Dismissed

S.Ramaraj v. Rajmohan

Madras HC1 Oct 2021CONT P(MD)/767/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held a contingency petting regarding non-compliance of a judgment in WP(MD) No. 18678 of 2020. The court recorded submission that the respondent corporation had settled the amount as per the Lok Adalat award and dismissed the contempt petition, leaving further challenge open elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; parties left at liberty to challenge proceedings in manner known to law.

S.Ramaraj Vs Rajmohan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD) No.767 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.10.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR Cont.P.(MD) No.767 of 2021

¶4

S.Ramaraj ... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Shri Rajmohan The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Periyamilaguparai, Trichy. ...Contemnors/3^rd Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the contemnor/respondent in accordance with law for their wilful disobedience of the order in W.P.(MD)No.18678 of 2020, dated 17.12.2020.

¶8

Prayer in WP(MD). 18678/ 2020 :

¶9

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court ( S-12 ) To issue a Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent to implement the order in Parvai .Tha . A.Po.Ka / Trichy / Pa.Pi- P3 / 301/ 2019 dated 08/03/2019 passed by the 3rd Respondent based on the order of the Honble Mega Lok Adalat on the file of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 08/12/2018 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to pa revised pension to the petitioner by taking into account petitioners entire service period rendered by him from 29/10/1986 to 31/10/2013 ( 26 Years and 11 Months ) and to pay arrears of pension , revised gratuity and all other retirement benefits without back wages payable to the petitioner .

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman, Standing Counsel.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the order dated 17.12.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.18678 of 2020.

¶14

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

¶15

1/2

¶16

Cont.P.(MD) No.767 of 2021

¶17

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has produced a copy of the proceedings of the Administrator of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Chennai in Ref.No.186782020/jmNghfCxepngh/r-2/2021-351, dated 09.09.2021, wherein it is stated that the respondent has settled the amount as per the award passed by the Lokadalat and the terms of the award of the Lokadalat has also been stated in the said proceeding.

¶18

However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has disputed the aforesaid proceedings.

¶19

The aforesaid proceedings is taken on record. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is open to him to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶20

In view of the above, this Contempt Petition is

¶21

closed.

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

vsm

¶26

Note :

¶27

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶28

¶29

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Periyamilaguparai,Trichy.

¶30

+1 CC to M/s.D.SIVARAMAN, Advocate (SR-30967[F] dated 01/10/2021 )

¶31

+1 CC to M/s.N.SUDHAGAR NAGARAJ, Advocate(SR-30983[F] dated 04/10/2021)

¶32

Cont.P.(MD) No.767 of 2021 01.10.2021

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RK (18/10/2021) 2P 4C

¶34

2/2

S.Ramaraj v. Rajmohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramaraj v. Rajmohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savithri.S Vs The Chief Educational Officer

Sathiyamoorthy. K Vs The District Collector

Pandiyarajan.P Vs the Directorate of School Education

R.Neelavathi Vs K.Ponmudi

K.Ganesan Vs Shri D. Jaisankar

T.R.Desikachary Vs Mr.Aneesh Sekhar I.A.S.