Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.PALANIKUMARASAMY versus MR.A.NARAYANAMOORTHY

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.Palanikumarasamy v. Mr.A.Narayanamoorthy - Cont.Petition.No.86 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1374 (10 April 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 10/04/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

Cont.Petition.No.86 of 2007

IN

W.P.No.1512 of 2006

S.Palanikumarasamy .... Petitioner

-Vs-

Mr.A.Narayanamoorthy,

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Land Acquisition Officer of

Ring Road Scheme,

Collector's Building,

Madurai - 20 .... Respondent

Prayer

This Contempt Petition filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent/second respondent herein for his wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1512 of 2006, dated 14.09.2006.

For petitioner .. Mr.K.B.Venkatesh

For respondent .. Mr.K.Bhaskaran, A.G.P :ORDER



This Contempt Petition filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent herein for his wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1512 of 2006, dated 14.09.2006.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondent.

3.It is stated by the petitioner that his land at Avaniapuram Village in Madurai South Taluk in Survey No.200/2, with an extent of 0.65.0 hectare, had been acquired by the respondent, pursuant to the notification, dated 31.07.1990, in award No.2/93 (R.O.C.No.219/87). The award amount of Rs.20,309/- had been deposited in the revenue deposit by the respondent. The petitioner had filed the writ petition in W.P.No.1512 of 2006 for the release of the award amount. This Court, by its order, dated 14.09.2006, had directed the second respondent to pay the award amount of Rs.20,309/- to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is submitted that the second respondent had not complied with the said order within the time specified.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the order of this court, dated 14.09.2006, has been complied with and the award amount has also been paid to the petitioner. Based on the said submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent, the Contempt Petition is closed.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.