G.Mari v. Ponmudi
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner confirmed that retirement benefits and interest due under the operative order in W.P.(MD).No.16033 of 2018 were computed and paid. Consequently, this contempt petition was closed.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petition closed without any punishment or reliefs being granted.
What the court decided
Cont.P.(MD).No.921 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Cont.P.(MD).No.921 of 2019 in W.P.(MD).No.16033 of 2018
G.Mari ... Petitioner/ Petitioner
vs.
1.Mr.Ponmudi, Managing Director, The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam.
2.Mr.K.Gunasekaran (in-charge), General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi.
3.Mr.Venkatarajan, Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai -2. ... Respondents
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
G. Mari
- respondent
Mr. Ponmudi
- respondent
Mr. K. Gunasekaran
- respondent
Mr. Venkatarajan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court