Dismissed

S.Kannan v. J.Sukumar

Madras HC21 Feb 2020CONT P/134/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this short order, the High Court closed the contempt petition filed for disobedience of an interim order dismissing the claim for gratuity. The court observed that since the respondent was not obliged to grant the relief, the petition fails for lack of sufficient cause, questioning the petitioner to approach the proper forum.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is closed with a direction for the petitioner to approach the proper forum for the gratuity claim.

S.Kannan Vs J.Sukumar — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CONTEMPT PETITION No.134 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.02.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CONTEMPT PETITION No.134 of 2020

¶7

S.Kannan ... Petitioner Vs. J.Sukumar, The Superintending Engineer, CEDC/South-I, TANGEDCO, K.K.Nagar, 110 KV Sub-Station, Chennai-600 078. ... Respondent PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for having wilfully disobeyed the impugned order dated 20.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.25530 of 2019.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban For Respondent : M/s.Karthick Rajan, Standing Counsel for TNEB

¶9

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

1/4

¶13

CONTEMPT PETITION No.134 of 2020

¶14

having wilfully disobeyed the impugned order dated 20.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.25530 of 2019.

¶15

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the

¶16

order of this Court dated 20.09.2019 in W.P.No.25530 of 2019, the respondent

¶17

by proceedings dated 15.11.2019 released the following payments:-

¶18

3.Thought the above payments have been made, the Gratuity amount

¶19

of the petitioner has not been paid and further there is no reason has been given

¶20

by the respondent for non-payment of the gratuity amount. Hence, the act of the respondent amounts to disobedience of the order of this Court.

¶21

4.M/s.Karthick Rajan, learned Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu

¶22

Electricity Board would submit that the respondent has considered the

¶23

representations of the petitioner and settled all eligible terminal benefits by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

2/4

¶25

CONTEMPT PETITION No.134 of 2020

¶26

proceedings dated 15.11.2019 as per the order of this Court. He would further submit that the petitioner is not eligible to get gratuity amount and it is a separate issue of the petitioner to canvass before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law.

¶27

5.Recording the aforesaid submission, the Contempt Petition is
closed. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is open to him to work out his
remedy before the proper forum for necessary relief in the manner recognized
by law.
SD/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
vv2
//Certified to be true copy//

¶28

Dated at Madras this the day of 2020.

¶29

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶30

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶31

SMI/16/06/2020

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

CONTEMPT PETITION No.134 of 2020

¶35

¶36

The Superintending Engineer, CEDC/South-I, TANGEDCO, K.K.Nagar, 110 KV Sub-Station, Chennai-600 078.

¶37

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

¶38

4/4

S.Kannan v. J.Sukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kannan v. J.Sukumar

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.S.Raja Vs State Rep by

B.Murugan Vs State Rep.by

Poonsolai Vs Vadivelu

B.K.Pal, S/O.Late.Shri.T.R.Pal Vs the Deputy Registrar of

Nandhakumar Vs Dharanitharan, S/O.Ramasamy

R.Jayachandran Vs the Inspector of Police