M.Valliammal Vs. M.Kaliamoorthy

M.Valliammal vs M.Kaliamoorthy

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 20, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/926521

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/926521
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M.Venugopal, J.
Decided On: Feb 20, 2012
Case Number: CONTEMPT PETITION No.126 of 2011
Subject: Contempt of Court

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Contempt of Court

Key legal issue: Contempt of Court
Acts & sections: Contempt of Courts Act, - Section 11

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Valliammal

Advocate Mr.K.Vasudevan, Adv.

Respondent

M.Kaliamoorthy

Advocate Mr.N.Vishagamurthy, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Contempt of Courts Act, - Section 11

Excerpt

contempt petition filed under section 11 of the contempt of courts act, to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of court for willful disobedience of the order passed in w.p.no.35672 of 2003 dated 04.02.2010.order1. mr.n.vishagamurthy, the learned government advocate informs this court that the order dated 04.02.2010 passed by this court in w.p.no.35672 of 2003 has been implemented and that a counter to that effect has also been filed by the 2nd respondent.2. per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement that 'contempt application may be closed without prejudice to claim arrears of salary'.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is entitled to claim the difference in salary which has arisen on account of wage revision from the year 2000 onwards.4. moreover, the learned counsel informs this court that the petitioner will work out her remedy of claiming the arrears of salary (dues, if any) by filing necessary claim petition before the competent forum.5. according to the learned government advocate, the petitioner has been issued with a cheque of rs.9,000/- dated 06.02.2012 towards her arrears of salary and also that by providing employment to her as temporary sweeper in panchayat, in the absence of existence of a community hall, the order dated 04.02.2010 passed in w.p.no.35672 of 2003 has been complied with.6. the aforesaid submission of the learned government advocate is hereby recorded and the contempt petition is closed by this court for the present, granting liberty to the petitioner to claim arrears of salary, if any (that has arisen due to purported revision of salary from the year 2000 onwards) before the competent forum, by filing necessary claim petition as per law.

Full Judgment

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.No.35672 of 2003 dated 04.02.2010.

ORDER

1. Mr.N.Vishagamurthy, the Learned Government Advocate informs this Court that the order dated 04.02.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.35672 of 2003 has been implemented and that a Counter to that effect has also been filed by the 2nd Respondent.

2. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made an endorsement that 'Contempt Application may be closed without prejudice to claim arrears of salary'.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the Petitioner is entitled to claim the difference in salary which has arisen on account of wage revision from the year 2000 onwards.

4. Moreover, the Learned Counsel informs this Court that the Petitioner will work out her remedy of claiming the arrears of salary (dues, if any) by filing necessary Claim Petition before the competent forum.

5. According to the Learned Government Advocate, the Petitioner has been issued with a cheque of Rs.9,000/- dated 06.02.2012 towards her arrears of salary and also that by providing employment to her as Temporary Sweeper in Panchayat, in the absence of existence of a Community Hall, the order dated 04.02.2010 passed in W.P.No.35672 of 2003 has been complied with.

6. The aforesaid submission of the Learned Government Advocate is hereby recorded and the Contempt Petition is closed by this Court for the present, granting liberty to the Petitioner to claim arrears of salary, if any (that has arisen due to purported revision of salary from the year 2000 onwards) before the Competent Forum, by filing necessary Claim Petition as per Law.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties M.Valliammal vs M.Kaliamoorthy Same Subject Contempt of Court Same Judge M.Venugopal, J. Acts & Sections Contempt of Courts Act, - Section 11