Petitioner Vs. Respondent - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1191635
SubjectMiscellaneous
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided OnApr-06-2016
Case NumberW.P(MD)No. 5404 of 2016 & WMP(MD)No. 4844 of 2016
JudgeB. Rajendran
AppellantPetitioner
RespondentRespondent
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.
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.