Back
S.RAJESWARAN
S. Hemalatha – Appellant
Versus
P. Murali Vittal – Respondent
1. This petition has been filed to punish the respondents for not obeying the direction given by this Court in O.A.No.875/2006 in C.S.No.318/2002, in the order dated 15.11.2006. An affidavit has been filed in support of the contempt petition by the petitioner who is the 7th defendant in C.S.No.318/2002, which was transferred to the 15th Assistant City Civil Court and re-numbered as O.S.No.12098/2010.
2. In the affidavit, it is stated that the suit was filed by Tmt.Yamuna Mohan for partition of 1/5th share in the suit schedule property. The petitioner's husband is having 1/5th share in the suit property.
3. On 15.11.2006, this Court passed an order directing the party to maintain status quo from 15.11.2006 till 28.11.2006 in A.No.875/2006 filed by the above said Tmt.Yamuna Mohan praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit from in any manner dealing with, parting with, alienating or encumbering the property described in the schedule.
4. According to the petitioner, the first respondent who is the second defendant in the suit should not sell the property to third parties as it is a common property and without dividing the same
N. Meenakshi VS Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4130: Treatment unclear. The entry cites "Murali Vittal and other, 2014 (5) MLJ 81 at Special Page 82 and 83, whereby and whereunder, it is observed ... Hemalatha vs. P." No keywords or phrases indicate subsequent judicial treatment (e.g., followed, overruled, reversed); it appears to be a direct reference or summary of the case holding.
Hoshiar Singh VS Gurbachan Singh - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 59: Treatment unclear. The entry states a legal principle: "In order to justify committal for breach of a prohibitive order it is not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party...". No keywords or phrases indicate subsequent judicial treatment; it presents a standalone rule without reference to how later cases treated it.
C. Elumalai VS A. G. L. Irudayaraj - 2009 2 Supreme 587: Treatment unclear. Labeled "Important Point" followed by: "If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous... would amount to contempt of Court." "Important Point" does not signal judicial treatment (e.g., followed, criticized); no indicators of subsequent case treatment present.
Muthu Karuppan VS Parithi Ilamvazhuthi - 2011 3 Supreme 217: Treatment unclear. Describes: "Deliberate falsehood by filing false affidavit must be effectively curbed. Procedures for contempt proceedings discussed." No keywords or phrases indicate subsequent judicial treatment; it summarizes holdings without treatment signals.
S. Prabhavathi VS The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruppathur, North Arcot District - 1993 0 Supreme(Mad) 325: Treatment unclear. States: "Provisions of Section 151 wide and not subject to any limitation." No keywords or phrases indicate subsequent judicial treatment; appears as a direct proposition without later case analysis.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
