Disposed

Balakrishnan v. Pandi

Madras HC20 Feb 2018CONT P(MD)/634/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a contempt petition filed for alleged disobedience of an order in W.P. No. 8347 of 2010 requiring the respondent to reinstate the petitioner. The contemnor submitted he had obtained board approval and undertook compliance within four weeks, leading the court to close the petition with liberty to revive.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with liberty to revive in event of non-compliance.

Balakrishnan Vs Pandi — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶6

Contempt Petition (MD) No.634 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.8347 of 2010

¶7

Balakrishnan ..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr.Pandi General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division, Trichy Region, Periya Milaguparai, Collector Officer Road, Trichirappalli.

¶10

.. Contemnor

¶11

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor for his disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8347 of 2010 dated 28.08.2014.

¶12

Prayer in WP(MD). 8347/ 2010 :

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in I.D.No.144/06 and Quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full backwages.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan

¶15

For Contemnor : Mr.D.Sivaraman

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Court by the order, dated 28.08.2014 allowed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.8347 of 2010 by setting aside the order of dismissal made by the first respondent and issued a direction to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service within https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

¶18

¶19

2.Contending that there is no compliance of the order and the conduct exhibited by the respondent amounted to willfull disobedience to the order passed by this Court, this Contempt Petition has been filed.

¶20

3.Heard Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor.

¶21

4.The learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor would submit that the board approval has already been obtained by the respondent and he undertakes that the respondent will comply with the order within four weeks. In case of non-compliance, the petitioner can revive the contempt application.

¶22

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

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

1 cc TO Mr.D.Sivaraman , Advocate in SR No. 50067

¶28

rj2

¶29

AE/JC/SAR2/23.03.2018/2P/2C

¶30

Contempt Petition (MD) No.634 of 2016 20.02.2018

¶31

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

Balakrishnan v. Pandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishnan v. Pandi

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

Seemaisamy Vs Mr.R.Rengarajan

S.Palsamy Vs Mr.K.Chellamuthu

K.Subramanian, Vs Mr.Rengarajan

M/S New India Assurance Vs T. Vijaya

A.Senthil Kumar Vs Rengaraj

R.Thangaraj Vs R.Rengarajan