1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.376 OF 2011 ************ V.K.Govindan, S/o.Krishnaswamy Naidu, Flat No.43,Kainoor Kandhigai, Kumbinipettai (P.O.) Sholingur Road, Arakonam – 631 003. ... Petitioner Vs N.S.Palaniappan The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, SIDCO, Corporate Office, Thiru-Vi-Ka-Industrial Estate, Guindy Head Office,Chennai-600 032. ... Respondent Contempt Petition praying that this Court be pleased to punish the respondent for contempt of Court in wilfully and deliberately flouting and disobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 08/07/2010 and made in Cont.Petn.No.623 of 2009. The above Contempt Petition coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of M/s.Achari & Antoni Associates, Advocate for the petitioner herein; and of Mr.B.Manoharan, Advocate for the respondent herein; and upon reading the petition and affidavit of V.K.Govindan, filed herein; the Court made the following order:- Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the petitioner has been informed about the land cost to be paid by the petitioner, for the purpose of registration of the sale deed in question. It is for the petitioner to challenge the said communication, if he is aggrieved by the same. However, the respondent has not committed wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 08.07.2010. 3. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondent for contempt of court, as prayed for by the petitioner. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the communication of the respondent directing him to pay the enhanced land cost, for the purpose of registering the sale deed in question. No cost. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru M.YUSUF EQBAL, The Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, this the 29th day of March, 2011. SD/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2011. COURT OFFICER (O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the orders/judgments/Decrees in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Cns. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.376/2011 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN ORDER DATED : 29/03/2011 FOR APPROVAL :06/06/2011 APPROVED ON : 06/06/2011 Copy to: N.S.Palaniappan The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, SIDCO, Corporate Office, Thiru-Vi-Ka-Industrial Estate, Guindy Head Office, Chennai-600 032. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/