Dismissed

S.Thillaiammal v. Ponmudi

Madras HC27 Jan 2022CONT P(MD)/1309/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this short order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the contempt petition by closing the matter. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the second respondent regarding the pending arrears of family pension since no instructions were available from the first respondent.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is closed with liberty to move the second respondent regarding family pension arrears. No costs.

S.Thillaiammal Vs Ponmudi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CONT.P.(MD)No.1309 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2022

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH CONT.P.(MD)No.1309 of 2019

¶4

S.Thillaiammal ... Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

¶5

1.Ponmudi

¶6

2.Venkatrajan ... Contemnors/Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for the violation of the order of this Court dated 12.06.2018 in W.P(MD)No.12422 of 2018. Prayer in WP(MD). 12422/ 2018 :

¶8

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 revise the pay of the petitioners husband Late.T.Sivaji with effect from 01.09.2013 in terms of settlement entered under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act dated 13.04.2015 and to pay his arrears in retirement benefits including difference in gratuity, difference in family pension and difference in earned leave salary together with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum payable from 06.03.2014 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For R1 : Mr.P.Balasubramanian Standing Counsel

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Mr.P.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that order of this Court dated 12.06.2018 has been complied and as regards arrears of family pension is concerned, no instructions are available.

¶12

Mr.Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner concurs with the above and seeks liberty to move the second respondent in this regard.

¶13

This Contempt Petition is closed granting liberty as aforesaid. No costs.

¶14

Sd/-

¶15

Assistant Registrar (AD-I)

¶16

// True Copy //

¶17

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

1/2

¶21

CONT.P.(MD)No.1309 of 2019

¶22

Note : 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.

¶23

¶24

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam.

¶25

2.The Administrator, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Chennai – 2.

¶26

+1 CC to M/s.A.RAHUL, Advocate ( SR-2857[F] dated 28/01/2022 )

¶27

+1 CC to M/s.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-2914[F] dated 28/01/2022 )

¶28

Cont.P.(MD) No.1309 of 2019 27.01.2022

¶29

TP(CO)

¶30

KB(14.02.2022) 2P 5C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

S.Thillaiammal v. Ponmudi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thillaiammal v. Ponmudi

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

Rajendran, Vs the Registrar of Cooperative

K.Murugan Vs the Chief Engineer

A.Antonysamy, Vs the District Elementary

S.Lilly Joseph Mary Vs Syed Muzammil Abbas

R.Krishnan, Vs the Director of Medical

S.Saravanan Vs Supriya Sahu