Disposed¶24

I.Vellaichamy v. R.Balu

Madras HC4 Jun 2026CONT P(MD)/782/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Singaram v. R.Balu (Authorized Officer, United India Insurance Company Ltd.), Cont.P.(MD)No.782 of 2026 in W.A.(MD)No.774 of 2021, Madras High Court Madurai Bench, decided 04.06.2026; contempt of court; Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; alleged wilful disobedience of Division Bench order dated 23.06.2025; insurance payment Rs.95,508/- credited to petitioner's account; payable amount not quantified by Single Judge or Division Bench; liberty to appeal before State Level Empowered Committee or Consumer Forum; contempt petition closed without punishment.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the State Level Empowered Committee, move the jurisdictional Consumer Forum, or invoke any other appropriate remedy regarding the adequacy of the amount credited. ¶24

I.Vellaichamy Vs R.Balu — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD)No.782 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

Cont.P.(MD)No.782 of 2026 in

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.774 of 2021

Singaram

... Petitioner

Vs.

R.Balu, Authorized Officer, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Officer VI, PLA Rathna Towers, 5th Floor, No.212, Anna Salai, Chennai-6. ... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, to punish the Contemnor/Appellant for the deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by this Honourable Court in WA(MD) No.774 of 2021.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram For Respondent : Mr.A.Shajahan

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

Cont.P.(MD)No.782 of 2026

¶17

ORDER (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

2.The petitioner contends that the insurance company has not honored this Court's direction.

¶20

3.The learned standing counsel for the insurance company points out that a sum of Rs.95,508/- has already been credited to the petitioner's account. According to the learned standing counsel, this is the eligible amount. Admittedly, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Hon'ble Division Bench quantified the amount payable to the petitioner. If according to the petitioner, the amount now credited by the insurance company is inadequate or not in consonance with the government order, it is open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the State Level Empowered Committee or move the jurisdictional Consumer Forum or invoke any other appropriate remedy.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

Cont.P.(MD)No.782 of 2026

¶24

4.With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, this contempt petition

¶25

is closed.

¶26

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.P. J.,) 04.06.2026