L.Santhoshkumar .. Vs. Sri.Arumugam Manager Indian Bank, and anr.

L.Santhoshkumar .. vs Sri.Arumugam Manager Indian Bank, and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 28, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/905499

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/905499
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M.Jaichandren, J.
Decided On: Jun 28, 2010
Case Number: Contempt Petition No.995 of 2009
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.2.1995 in A.S.No.180 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.1994 in O.S.No.1862 of 1985 on the file of the 2nd Additional District Munsif, Coimba...

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

L.Santhoshkumar ..

Advocate Mr.S.Mahaveer Shivaji, Adv.

Respondent

Sri.Arumugam Manager Indian Bank, and anr.

Advocate Mr.V.Kalyanaraman, Adv.

Excerpt

appeal filed under section 100 of code of civil procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1995 in a.s.no.180 of 1994 on the file of the principal district judge, coimbatore confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1994 in o.s.no.1862 of 1985 on the file of the 2nd additional district munsif, coimbatore. 1. this contempt petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order of this court, dated 30.7.2009, made in w.p.no.446 of 2009.2. the writ petition, in w.p.no.446 of 2009, is relating to the sanction of educational loan for m.b.b.s. course, which the petitioner is said to be pursuing at aarupadai veedu medical college and hospital, pondicherry, under the gyan jothi education loan scheme.3. the main grievance of the petitioner is that even though the loan had been sanctioned by the respondents, it had been sanctioned only from the third year of the m.b.b.s. course, instead of from the second year of the m.b.b.s. course, being pursued by the petitioner. however, it has not been shown that there was a specific direction from this court to sanction the loan to the petitioner, including the second year of the m.b.b.s. course. further, this court had directed the respondents to grant the loan subject to the norms, regulations and the rules applicable to the granting of such loan. the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the order of this court, dated 30.7.2009, made in w.p.no.446 of 2009. in such circumstances, this court does not find sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the said order, as prayed for in the contempt petition. hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

1. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 30.7.2009, made in W.P.No.446 of 2009.

2. The writ petition, in W.P.No.446 of 2009, is relating to the sanction of educational loan for M.B.B.S. course, which the petitioner is said to be pursuing at Aarupadai Veedu Medical College and Hospital, Pondicherry, under the Gyan Jothi Education Loan Scheme.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though the loan had been sanctioned by the respondents, it had been sanctioned only from the third year of the M.B.B.S. Course, instead of from the second year of the M.B.B.S. Course, being pursued by the petitioner. However, it has not been shown that there was a specific direction from this Court to sanction the loan to the petitioner, including the second year of the M.B.B.S. course. Further, this Court had directed the respondents to grant the loan subject to the norms, regulations and the rules applicable to the granting of such loan. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court, dated 30.7.2009, made in W.P.No.446 of 2009. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the said order, as prayed for in the contempt petition. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2010 Same Parties L.Santhoshkumar .. vs Sri.Arumugam Manager Indian Bank, and anr. Same Subject Education Same Judge M.Jaichandren, J.

Education