Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs.Justice S.Srimathy, J
N.Chandran – Appellant
Versus
Jansi Rani The Joint Commissioner, Kanyakumari District Temples, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Suchindram, Kanyakumari District. – Respondent
Contempt Petition No.1713 of 2025|W.P.(MD)No.9692 of 2018
For the Petitioner: Mr.C.Kishore
For the Contemnor: Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh
Compliance with a court order negates contempt findings.
Headnote:The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, section 11 relates to punishing willful disobedience of court orders. In this matter, the petitioner contended the contemnor disallowed joining service as per prior court order. The court found that the contemnor had complied with the order, leading to the dismissal of the contempt petition. The primary issue was whether the contemnor had indeed disobeyed the earlier ruling. The court concluded that no contempt was established and the petition was closed due to compliance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conforming to court orders is essential to avoid contempt. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. acknowledgment of compliance leads to closure of contempt. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
The contemnor have issued an order directing the petitioner to join the service. The Learned Counsel appearing for the contemnor submitted that the petitioner would be given all the salary prior to the order passed in writ petition.
2. However the Learned Counsel appearing for the contemnor submitted that from the date of issuance of the order, the petitioner did not come forward to join the service. But the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the contemnors did not allow to join the service.
3. It is seen from the date of the order, i.e., 12.12.2022, again there is a dispute between the petitioner and the contemnor. The petitioner stated that the contemnor refused to allow the petitioner to join the service. However, the contemnor submitted they were always ready and willing to allow the petitioner to join the service. In fact, a communication was also sent to the Joint Director that the petitioner did not join the service.
4. The aforesaid issue arises due to different cause of action.
Therefore, the petitioner and the contemnor are at liberty to resolve the dispute as per law.
5. As far as the order passed by this Court is concerned, the contemnor has complied with the same. Hence, the contempt petition is closed.
