← Library
Madras High CourtCONT P/2229/2018closed

M.Kesavan v. R. Rajakirubakaran

2019-01-10Honourable Mr Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.01.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Contempt Petition No.2229 of 2018

1. M.Kesavan Galaxy cables, No.19/46A-26M, Periyamman Nagar, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

2. V.Mohanakrishnan, Galaxy Cable Network, No.19/305, Periyamman Nagar, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

3. K.Senthilkumar, Rainbow Cables, No.76/206-A5, Nethaji Street, Ponnagar, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

4. S.Pappu, K.S.Satvision, No.27/61-A21, near ESI Hospital, Ponnagar Road, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

5. S.Lourdusamy, Golden cables, No.28/87-A1, Thiru Nagar, Hospital Colony, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

6. P.Udayakumar, Udaya Cables, No.B/26, Coolie Line, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

..Petitioners

Vs

1. R.Rajakirubakaran, General Manager, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited "Dugar Towers,, 6th Floor, Old No.34, New No.123, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2. K.Balaji, Special Tahsildar, Arasu cable TV, Collectorate, Salem.

...Respondents

Contempt Petition filed under section11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for the willful disobedience of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.3522 of 2018 dated 16.02.2018 For Petitioners : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondents : Mr.Abdul Saleem

O R D E R

The present Contempt Petition is filed complaining that the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.3522 of 2018 dated 16.02.208 is violated.

2. This Court has granted an interim injunction restraining the 2nd respondent therein from allotting new local cable TV operators in the petitioners allotted local cable TV operators area.

3. After notice in the contempt petition, today, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, a communication issued by the Special Tahsildar/Deputy Manager, TACTV, Salem to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, Chennai, dated 04.10.2018 is placed before this Court, wherein it is stated that TACTV has not registered any new LCO in the particular area as per the directions of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the stand taken by the Special Tahsildar as stated supra, the said statement may be recorded and the Contempt Petition may be closed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that no new LCO is registered in the petitioners' area and therefore, the petitioners' apprehension is not well founded.

6. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and in view of the stand taken by the Special Tahsildar as stated supra, the Contempt Petition is closed by recording the above stand.

SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) vsi //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2019. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

PS/28/01/2019