Case Note & Summary
A contempt petition was filed by the petitioners, Arunn N. K.R and Sivagami Marikani, represented through their power of attorney agent, against the District Collector of Chennai District and the Tahsildar of Sholinganallur Taluk. The petition alleged willful disobedience of a High Court order dated 13 March 2024 in WP.No.31176 of 2023. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners endorsed that the petitioners did not wish to pursue the contempt petition because the third respondent in a related writ petition, namely M/s. Mantri Technology Constellations Private Limited, was undergoing proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The petitioners had themselves filed a claim before the NCLT on 20 September 2024. The court observed that, in these circumstances, the contempt petition ought not to have been filed at all. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience of Court Order - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of order in WP 31176 of 2023 was not pursued by petitioners as the third respondent company in a related writ petition was before NCLT and petitioners had filed a claim before NCLT on 20.09.2024. Held, contempt petition ought not to have been filed and is dismissed as withdrawn. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Final Decision
Contempt petition dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 13
Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth
Mr. Y.V. Sri Hari, Mr. M.R. Gokulkrishnan
Arunn N. K.R and Sivagami Marikani
Rashmi Siddharth Zagade (District Collector, Chennai District) and Radhakrishnan (Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a High Court order.
Remedy Sought
Punishment of the respondents for contempt of court.
Filing Reason
Alleged non-compliance with the order dated 13 March 2024 in WP.No.31176 of 2023.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 13 March 2024 in WP.No.31176 of 2023.
Issues
Whether the contempt petition ought to be pursued in view of the availability of an alternative remedy before the NCLT, where the petitioners had already filed a claim.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners submitted that they did not wish to pursue the contempt petition because the third respondent in a related writ petition, M/s. Mantri Technology Constellations Private Limited, was before the NCLT, and the petitioners had filed a claim before the NCLT on 20 September 2024.
Judgment Excerpts
Mr.Y.V.Srihari, learned counsel on record for the petitioners, makes an endorsement to the effect that the petitioners does not pursue this contempt petition as the 3rd respondent M/s.Mantri Technology Constellations Private Limited in WP.No.31177 of 2023 is before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and in fact the petitioners have filed a claim before the NCLT on 20.09.2024.
In such circumstances, the present contempt petition itself ought to have not been filed. This contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
Procedural History
The contempt petition was filed before the Madras High Court alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 13 March 2024 in WP.No.31176 of 2023. On hearing, the petitioners' counsel endorsed that the petitioners did not wish to pursue the contempt petition because the third respondent in WP.No.31177 of 2023 was before the NCLT and the petitioners had filed a claim there. The court observed that the contempt petition ought not to have been filed and dismissed it as withdrawn with no costs on 5 March 2025.
