Baby v. Soundarrajan
Case brief
What is this about?
Contempt petition challenging alleged non-compliance of an order granting pension and gratuity arrears. Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding quantum cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings and closed the application.
What did the court decide?
Contempt application closed with liberty to petitioners to work out remedy; respondent directed to consider future representations within four weeks.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.03.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
Contempt Petition No.994 of 2014
1.Baby 2.K.Kavitha 3.B.Senthilkumar .. Petitioners Vs Mr.Soundarrajan The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri. ... Respondent Contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 20.04.2011 made in W.P.No.32435 of 2003.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnaswamy
For Respondent : Mr.P.Paramasivadoss O R D E R
Alleging that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32435 of 2003, dated 20.04.2011, has not been
complied with, the present contempt application has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can adjudicate on disputed quantum of gratuity arrears in contempt proceedings.
What procedure to adopt when the respondent claims full compliance with a prior order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Baby
- petitioner
K.Kavitha
- petitioner
B.Senthilkumar
- respondent
Soundarrajan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court