Dismissed

M/S Imk Human Resources v. Protector Genl. of Emigrants/

Madras HC6 Jun 2014WA/1708/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed. Court held that the findings in the impugned judgment will not affect the pending writ petition challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. Writ petition closed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is disposed of by closing the matter; no immediate refund granted; appellant to seek refund in the pending writ petition if successful.

M/S Imk Human Resources Vs Protector Genl. of Emigrants/ — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.6.2014

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

Writ Appeal No.1708 of 2013

¶8

and

¶9

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶10

IMK Human Resources Service, rep.by

¶11

Proprietor Mr.V.Muthukumar

¶12

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶13

¶14

Protector General of Emigrants/Registering

¶15

Authority, Office of the Protector General of

¶16

Emigrants, Government of India, Ministry

¶17

of Overseas Affairs, Akbar Bhavan

¶18

Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021.

¶19

The Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.

¶20

The Manager, Bank of Baroda, Choolaimedu Branch, Chennai-94.

¶21

...Respondents/Respondents

¶22

APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.6.2013 made in W.P.No.16770 of 2013.

¶23

W.P.No.16770 of 2013:

¶24

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the order No. I- 11011/ 7353/ 2005-PGE-1 dt 30.5.2013 and quash the same and consequently forbear the 1st respondent from encashing the Bank Guarantee dt 20.4.2011 in a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) given by the 2nd respondent and Bank Guarantee dt 19.4.2011 in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) of the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent on behalf of the petitioner with costs.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay

¶27

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J

¶28

This appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.16770 of 2013 dated 21.6.2013 wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the challenge made by the appellant questioning the forfeiture of the security amount based on the final order passed by the Appellate Authority on 18.4.2013 on the ground that the order dated 18.4.2013 was not challenged and the order dated 30.5.2013 is only a consequential order.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the original order was passed by the first respondent on 3.8.2012, against which, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who passed an order dated 18.4.2013. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was challenged in W.P.No.22121 of 2013 and the said writ petition has been admitted and pending . The appellant apprehends that the findings/observation made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16770 of 2013 may be put against the appellant, in the pending writ petition and that the said position may be clarified and that all points may be permitted to be agitated in the pending writ petition.

¶30

In view of the said submissions and W.P.No.16770 of 2013 was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has only challenged the consequential order without challenging the order dated 18.4.2013, we dispose of the writ appeal making it clear that the findings given in the impugned judgment dated 21.6.2013 will not have any bearing while deciding the validity of the order of the Appellate Authority. In case the appellant succeeds in the pending writ petition, it is open to the appellant to seek for refund. Consequently, the above M.P. is closed.

¶31

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-V) Dated: 01.07.2014

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

¶36

The Protector General of Emigrants/Registering Authority, Office of the Protector General of Emigrants, Government of India, Ministry of Overseas Affairs, Akbar Bhavan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021.

¶37

The Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.

¶38

The Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Choolaimedu Branch, Chennai-94.
1CC to Mr.B.Vijay, Advocate, SR 7245
WA.NO.1708 OF 2013
& MP.No.1 of 2013
CTK (CO)
PSI (02.07.2014)

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S Imk Human Resources v. Protector Genl. of Emigrants/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Imk Human Resources v. Protector Genl. of Emigrants/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Thilagam Vs D.Sabitha I.A.S

P.Rajasubramain Vs the Indian Overses Bank

Coimbatore District Wholesale Vs Coimbatore City Municipal

S.Esakkiyadum Perumal, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.a.Parimala Vs State of Tamilnadu

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs S.Ramadoss