Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Apr 06, 2016

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191635

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1191635
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: B. Rajendran
Decided On: Apr 06, 2016
Case Number: W.P(MD)No. 5404 of 2016 & WMP(MD)No. 4844 of 2016
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

b. rajendran, j. 1. today, this matter has come up for hearing under the caption "for clarification" at the instance of the respondents. 2. the only clarification sought by the respondents was pursuant to the order of stay passed by this court on 17.03.2016, based on which, the petitioner issued a contempt notice seeking for stoppage of construction. whereas, the petitioner clearly stated that he has not sought for any stoppage of construction as the order of stay does not pertain to any construction. the above statement is recorded. 3. accordingly, the matter stands clarified.

Full Judgment

B. Rajendran, J.

1. Today, this matter has come up for hearing under the caption "For Clarification" at the instance of the respondents.

2. The only clarification sought by the respondents was pursuant to the order of stay passed by this Court on 17.03.2016, based on which, the petitioner issued a contempt notice seeking for stoppage of construction. Whereas, the petitioner clearly stated that he has not sought for any stoppage of construction as the order of stay does not pertain to any construction. The above statement is recorded.

3. Accordingly, the matter stands clarified.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge B. Rajendran