Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

R. SUBRAMANIAM versus MURUGAPPA GOUNDER AND ORS.

Decided
31 January 2014
Judges listed
P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, M.Y. EQBAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 619 ยท 2014 INSC 917

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Though the respondents duly served with notice but are not represented by counsel.

p. 619, margin G

2

Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant.

p. 619, margin G

3

Leave granted.

p. 620, margin A

4

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 ttile Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, for initiating appropriate action.

p. 620, margin A

5

We have gone through the order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge ih Contempt Petition No. 30 of 2012. In Para 20 and 21 the learned Single Judge clearly accepted the 'unconditional apology' t~ndered by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 therein. In spite of acceptance directed the authority to take action against them. When the said order was challenged in the Contempt Appeal Nd. 3 of 2012, the Division Bench by its impugned order confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal.

p. 620, margin B

6

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 having been accepted by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that further direction to the Department concerned for appropriate action neither permissible nor is warranted. Accordingly, the said direction as found .in para 20 of the order of thf:!! learned Single Judge and the confirmation order of Division Hench are set aside.

p. 620, margin C

7

The appeal is allowed on the above terms. No cost.. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 620, margin F