Disposed¶24

S.Maheswari v. Subashni

Madras HC10 Feb 2026CONT P(MD)/3584/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition under Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-compliance with Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) order dated 23.04.2025 in W.M.P.(MD) No.8442 of 2022 in W.P.(MD) No.4251 of 2022. Amount reported deposited in petitioner S.Maheswari's account with the respondent Dindigul District Central Co-operative Bank; allegation that the bank made the account inoperable denied by bank counsel. Court recorded the submissions and closed the petition — K. Surender, J., 10.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition closed ¶24

S.Maheswari Vs Subashni — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD) No.3584 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

Cont.P.(MD) No.3584 of 2025

¶7

S.Maheswari ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mrs.Subashni, The Managing Director, Dindigul District Central Co-operative Bank, Kooturavu Nagar, Trichy Road, Dindigul-624 005. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contemnor/respondent for the willful disobedience of the direction given by this Court in the order dated 23.04.2025 passed in W.M.P.(MD) No.8442 of 2022 in W.P.(MD) No. 4251 of 2022.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ravichandran

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.M.Ganesan

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Alleging that the order of this Court dated 23.04.2025 passed in W.M.P.(MD) No.8442 of 2022 in W.P.(MD) No.4251 of 2022 has not

¶15

Page No. 1 of 3

¶16

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

¶17

Cont.P.(MD) No.3584 of 2025

¶18

been complied with, the petitioner has come up before this Court with this

¶19

Contempt Petition.

¶20

It is submitted that the amount has been deposited in the account

¶21

of the petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the amount has been deposited, since the petitioner is an employee of the same bank and the account is maintained in the said bank, the said account has been made inoperable by the bank authorities.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the bank would submit that the said allegation is incorrect and that the petitioner is at liberty to operate his account.

¶24