Madras High CourtCONT P/1973/2019dismissed

Selvi v. Swaraj

2020-02-11Honourable Mr Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.02.2020

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Selvi W/o.Sakthivel ... Petitioner .Vs.

Swaraj Branch Manager State Bank of India Tindivanam.

... Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, praying to punish the respondent for the disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.10553 of 2019 dated 15.04.2019. For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Suresh For Respondent :

Mr.S.Sethuraman

O R D E R

This Contempt Petition is filed by complaining that the order dated 15.04.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10553 of 2019 has not been complied with.

Page No. 1/3

2. Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Sethuraman, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner filed the above writ petition for issuing a mandamus to the respondent-Bank to grant loan under the "Prime Minister Mudra Loan Yojana Scheme". This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 15.04.2019 by directing the petitioner to approach the Bank with requisite documents in support of her claim within a period of two weeks and with further direction to the Bank to consider the claim and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter.

4. This contempt petition is filed by complaining that the above direction has not been complied with.

5. The respondent/Bank filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that though the petitioner was informed through a letter dated 19.08.2019 to furnish the documents referred to therein to consider her application, till date the petitioner has not filed/produced such documents. It is seen that the said communication dated 19.08.2019 was sent by RPAD and the same was received by the petitioner on 03.09.2019. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner, in fact, has not complied with the first limb of the order and Page No. 2/3

therefore, she is not entitled to complain as though the respondent/Bank has not complied with the second limb of the order.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though she has written a letter to the respondent, it was returned with endorsement "left".

7. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that the contempt petition is not maintainable and thus, the same is dismissed. SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) mk //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2020. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

SMI/10.03.2020 To The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tindivanam.

Page No. 3/3