TMT. VIJAYAMMAL vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU TVL. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM DIVISIONIII) LTDAND OTHERS — C.A. No. 10441/2017
Case under Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010294782006
Filing Date
14-Nov-2006
Registration No
C.A. No. 10441/2017
Diary Number
29478/2006
Order Date
09-Aug-2017
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Allowed
Last updated 02-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.TMT. VIJAYAMMAL
Adv. V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU TVL. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM DIVISIONIII) LTDAND OTHERS
Adv. T. R. B. SIVAKUMAR[R-1] T. R. B. SIVAKUMAR[R-2] [Pr]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Aug-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Aug-2017
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
-
01-Aug-2017
Ordinary
Registrar (A-J)
-
19-Jul-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Jul-2017
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Jul-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Aug-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Jan-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Sep-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Aug-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Jul-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Apr-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Apr-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Mar-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Nov-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Nov-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Nov-2006
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 10441/2017
Case Summary: TMT. Vijayammal v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by petitioner Vijayammal against the High Court's judgment dated 16.10.2006. The case involved a 1990 State Transport Appellate Tribunal order that allowed Vijayammal's appeal and set aside a State Transport Authority order. The Transport Corporation challenged this via writ petition filed on 28.08.2000, which the High Court admitted despite an 8-year delay. The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that public interest justified condoning the delay, holding that "public interest which is not a ground for condonation of delay." The Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the Appellate Tribunal's 1990 order on delay grounds alone, without addressing the substantive merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts