Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Arasu Pokkuvarathu Madurai vs Thiru.G.Paulraj

Madras High Court|23 November, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents made a submission that the rotational basis as stated before this Court in WP.No.13523 of 2009, is in force and the respondents are following the same. However, it is necessary that the petitioner should submit necessary representation to avail the benefit.
2. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner will submit necessary representation in this regard and on receipt of the same, the respondents are bound to consider the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
3. Thus, no further adjudication in this contempt petition is required to be undertaken. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. 23.11.2017 sk Index:yes To
1.Thiru.G.Paulraj, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Bye-pass Road, Madurai-625 016.
2.Thiru.Thangavelu, The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Madurai Region, Bye-pass Region, Madurai-625 016.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM.,J.
sk CONT. P No.977 of 2014 23.11.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Arasu Pokkuvarathu Madurai vs Thiru.G.Paulraj

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
23 November, 2017