R.Ranganathan. Vs. Thiru Devendranath Sarangi I.A.S.

R.Ranganathan. vs Thiru Devendranath Sarangi I.A.S.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 13, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/904726

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/904726
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M.Jaichandren, J,
Decided On: Aug 13, 2010
Case Number: Contempt Petition No.1395 of 2009
Subject: Contempt of Court

Case Summary

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

The Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 10 & 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71, to punish the respondent herein for committing grave contempt and gross disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28412 of 2006 (O.A.No.2794 of 1996) dated 25.6.2008.

Key legal issue: Contempt of Court
Acts & sections: Contempt of Courts Act, - Sections 10, 12

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R.Ranganathan.

Advocate Mr.R.Singgaravelan, Adv.

Respondent

Thiru Devendranath Sarangi I.A.S.

Advocate Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Contempt of Courts Act, - Sections 10, 12

Excerpt

the contempt petition has been filed under section 10 & 12 of the contempt of courts act, 70/71, to punish the respondent herein for committing grave contempt and gross disobedience of the order passed by this court in w.p.no.28412 of 2006 (o.a.no.2794 of 1996) dated 25.6.2008. 1. this contempt petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to punish the respondent herein for committing grave contempt and gross disobedience of the order passed by this court, in w.p.no.28412 of 2006 (o.a.no.2794 of 1996), dated 25.6.2008.2. this court, by its order, dated 25.6.2008, had permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of the passing of the order, and on such representation being submitted, the first respondent had been directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.3. the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even after a representation, dated 7.8.2008, having been submitted to the respondent, in person, no orders had been passed by the respondent on the said representation, as directed by this court, by its order, dated 25.6.2008.4. the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that no representation had been submitted by the petitioner within the period of four weeks granted by this court, by its order, dated 25.6.2008, and therefore, there is no wilful disobedience of the order passed by this court, as alleged by the petitioner. since, the petitioner has not shown to the satisfaction of this court that a representation had been submitted to the respondent, within the period of four weeks granted by this court, by its order, dated 25.6.2008, the present contempt petition filed by the petitioner cannot be sustained. hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. however, it is made clear that if a representation had been submitted by the petitioner, on 7.8.2008, as claimed by him, it would be open to the respondent to pass appropriate orders thereon, as per law. no costs.

Full Judgment

1. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent herein for committing grave contempt and gross disobedience of the order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.28412 of 2006 (O.A.No.2794 of 1996), dated 25.6.2008.

2. This Court, by its order, dated 25.6.2008, had permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of the passing of the order, and on such representation being submitted, the first respondent had been directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even after a representation, dated 7.8.2008, having been submitted to the respondent, in person, no orders had been passed by the respondent on the said representation, as directed by this Court, by its order, dated 25.6.2008.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that no representation had been submitted by the petitioner within the period of four weeks granted by this Court, by its order, dated 25.6.2008, and therefore, there is no wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, as alleged by the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has not shown to the satisfaction of this Court that a representation had been submitted to the respondent, within the period of four weeks granted by this Court, by its order, dated 25.6.2008, the present contempt petition filed by the petitioner cannot be sustained. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that if a representation had been submitted by the petitioner, on 7.8.2008, as claimed by him, it would be open to the respondent to pass appropriate orders thereon, as per law. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2010 Same Parties R.Ranganathan. vs Thiru Devendranath Sarangi I.A.S. Same Subject Contempt of Court Same Judge M.Jaichandren, J, Acts & Sections Contempt of Courts Act, - Sections 10, 12

Contempt of Court