PACHIYAPPAN C.KULANTHAIVEL, k.vanishri vs KANDHASAMY — CMA/1451/2026

Case under U/s 30 of Workmens Compensation Act Section 1. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCMA010584582025

Filing Number

CMA/41086/2025

Filing Date

13-Mar-2025

Registration No

CMA/1451/2026

Registration Date

13-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr Justice A.d.jagadish Chandira

Coram

Honourable Mr Justice A.d.jagadish Chandira

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL ( 167 )

Sub-Category

S. 30 of Workmen Compensation Act (VIII/23) ( 8 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIALSECTION

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 30 of Workmens Compensation Act Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PACHIYAPPAN C.KULANTHAIVEL, k.vanishri

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KANDHASAMY

  2. 2.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice A.d.jagadish ChandiraView PDF

    CMA 1451/2026 Summary The Madras High Court admitted Pachiyappan's civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the Employees Compensation Court's order restricting the injured claimant's monthly income to Rs. 8,000. The appeal raises three substantial questions of law: whether the wage cap under the Employees Compensation Act was correctly applied; whether wages should be fixed per state government minimum wage orders absent Section 4(1-B) revision; and whether medical expenses are recoverable. The court issued notice to respondents with a four-week returnable date and directed records to be called from the lower court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CMA/1451/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CMA 1451/2026 Summary The Madras High Court admitted Pachiyappan's civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the Employees Compensation Court's order restricting the injured claimant's monthly income to Rs. 8,000. The appeal raises three substantial questions of law: whether the wage cap under the Employees Compensation Act was correctly applied; whether wages should be fixed per state government minimum wage orders absent Section 4(1-B) revision; and whether medical expenses are recoverable. The court issued notice to respondents with a four-week returnable date and directed records to be called from the lower court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case