Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Since the respondent has already implemented the order of this Court, nothing survives in the Contempt Petition. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts)/True Copy/ Assistant RegistrarToSelva Raj, The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District.+One CC to The Spl.…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 24.02.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARANContempt Petition (MD)No.44 of 2011inW.P.(MD)No.11045 of 2010C.Selvam ... Petitioner/PetitionerVs.Selva RajThe Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District. ...Contemnor/3rd RespondentPRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for having willfully disobeyed the order dated06.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.11045 of 2010 and punish the respondent for committing the act of contempt of Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.ChavanFor Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Government AdvocateO R D E RThe petitioner initiated the contempt proceedings against the respondent on account of the alleged non-compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 06.09.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.11045of 2010.
The learned Government Advocate has produced a copy of the proceedings dated 18.02.2011 indicating that the matter has already been disposed of by the respondent.
Since the respondent has already implemented the order of this Court, nothing survives in the Contempt Petition. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts)/True Copy/ Assistant RegistrarToSelva Raj, The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District.+One CC to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.No.10255rj2rl/3c – 7.3.2011Contempt Petition (MD)No.44 of 2011inW.P.(MD)No.11045 of 2010
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.