P. Venkata Rao vs Venkatesan, I. A. S.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Mad) 102

B.RAJENDRAN
P. Venkata Rao – Appellant
Versus
Venkatesan, I. A. S. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner:Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Advocate for Mr. P. Subba Reddy
For Respondent:Mr. P.H. Aravindh Pandian Additional Advocate General for Ms. P. Kavitha, Government Advocate
Review Applicants :Mr. P.H. Aravindh Pandian Additional Advocate General for Ms. P. Kavitha, Government Advocate
For Respondent:Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Advocate for Mr. P. Subba Reddy
Review Applicant :Mr. G. Masilamani, Senior Advocate for Mr. C. Mohan of M/s. King and Patridge
For Respondents:Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Advocate for Mr. P. Subba Reddy for R1 Mr. P.H. Aravindh Pandian Additional Advocate General for Ms. P. Kavitha, Government Advocate for RR2 & 3
Review Applicant : Mr. M. Vijayan for Mr. KT. Sankar Subramanian
For Respondents:Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Advocate for Mr. P. Subba Reddy for R1, Mr. P.H. Aravindh Pandian Additional Advocate General for Ms. P. Kavitha, Government Advocate for R2

ORDER :

The contempt petition No. 935 of 2015 has been filed by the writ petitioner in WP No. 11859 of 2014 complaining non-compliance of the order dated 25.04.2014 passed by this Court in WP No. 11859 of 2014 by the sole respondent therein and to initiate contempt proceedings thereof. Review application Nos. 197 and 210 of 2015 have been filed by third parties to WP No. 11859 of 2014 seeking to review the order dated 25.04.2014 passed by this Court in WP No. 11859 of 2014. Review Application No. 192 of 2015 has been filed by the respondents in WP No. 11859 of 2014. Thus, the issues arise for consideration in all these cases are identical, similar and inter-connected with each other. The learned counsel on either side have advanced common arguments in all these cases. Therefore, by consent of counsel on either side, the contempt petition, the review applications and also the main writ petition are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, Mr. P. Venkata Rao, the contempt petitioner, shall hereinafter be referred to as "petitioner" and the review applicants shall be referred to as such as "review applicants".

3. The petitioner has filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(Mad) 102

B.RAJENDRANP. Venkata Rao – AppellantVersusVenkatesan, I. A. S. – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

B.RAJENDRAN
P. Venkata Rao – Appellant
Versus
Venkatesan, I. A. S. – Respondent