Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent herein for his deliberate and willful disobedience of the Order of this Honourable Court dated 02.06.2016 in WP.(MD).No.9718/2016 amounting to Contempt of Court under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. It appears that the respondent/contemnor had passed the order on 10.06.2016 in Na.Ka.No.1551/A3/2015, inter alia stating that the petitioner's petition dated 17.03.2016 was examined and apart from that, the petitioner was informed at the time of deployment, his request would be considered. 3. In the instant case on hand, it cannot be said that the respondent/contemnor had not considered the petition dated 17.03.2016. In fact, after examining the petitioner's petition dated 17.03.2016, the order came to be passed as stated supra. If at all the petitioner has a grievance against the order dated 10.06.2016 passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Sections 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, to punish the respondent for violation and non-compliance of the order dated 10.08.2015 in Crl.O.P.No.14400 of 2015.) 1. This contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.14400 of 2015 dated 10.08.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent. 3. Today, Mr.Mani, SSI, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur, is present before this Court. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, On instruction, submitted that the respondent police have registered a regular case in Crime No.207 of 2015 on 27.11.2015 for offences under Sections 384, 387, 506(ii) IPC. 5. Recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the contempt petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Respondent for his deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble Court made in WP (MD) No.18020 of 2014 dated 10/11/2014.) 1. It is represented on behalf of the respondent that a sum of Rs.92,500/- (Rupees Ninety Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) was paid in favour of the petitioner. To that effect, it is quite evident that the Government had issued G.O.(D).No.393, Revenue [LR.I(2)] Department, dated 13.08.2015, inter alia stating as under: 6. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District is directed to take necessary action to disburse the amount of Rs.92,500/- (Rupees Ninety Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) directly to Tmt.Bassalis, W/o. (Late) Rayappan, Aralvoimozhi Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. and in fact, the petitioner had acknowledged the same through a receipt. 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner was paid with a sum of Rs.92,500/- (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the Respondents herein for committing contempt of the order of this Court dated 10.06.2014 in W.P.No.14257 of 2014.) 1. The above Contempt Petition today came up before this Court when the respondent counsel informed to this Court stating that the respondent had conducted the enquiry and passed an impugned order on 24.08.2015 and a copy of the impugned order has been served on the writ petitioner. As such vide this Court's direction passed in W.P.No.14257 of 2014, dated 10.06.2014 has been duly complied with. The respondents have not committed any willful disobedience of this Court Order. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above Contempt Petition. 2. The very Competent Counsel Miss.M.Poornima submits that the writ petitioners have received a copy of the impugned order. Further, she is not interested to proceed with the contempt petition. To that affect the highly competent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Common Prayer:Contempt Petitions filed to initiate Contempt Proceedings under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the Respondent for wilfully disobeying the order dated 30.11.2015, passed in W.P(MD)No.21312 of 2015.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Respondent/Contemnor Mr.S.Kannabiran, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District is present today before this Court. 3. At this stage, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent/Contemnor brings it to the notice of this Court that the order passed in the main Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.21312 of 2015, dated 30.11.2015 was complied with. This fact is not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. Recording the aforesaid fact, the Contempt Petition is closed, since nothing survives for adjudication in the Contempt Petition. The presence of Mr.S.Kannabiran,Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District is dispensed with....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Common Prayer:Contempt Petitions filed to initiate Contempt Proceedings under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the Contemnor/Respondent for the willful disobeyance of the order of this Court passed in W.P(MD)No.20650 of 2014, dated 18.12.2014.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. It comes to be known that the Revenue Tahsildar by means of proceedings, dated 5.2.2016, had passed an order rejecting the request for change of patta, made by the Petitioner/Vembu Ammal. In fact, the Revenue Tahsildar, Lalgudi, in the order dated 5.2.2016 had referred to this Court's order, dated 18.12.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.18.12.2014.As such, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 18.12.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.20650 of 2014 has been complied with by the Respondent/Contemnor. If at all, the Petitioner has a grievance against the order, dated 5.2.2016 passed by the Revenue Tahsildar, Lalgudi, then it is for the Petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent forum in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayers: in C.P.No.1464 of 2015: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for their wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 in W.P.(MD) No.17364 of 2015 dated 28.09.2015. W.P.No.17364 of 2015: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution if India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned transfer order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.5336/A1/2015, dated 14.09.2015 and the consequential relieving order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.162/15, dated 16.09.2015, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to retain the petitioner in the 2nd respondent school.) Common Order 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the interim order passed in W.P.(MD) No.17364 of 2015 was complied with and hence, the contempt petition may be closed. 2. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for the wilful disobedience of the order dated 26.03.2015 by this Court passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.4347 of 2015.) 1. It is represented by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent that the order passed by this Court has been complied with by registering F.I.R for the offence under Section 379 IPC (NH) in Crime No.225 of 2015 dated 06.06.2014 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Recording the submissions made by both sides, the contempt petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. 09.2018 Date of decision :18. 12.2018 + CCP(O) 5/2017 & CCP(O) 35/2017 in ARB.A. 14/2015 MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr.K.Dutta and Mr.Simran Mehta, versus Advs. BPL LTD & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv.with Mr.Dhananjay Joshi, Mr.G.Umapathy, Ms.R.Mekhala and Mr.Aditya Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 The appellant has filed the above petitions under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and imposition of punishment on the respondents for having willfully violated the injunction order dated 23.08.2013 passed by this Court in Arb.P. No.362/2013 (renumbered as Arb. Appeal No.14/2015).2. This Court by the order dated 23.08.2013 had restrained M/s BPL Ltd. from creating any third party interest in the balance 51% shares held by it in BPL Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR1324; 2008CriLJ3249
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 by Shri. Balbhim Ramchandra Kedar, Civil Judge Junior Division & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon dated 11-5-2007. By an order dated 19-6-2007 Shri. V.N. Damle, learned Counsel was appointed as amicus curiae and notice was issued to respondent No. 2 as to why action under Contempt of Courts Act be not taken against the contemner. The contemner was directed to remain personally present in this Court on 16-7-2007. By an order dated 13th August 2007 the contempt petition was admitted and it was set down for hearing on 1-10-2007.2. By an order dated 28th February 2008 charge was framed against the contemner, a practising Advocate, in the presence of the contemner. The contemner denied the charge against him and pleaded not guilty. The first charge against the contemner is that on 10-7-2006 at Bhusawal the contemner had already filed a criminal complaint bearing C...
Tag this Judgment!