Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971,
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    A.Sankar v. V.Kumar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    DATED: 06.06.2022

    CORAM:

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

    Cont.P.No.818 of 2022 and

    Sub.Appl.No.174 of 2022

    A.Sankar ...Petitioner Vs.

    V.Kumar ...Respondent Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, seeking to punish the respondent for committed willful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble High Court made in W.P.No.29464 of 2014 dated 18.01.2019.

    For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran

    For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji

    Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

    O R D E R

    Pursuant to the earlier orders passed by this Court on 27.04.2022, Mr.B.Kumar, Inspector, CBCID, SIT, Thiruchi (the then Inspector of Police, Omalur) and Mr.E.Anandakumar, Inspector, Theevattipatti Police Station, Omalur were present before this Court.

    1/4

    2.The Inspector of Police, who was present in person submitted that the summon was issued due to inadvertence and it was a mistake to have issued such a summon to the counsel who was representing the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate also produced the letter issued by the Inspector of Police to the counsel on 28.04.2022 wherein, the Inspector of Police has expressed regret for the inadvertent summon that was issued to the counsel.

    3.The statement made by the Inspector of Police and the letter dated 28.04.2022 are taken into consideration.

    4.The learned Government Advocate submitted that the representation made by the petitioner to remove his name from the history sheet was rejected by the proceedings of the Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 10.05.2022 and the same has also been served on the petitioner.

    2/4

    5.In view of the above, it is left open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings dated 10.05.2022, if he is aggrieved by the same, in the manner known to law.

    6.This Contempt Petition is accordingly, closed. Consequently, connected application is closed.

    06.06.2022

    kkn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking

    3/4

    N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

    KKN

    Cont.P.No.818 of 2022 and

    Sub.Appl.No.174 of 2022

    06.06.2022

    4/4

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    A.Sankar v. V.Kumar
    (Jun 6, 2022)