Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. Karthikeyan, K.Rajasekar, JJ
Mr.Valsa Jose – Appellant
Versus
MR.V.B.CHANDRAN – Respondent
Cont. P. DR.No.96074 of 2025 | SUB APPL No. 942 of 2025
For the Applicant(s): Mr.Harshavarthan, for M/s.S.RAJENDRAKUMAR
The absence of a petition seeking restraint from dealing with property negates grounds for contempt.
Headnote:The Contempt Petition seeks enforcement of an earlier court order from 28.02.2020. The initial petition was for a stay of a decree pending appeal, which led to a status-quo order without subsequent petition for restraint. The Court found no grounds for contempt and dismissed the petition. Key issue: whether contempt was established.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined there was no wilful disobedience of its prior order as the petitioner had not sought proper restraint from action. Final Outcome: This Court finds no ground for contempt; hence, the petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ground for contempt not established. (Para 1) |
| 2. status-quo order leads to no restraint application. (Para 2) |
| 3. court dismisses contempt petition. (Para 3) |
PRAYER – This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the 1st respondent for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 28.02.2020, passed in C.M.P.No.3510 of 2020 in O.S.A.No.85 of 2020.
For Applicant(s): Mr.Harshavarthan, for M/s.S.RAJENDRAKUMAR
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
This Contempt Petition is filed to punish the 1st respondent for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 28.02.2020, passed in C.M.P.No.3510 of 2020 in O.S.A.No.85 of 2020.
2.In C.M.P.No.3510 of 2010, the petitioner has only sought for stay of operation of the decree dated 04.09.2019 passed in T.O.S.No.56 of 2013, pending disposal of the Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.85 of 2020. An order of status-quo was granted. Subsequently, no petition was filed seeking restraint from alienating or dealing with the property.
3.We find that no ground has been made for contempt. Hence, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Sub-Application No.942 of 2025 is also closed.
