V.M.Thulasingam v. Sekher Enterprises

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.08.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and Sub Application (OS) No.640 of 2022 V.M.Thulasingam ... Petitioner Vs.

M/s.Sekher Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor T.Rajashekher, No.116, Srivari Baba Nagar, Redembadu Road, Kummidipoondi - 601 201, Thiruvallur District.

... Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for committing contempt of Court by willful disobedience of the interim order passed by this Court dated 19.09.2018, made in W.P.No.9851 of 2018.

For Petitioner : M/s.Rukmani Venugopalan For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Seetharaman

O R D E R

The 3rd respondent in the writ petition, who is the father of the Proprietor of the writ petitioner firm, has filed this Contempt Petition, alleging disobedience of the interim order passed by this Court, dated 19.09.2018, in W.P.No.9851 of 2018.

2.The contemnor/writ petitioner filed the writ petition for mandamus directing the respondents therein to release the supply of motor sput (petrol) to the dispensing pump at No.245, GNT Road, Gummudipoondi Town, Thiruvallur District, for the price money remitted by the writ petitioner and to allow the writ petitioner to continue to run the business pending reconstitution. 3.During the pendency of the writ petition, there was a compromise between the writ petitioner/son and the contempt petitioner/father. In view of the compromise, this Court, as an interim arrangement, by order dated 19.09.2018, in W.P.No.9851 of 2018, directed the Petroleum authorities to supply petroleum products to the writ petitioner. However, now, the

contempt petitioner/father claims that the settlement was violated by the writ petitioner/son. The fact remains that, in view of the dispute between the contempt petitioner/father and the contemnor/son, the Petroleum authorities are not supplying petroleum products to the writ petitioner firm. Hence, the present Contempt Petition is filed.

4.If there is any violation of the terms of settlement between the partners, it is for them to work out their remedy separately in the manner known to law, but not by way of filing a Contempt Petition before this Court. There is no scope for entertaining a Contempt Petition in this regard. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is closed. Consequently, connected application is closed.

16.08.2024 mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-Speaking order M. DHANDAPANI, J.

mkn 16.08.2024