Disposed

Munusamy, v. Thiru.Udhayachandran, IAS

Madras HC26 Sept 2023CONT P/2064/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 11 contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a previous order due to alleged non-reimbursement of medical expenses, the court closed the matter. The petitioner failed to file a breakup of the claimed sum, and respondents did not provide discharge summaries, leaving the grievance unresolved.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition stands closed. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh contempt petition if discrepancies are found after submitting a breakup.

Munusamy, Vs Thiru.Udhayachandran, IAS — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Cont.P.No.2064 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Cont.P.No.2064 of 2022

Munusamy

... Petitioner

Versus

1.Udhayachandran, I.A.S., Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.A.P.Usha Senior Divisional Manager The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office VI 5^th Floor, P.L.A.Rathna Towers No.212, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 006.

¶12

3.K.Vijayendra Pandian, I.A.S., The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts 2^nd Floor, Panagal Building Jeenish Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.

¶13

4.Dr.M.K.Ponnuraj

¶14

The Joint Director, Rural Health Service Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

¶15

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Cont.P.No.2064 of 2022

¶18

Prayer : - This petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 31.01.2022 passed in W.P.No.24524 of 2018.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondents for the willful disobedience of the order dated 31.01.2022 in W.P.No.24524 of 2018.

¶21

2.A sum of Rs.1,26,000/- had been paid to the petitioner herein and

¶22

the learned Special Government Pleader had also forwarded a copy of communication in this regard from the Commissioner of Treasuries, Chennai addressed to the Principal Secretary Finance (Health Insurance) Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner also admits receipt of a sum of Rs.1,26,000/-. However, the grievance is that the bill was for Rs.4,97,248/-. The Court had adjourned the matter asking upon the petitioner to give a breakup for the aforementioned sum of Rs.4,97,248/-.

¶23

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Cont.P.No.2064 of 2022

¶26

3.The breakup details have not been given. It is specifically contended

¶27

on behalf of the respondents that with respect to the treatment at Aishwaryam Hospital and in Fortis Hospital even the discharge summary has not been given by the petitioner.

¶28

4.In view of the above, this contempt petition stands closed. If the

¶29

petitioner is able to get the breakup details and finds that heads for which reimbursement should be given have not been given, the petitioner is always at liberty to file a fresh contempt petition.

¶30

26.09.2023

¶31

smv

¶32

Neutral Citiation : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶33

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Cont.P.No.2064 of 2022

¶36

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶37

smv

¶38

Cont.P.No.2064 of 2022

¶39

26.09.2023

¶40

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Munusamy, v. Thiru.Udhayachandran, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munusamy, v. Thiru.Udhayachandran, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Alagirisamy Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

M.Pandiyan Vs The Chairman

Ekgambaram, S/o.chellan Vs The Commissioner and Director

Mr.G.Velmurugan, Vs The Tamil Nadu State

S.Santhanakrishnan, Vs Treasury Officer

N.Jayalakshmi Vs Inspector General of