BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Gomathi (Died), S. Kanagaraj S/o Late Sukkal - Appellant
Versus
B. Chandra Mohan - Respondent
Cont. Pet. (MD) No. 2588 of 2024, W.P. (MD) No. 16021 of 2022
Decided On : 03-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims non-compliance with earlier court judgment. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. parties retained rights to challenge decisions post-compliance. (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioner argues for contempt ruling; liberty to challenge. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. respondents complied with the court's directions. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 5. court disposes of contempt petition with liberty to appeal. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
1. This Contempt Petition has been filed for non compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.16021 of 2022, dated 22.07.2022.
2. Heard Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. This Court, vide judgment and order, dated 22.07.2022, had disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions:-
“4. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the first and second respondents, though he has made a representation, dated 06.06.2022, seeking to disburse the benefit of Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) Payable to the petitioner on account of the death of her husband, namely, K.Sukkal while he is in service, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the disbursement. On receipt of such a representation, the respondents herein are directed to consider the same, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a fresh representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner and that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the same on its own merits.
5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the judgment and order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.16021 of 2022, dated 22.07.2022, the respondents have not complied with the directions of this Court and have wilfully and deliberately flouting the orders passed by this Court, dated 22.07.2022. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the respondents should be summoned and punished for committing contempt by exercising the powers under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
5. Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 22.07.2022, has filed a compliance affidavit, dated 03.07.2025, annexing a copy of the decision taken by the respondents, by which the petitioner's claim was rejected by way of a reasoned and a speaking order. The compliance affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record and a copy of the same has also been given to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, he submits that the respondents may be discharged from the present contempt proceedings, as the judgment and order of this Court dated 22.07.2022 has been fully complied with by the respondents and the present Contempt Petition may also be disposed of.
6. Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he received a copy of the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents along with a copy of the decision taken by the respondents, by which, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by way of a reasoned and a speaking order. Thus, he submits that he may be given liberty to challenge the aforesaid order before the competent Court of law. It was further submitted that as the order has been communicated to the petitioner, he has no objection if the respondents are discharged from the present contempt proceedings and the present Contempt Petition may also be disposed of.
7. Accordingly, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, after perusal of the judgment and order passed in W.P.(MD) No.16021 of 2022, dated 22.07.2022 and the compliance affidav
Compliance with court orders is essential, and parties may challenge decisions made in response to those orders if aggrieved.
Non-compliance with court orders leads to contempt, but full compliance results in dismissal of such proceedings.
Non-compliance with court orders constitutes contempt, but fulfillment of directives leads to discharge from contempt proceedings.
The court confirmed that compliance with judicial orders is essential, and upon finding adequate compliance, discharge from contempt proceedings is warranted.
Court reaffirmed the necessity of compliance with judicial orders, emphasizing that non-compliance can lead to contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Court dismissal of contempt based on compliance with previous orders and procedural rights for further challenges establishes adherence to judicial processes.
Compliance with court orders is mandatory, and failure to adhere can lead to contempt proceedings as ruled in the present case.
Compliance with court orders and interpretation of orders should be pursued through new litigation, not contempt petitions.
Compliance with court orders is essential; non-compliance leads to contempt, but established compliance results in discharge from contempt proceedings.
Compliance with court orders, once established, mitigates contempt proceedings, reaffirming the importance of procedural respect by public authorities.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.