SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
S. Parimalam - Petitioner
Versus
S. Vishagan & Ors. - Respondents
CONT.P.No.2031 of 2024 in W.P.No.13531 of 2019
Decided On : 09-08-2024

Important Points

IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with a court order negates the basis for a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Subject

Contempt of Court - Compliance with Court Orders

Act Referred

CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT : S.11

Headnote

CONTEMPT - COURT ORDERS - The court addressed a contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, concerning the alleged willful disobedience of a prior court order. The respondents claimed compliance with the order, leading the court to conclude that no further adjudication was necessary, resulting in the closure of the contempt petition without costs.

Fact of the Case:

A contempt petition was filed against the respondents for allegedly disobeying a court order from W.P.No.13531 of 2019 dated 01.12.2022.

Finding of the Court:

The respondents' counsel asserted that the court's order had been complied with, prompting the court to determine that no further action was required.

Issues: Whether the respondents willfully disobeyed the court's order and if the contempt petition should proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondents' compliance with the order negated the need for further adjudication on the contempt petition.

Result: The contempt petition was closed without costs.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.MA.P.Thangavel.
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Sathish Kumar Standing Counsel.

ORDER :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

[PRAYER: Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, pleased to punish the respondents for committing contempt of the Court by wilfully disobeying the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.13531 of 2019, dated 01.12.2022.]

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the order passed by this Court has been complied with. Thus, no further adjudication needs to be undertaken.

2. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition stands closed. No costs.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top