Judgment · High Court · 2026
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
1 CONT.P.(MD)NO.407 OF 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 30.03.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN ANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMACONT.P.(MD)No.407 of 2026 INW.P.(MD)No.6090 of 2015S.Sankar ... Petitioner / Petitioner Vs.1. Mr.C.Ramar, S/o.Chithirai Vel, No.8/42, Maalaikudi Thaddu, Arasur Puchikadu, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. 2. Mr.M.Murthy, S/o.Muthaiah, No.15/8,Maalaikudi Thaddu, Arasur Puchikadu, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. 3. Mr.R.Isakimuthu, S/o.Rayappan, No.25/8, Maalaikudi Thaddu, Arasur Puchikadu, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. ... Contemnors/Respondents 5 to 71/3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 CONT.P.(MD)NO.407 OF 2026Prayer: Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnors / respondents 5 to 7 for the violation and willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6090 of 2015 dated 09.04.2015 under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil, for Mr.A.Mohamedhaneef. For Respondents : Mr.Selva Krishnan * * * O R D E R(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)It is reported that the order passed by this Court has since been complied with. In view of the same, this contempt petition is closed. (G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R.POORNIMA, J.) 30th March 2026 NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoPMU2/3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 CONT.P.(MD)NO.407 OF 2026G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ANDR.POORNIMA, J.PMUCONT.P.(MD)No.407 of 2026 INW.P.(MD)No.6090 of 201530.03.20263/3
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 11.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 30 Mar 2026. The bench was G R SWAMINATHAN, R POORNIMA, ANDR POORNIMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.