15.04.2015 passed in WP No.2686 of 2015.

While disposing of the writ petition, the following order was

passed:

“4.Having regard to the fact-situation as aforestated, we are of the view that a direction may be issued to the Chennai Corporation to initiate action, forthwith, under law and ensure that the unauthorised construction does not remain on the Sarkar poramboke, which is allegedly used as public street. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction and observation. No costs.”

Page 2 of 4

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

Cont. P. No.589 of 2016

In compliance of the order, the Chennai Corporation had

issued demolition notice which was subsequently challenged in an appeal under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Chennai Corporation has issued the de-occupation notice. Challenging the same, the encroacher has filed WP No.26120 of 2025 and the deoccupation notice has been stayed.

In the light of the de-occupation notice having been stayed in a writ petition, the order impugned stands complied with in full and no contempt is made out.

Accordingly, this contempt petition stands closed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. Consequently, the Sub-Applications stand closed.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 14.07.2026

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sra

Page 3 of 4

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

Cont. P. No.589 of 2016

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

(sra)

To

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-3.

The Secretary to Governmen,t Housing and Urban Development Dept., Chennai.

The District Collector, Chennai.

The Tahsildar, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk, Chennai. Cont. P. No.589 of 2016

14.07.2026

Page 4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondent(s) committed wilful disobedience of the order dated 15.04.2015 passed in the writ petition, warranting punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act.¶18
The court held
Since the de-occupation notice issued by the Chennai Corporation has been stayed in WP No.26120 of 2025 filed by the encroacher, the order dated 15.04.2015 stands complied with in full and no contempt is made out.ratio¶37
2.
Whether the direction contained in the order dated 15.04.2015 has been complied with in full, such that no contempt survives.¶37

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Contempt of Courts ActSection 11¶18
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971Section 80A¶36

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 15.04.2015 disposing of the writ petition (styled WP.No.6286 of 2015 in the prayer, WP No.2686 of 2015 in the order body), directing the Chennai Corporation to initiate action under law against the unauthorised construction on the Sarkar poramboke within eight weeks; its alleged non-compliance is the subject of this contempt petition and the Court refers to it as "the order impugned".¶37
High Court of Judicature at Madras (writ jurisdiction) · 15.04.2015
Prior proceeding
Writ petition WP No.2686 of 2015 (styled WP.No.6286 of 2015 in the prayer) was disposed of on 15.04.2015.¶27
Prior proceeding
By the order in that writ petition, a direction was issued to the Chennai Corporation to initiate action, forthwith, under law and ensure that the unauthorised construction did not remain on the Sarkar poramboke, allegedly used as public street, the exercise to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the order.¶30
Prior proceeding
In compliance, the Chennai Corporation issued a demolition notice; the encroacher's appeal against it under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 was dismissed.¶36
Prior proceeding
The Chennai Corporation subsequently issued a de-occupation notice; the encroacher filed WP No.26120 of 2025 challenging it and the de-occupation notice has been stayed.¶36
Prior proceeding
Sub. Appl. Nos.349 & 350 of 2022 and 544 of 2022 were pending along with the main contempt petition and were closed by this order.¶9

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Raguraman¶10
Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar
petitioner
Nirmala¶11
petitioner
Amudha¶12
respondent
Mr.Vikram Kapur, I.A.S., The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-3.¶14
Mrs.Aswini Devi
respondent
The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Dept., Chennai.¶15
Mr.R.Veeramani
respondent
The District Collector, Chennai.¶16
respondent
The Tahsildar, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk, Chennai.¶17

Coram

AI extract

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Chief Justiceauthor¶39
G. Arul Muruganmember¶39

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 14 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 22 Feb 2016
Case no.: CONT P/589/2016
CNR: HCMA010578482016
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

Dr. V.P.B. PARAMASIVAM,(M,45/26) Vs the Union of India
13 Jul 2026
M.Narendra Kumar, Vs Mr. J.Kumaragurubaran, Ias., and 2 others
13 Jul 2026
Raj David Vs the Authorized Officer
13 Jul 2026
A.Rajaraman Vs M/S.Indian Bank
14 Jul 2026
The Managing Director Vs Sengeni
14 Jul 2026
Mrs.Manonmani Vs the Registrar General
14 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Raguraman v. Vikram Kapur, IAS, CONT P/589/2016 (MAD), decided on 14 July 2026.

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

Statutes2

Contempt of Courts ActSection 11
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971Section 80A

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Order dated 15.04.2015 disposing of the writ petition (styled WP.No.6286 of 2015 in the prayer, WP No.2686 of 2015 in the order body), directing the Chennai Corporation to initiate action under law against the unauthorised construction on the Sarkar poramboke within eight weeks; its alleged non-compliance is the subject of this contempt petition and the Court refers to it as "the order impugned".High Court of Judicature at Madras (writ jurisdiction) · 15.04.2015
Writ petition WP No.2686 of 2015 (styled WP.No.6286 of 2015 in the prayer) was disposed of on 15.04.2015.
By the order in that writ petition, a direction was issued to the Chennai Corporation to initiate action, forthwith, under law and ensure that the unauthorised construction did not remain on the Sarkar poramboke, allegedly used as public street, the exercise to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Chief Justice and G. Arul Murugan

Parties & counsel