Contempt petition for non-compliance with an order directing payment of pensionary benefits was dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner having filed it nearly three years after the cause of arose; liberty to pursue other remedies granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cont.P.No.991 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
Cont.P.No.991 of 20 25
R. Kennedy, S/o.Y.Rayappan, No.548, Rajiv Nagar, Balakrishnapuram, Dindigul-624 005.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
Contemnor(s)
1/6
Cont.P.No.991 of 2025
Prayer:
Prayer: This Contempt Petition is filed Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.13696 of 2018 dated 25.08.2022.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Kamadevan
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.P.Goutham Government Advocate
ORDER
This Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondents for
willful disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.13696 of 2018 dated 25.08.2022.
thereafter. The petitioner however, applied for certified copy of the order on 31.01.2025 nearly after three years and the same was made ready on
03.02.2025 and delivered on 04.02.2025.
2/6
this Court directing the respondents to calculate 50% of the service rendered by the petitioner as part time Vocational Instructor prior to 16.10.1992 and service and pensionary benefits shall be calculated and be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the respondents did not comply with the order and have wilfully disobeyed the order.
the petitioner.
Courts Act, 1971 prescribes the time limit of one year for initiating contempt proceedings.
3/6
3033 of 2025 and by order dated 12.09.2025 in Cont.P.No.2706 of 2025
had considered the scope of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘Act 1971’) and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and also as to what would constitute continuing cause of action.
4/6
Cont.P.No.991 of 2025 10. Having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and
this Court as herein above, the present contempt petition cannot be entertained, having been filed beyond the limitation prescribed under the Act, 1971.
11. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to work out his remedy, if so advised, in the manner known to law.
25.06.2026
Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No dna
5/6
Cont.P.No.991 of 2025 T.VINOD KUMAR, J.
dna
Cont.P.No.991 of 2025
25.06.2026
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a contempt petition filed nearly three years after the cause of action is barred by the one-year limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Tirupathi Rao V. M.Lingamaiah and othersRelied on¶8
2024 SCC online 1764 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Kennedy
J. Kumarakurubaran, I.A.S.
Thiru.V.Vijayakumar
Tmt. P.Usha
T.Vinod Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
