C.Balasubramanian v. Arumugam
Case brief
What is this about?
A short order where the petitioner challenged the respondent's claim of compliance with a previous pension-related order due to alleged calculation discrepancies. The court observed the petitioner is free to challenge the calculation differently and closed the petition without costs.
What did the court decide?
Contempt Petition closed without costs with liberty to challenge calculation differences elsewhere.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cont.P.(MD) No.1230 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Cont.P.(MD) No.1230 of 2022
C.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner
versus
- Mr.Arumugam, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai Division, Bye Pass Road, Madurai – 625 016.
- Mr.Elangovan, General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai Region, Bye Pass Road, Madurai – 625 016.
- Mrs.Bhama, Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport CorporationEmployees Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents
1/4
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents have complied with the order dated 05.01.2022 passed in W.P.(MD)No.63 of 2022 regarding pension calculation.
Whether the difference in calculation claimed by the petitioner warrants punishment for contempt.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
C.Balasubramanian
- respondent
Mr.Arumugam
- respondent
Mr.Elangovan
- respondent
Mrs.Bhama
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court