Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for wilful disobedience to the order passed by this Court in WA.No.157 of 2013 dated 06.12.2013 and punish him accordingly.) Dr.P. Devadass, J. 1. The appellant, in WA.No.157 of 2013, seeks to punish the respondent, namely, Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for his wilful disobedience to this Court's order dated 06.12.2013. 2. In 1964, the petitioner was born with multiple disabilities more particularly 'Cerebral palsy'. He passed B.A.(English), M.A.(English) and also certain Diploma exams. He made representations to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for employment. It was forwarded to the Vice-Chancellors of Madras and Madurai Kamaraj Universities. On 15.07.1998, he was appointed on consolidated pay of Rs.2,500/- per month in Madurai Kamaraj University. Subsequently, he sought for regular appointment in the light of Persons with Disabilitie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: This contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondents for the wilful disobedience of the orders of this Honourable Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8687 of 2015 dated 05.08.2015.) 1. This contempt petition has been filed for punishing the respondents for the wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8687 of 2015 dated 05.08.2015. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, petitioner enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed on 15.10.2015. A copy of the closure report has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. 3. In view of the above submission, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: This contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondent herein for wilfully disobeying the orders dated 31.07.2015 made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14696 of 2015 on the file of this Court.) 1. This contempt petition has been filed for punishing the respondent herein for wilfully disobeying the orders of this Court dated 31.07.2015 made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14696 of 2015. 2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 31.07.2015, a case in Crime No.155 of 2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 506(ii) IPC has been registered on 15.02.2016. 3. In view of the above submission, this Court is of the view that nothing survives for further adjudication in this Contempt Petition. Hence, the Contempt Petition is closed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: This contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the Respondents for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Honourable Court made in Crl.O.P(MD).No.5847 of 2006 dated 24.08.2006.) 1. This contempt petition has been filed for punishing the respondents for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court made in Crl.O.P(MD).No.5847 of 2006 dated 24.08.2006. 2. In Crl.O.P(MD).No.5847 of 2006, this Court passed the following order on 24.08.2006: The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai is directed to entrust the investigation in R.No.509/2001 on his file to the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai who shall nominate a Deputy Superintendent of Police under his control for investigation of this case. 3. The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai has sent a report dated 26.10.2015, which is as follows: I submit that as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court 1st cited in the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(3)ALD588; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)92; 1997(3)ALT328; 1997(2)APLJ54; 1997CriLJ3333
B.S. Raikote, J.1. This Contempt Case is taken up on the file on the basis of the report submitted by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda. According to the report a complaint was given by Tammisetti Yedukondalu, PW 4 on 20-8-1994 under Section 97 of Cr.P.C. alleging that his two sons Sri T. Hari Babu and Sri T. Srinu were illegally detained in old Guntur Police Station. The said complaint was registered in Crl.M.P. No. 2368 of 1994 and an Advocate Commissioner Sri M. Kameshwar Rao, PW 1, was appointed with a search warrant to inspect the lock up at the Police Station premises of the Old Guntur Police Station, and Sri D. V. Ramana Rao, Junior Assistant of the same Court was directed to assist the Advocate Commissioner in executing the search warrant issued by that court. It is further stated in the report that the Advocate Commissioner reported to the Magistrate that they were assaulted and restrained from executing the search warrant and the two sons of the petitioner were found i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT729
ORDERP.L.N. Sarma, J.1. This matter has been placed before us on Office note as to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal sought to be filed by the appellants.2. The relevant facts are as follows: Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 16523 of 1991 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the settlement arrived at dated 26-10-1991 entered into by the respondents with the Union under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Officer - cum - Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on 20-4-1992 in the following terms:'In view of the above, there will be a direction that the respondents,shall consider the claims of the petitioners for appointment as Helpers in terms of the Settlement dated 26-10-1991 which the respondents had entered into with the Trade Union representing the petitioners. I make it absolutely clear that I am not p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CONT.CAS(C) 590/2015 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Standing Counsel (Civil) with Mr.Gautam Narayan, ASC Versus MUKESH KUMAR MEENA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC, Mr.Waize Ali Noor, Mr.Vidur Mohan, Mr.Prateek Dhanda, Mr.Pranav Agrawal, Ms.Rajul Jain, Advocates for R1 & R2 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH ORDER1104.2017 1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with a prayer to punish the... RESPONDENTS herein.2. The allegation is that the... RESPONDENTS had violated the order passed by this Court dated 26.09.2015 in W.P.(C) No.5888/2015.3. The said writ petition was filed by the... Petitioner herein/Government of NCT of Delhi challenging the Notifications dated 21.05.2015 and 23.07.2014 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. The grievance in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2009Kant86; ILR2009KAR378; 2009(2)KLJ444; 2009(2)AIRKarR453; AIR2009Kar86; 2009Cri.LJNOC612
ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. This contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act'), to take action for disobeying the Award/order dated 02.05.08 passed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Departmental Arbitrator, in Dispute NoJRD/UBF/10064/2005-06 and to punish the accused.2. Briefly stated, the facts which have led to the filing of this contempt petition are as follows:The complainant was admitted as an Associate member of the Bhavasara Kshatriya Co-operative Society Ltd. Bangalore - 53 (Society', for short) in the year 1991. He represented to the Society on 15.10.03 for regular membership, on which no action was taken. Consequently he filed a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'Societies Act') with a prayer to direct the Society to admit him as a regular member. The said dispute which was referred for adjudication, was contested by the Society and the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These CCCs (Civil) are filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to take appropriate proceedings against the accused and punish them according to law for the deliberate disobedience of the order dated 25.9.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.9654-9666/2013, etc.) Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. In these cases filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the complainants have sought for punishing the accused on the ground of disobedience of the order in W.P.Nos.9654 to 9666/2013 dated 25.9.2013. 2. The complainants have filed the aforesaid writ petitions seeking a direction to quash the circular dated 20.7.2012 and for certain other reliefs. On 1.3.2013, this Court while issuing emergent notice to the respondents directed them not to terminate the services of the petitioners/complainants, if they are not yet terminated. On 25.9.2013, learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice on behalf of the State of Karnataka-respondent No.2 therei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the contemnor/respondent for the willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.16875 of 2013 dated 11.02.2014.) Common Order 1. The petitioners have come forward with these Contempt Petitions stating that this Court by an order dated 11.02.2014 directed the respondents to execute the Non-bailable warrant issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial level) No.1, Nagercoil, in C.C.Nos.26 of 2012 and C.C.No.27 of 2012 dated 19.06.2012 . But, the contemnors have not shown any interest to execute the warrant and arrest the accused. Hence, the petitioner filed these contempt petitions. This court issued contempt notice on 30.07.2014. Even then the contemnors did not take any steps, and thereby, they have wilfulluy disobeyed the order of this Court. Hence, he prays for punishing the contemnors. 2. Today the second contemnor is ...
Tag this Judgment!