01Facts
The petitioner filed a contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging that the respondents had wilfully failed to comply with the High Court’s order dated 24 June 2025 in W.P. No. 22332 of 2025
p. 1At the hearing, counsel for the second respondent submitted that the directions had been complied with by an order dated 15 October 2026, a copy of which had been furnished to the petitioner’s counsel
p. 2 · ¶ 202Issues
i.Whether the respondents’ alleged non-compliance with the order dated 24 June 2025 warranted action for contempt
p. 1ii.Whether the contempt petition should be closed in light of the respondents’ submission that they had complied with the directions
p. 2 · ¶ 2–303Law Applied
The petition was brought under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act
p. 1The order does not set out or apply any further statutory test, legal principle, or precedent concerning contempt; it resolves the petition on the respondents’ submission that the court’s directions had been complied with
p. 2 · ¶ 2–3Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 11
04Reasoning
The Court recorded the second respondent’s submission that compliance had been effected through the order dated 15 October 2026.
p. 2 · ¶ 2–3On that basis, it closed the contempt petition.
p. 2 · ¶ 2–3The Court did not make a separate finding on whether the alleged non-compliance had been wilful or intentional
p. 2 · ¶ 2–305Holding
The contempt petition was closed after the Court recorded the submission that its earlier directions had been complied with.
p. 2 · ¶ 3The petitioner was given liberty to challenge the order dated 15 October 2026 in the manner known to law; no costs were ordered
p. 2 · ¶ 3Original Court PDF
G.ParthibanvsDr.M.Vallavar, IAS and another
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
