SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Mad) 60

RATNAM
Kudiyan – Appellant
Versus
B. Ranganathan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V.R. Venkataraman for petitioners
G. Vasudevan for respondent.

Judgment :-

1. By ordering police help the court below had merely taken the follow up steps to implement its earlier order of injunction. The objection that a direction of that nature cannot be issued to the police authorities, who are not parties to the proceedings, raised by the petitioners has no substance. When the court finds that a litigant, who had obtained an order from it, is not in a position to have its full benefit owing to either the obstruction or non-cooperation of the other party to the proceedings, it is always open to the court to resort to the law enforcement machinery to see that its order is obeyed and I do not see anything illegal or irregular about it. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top