S. Berkmans v. Mohan
Case brief
What is this about?
The court closed the contempt petition filed for non-compliance with an order directing payment of pension as petitioner eventually received arrears via a subsequent office order, though petitioner retained right to re-file if payment is not made.
What did the court decide?
Contempt case closed; liberty to reopen if payment under office order dated 25.09.2023 is not made.
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.678 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CONT.P.(MD)No.678 of 2023
S.Berkmans
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mohan
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
Tirunelveli.
2.Merlin Jayanthi
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents are in wilful disobedience of the order directing payment of pension and arrears of salary.
Whether the contempt proceedings should be closed upon issuance of a compliance order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S. Berkmans
- respondent
Mohan
- respondent
Merlin Jayanthi
- respondent
Venkatraj
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court