Disposed

K.Subramanian, v. Mr.Rengarajan

Madras HC7 Feb 2018CONT P(MD)/1578/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court closed a contempt petition filed for wilful disobedience of an order directing payment of retirement benefits. The court recorded submissions that dues would be calculated and paid within two months, granting liberty to revive the petition in case of non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; liberty granted to revive upon non-compliance of payment within two months.

K.Subramanian, Vs Mr.Rengarajan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.02.2018 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶4

Contempt Petition No.1578 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.17930 of 2015

¶5

K.Subramanian ..Petitioner/Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.R.Rengarajan

¶8

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.

¶9

2.Arumugam Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust, Tiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. .. Respondents/Contemnors

¶10

Contempt Petition filed under section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents herein under Contempt of Court for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 30.11.20156 passed in W.P.(MD)No.17930 of 2015 .

¶11

Prayer in WP(MD)No.17930 of 2015:-

¶12

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to settle retirement benefits of the petitioner including gratuity, commuted value of pension, leave salary and all other attendant benefits with interest at the rate of 18% per annum within the time that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and further directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the belated payment of provident fund, Employees social protection scheme amount and refund of Institute of road transport contribution amount within the time limit that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul

¶14

For R-1 : Mr.D.Sivaraman For R-2 : Mr.A.P.Muthupandian O R D E R

¶15

The contempt petition has been filed to commit and punish the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents for their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.17930 of 2015 , dated 30.11.2015.

¶16

¶17

Heard Mr.Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the first contemnor and Mr.A.P.Muthupandian, learned counsel for the second contemnor.

¶18

3.The petitioner claims that all the terminal benefits have already been paid to the petitioner. However, interest on commutation and pay revision arrears have not been paid.

¶19

4.The learned counsel for the contemnors on instructions would submit that the amount due and payable if any shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of noncompliance, the petitioner can revive the contempt petition.

¶20

5.Recording the above submission, this contempt petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to revive the contempt petition in case of non-compliance.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(ADI)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.R.Rengarjan,

¶27

The Managing Director,

¶28

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam.

¶29

2.Arumugam,

¶30

The Administrator,

¶31

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust, Tiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶32

+One cc to Mr.D.Sivaraman, Advocate, SR.No.47078 +One cc to M/s.A.Rahul, Advocate, SR.No.47497

¶33

rj2

¶34

RL/5C/2P/SKN/RSK/SAR1/27/2/2018

¶35

Contempt Petition No.1578 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.17930 of 2015 07.02.2018

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Subramanian, v. Mr.Rengarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subramanian, v. Mr.Rengarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Perumal Vs Mr.Muthukrishnan

M.Mariappan, Special Grade Vs Mr.R.Muthukrishnan

P.Pandian,S/O.Ponnaiah, Vs Mr.R.Muthukrishnan

Seemaisamy Vs Mr.R.Rengarajan

S.Palsamy Vs Mr.K.Chellamuthu

K.Balan, S/O.Karuppa Pillai, Vs Mr.Rengarajan