2014 INSC 0099
R. Subramaniam
v.
Murugappa Gounder
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P. SATHASIVAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL
Civil Appeal No. 1793 Of 2014 | 31-01-2014

1. Though the Respondents duly served with notice but are not represented by
counsel. Heard learned senior counsel for the Appellant.

2. Leave granted. The only grievance of the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the Appellant is that though the learned Single Judge accepted the
apology tendered by the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 herein, forwarded a
copy of the order passed in the contempt petition to the Principal Secretary and
the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, for initiating
appropriate action.

3. We have gone through the order dated 29-6-2012 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Murugappa Gounder Vs. S. Paramewaran (Contempt Petition
No. 30 of 2012, order dated 29-6-2012 (mad). In paras 20 and 21 the learned
Single Judge clearly accepted the "unconditional apology" tendered by
Respondents 1 and 3 therein. In spite of acceptance the learned Judge directed
the authority to take action against them. When the said order was challenged in
Contempt Appeal No. 3 of 2012, the Division Bench by its impugned order (R.
Subramaniam v. Murugappa Gounder, Contempt Appeal No. 3 of 2012, order
dated 27-7-2012 (Mad) confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal.

4. In the light of the fact that the persons concerned including the appellant
herein have made unconditional apology in the form of an affidavit and which
having been accepted by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that
further direction to the Department concerned for taking appropriate action is
neither permissible nor is warranted. Accordingly, the said direction as found in

1  SpotLaw
para 20 of the order of the learned Single Judge (supra) and the confirmation
order of the Division Bench (supra) are set aside.

5. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. No costs.

2  SpotLaw