Dismissed

Mr.M.Kesavan v. M/S George Town Benefits

Madras HC16 Dec 2015WP/15404/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a writ petition seeking prohibition on the public auction sale of a specific property. The petitioner did not appear. The court noted non-compliance with a conditional interim order requiring a deposit. Consequently, the petition was closed without deciding the merits, leaving the respondents free to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed. Respondents allowed to proceed as per law.

Mr.M.Kesavan Vs M/S George Town Benefits — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. No.15404 of 2003 & W.P.M.P.No. 19331 OF 2003

¶6

M.KESAVAN [ PETITIONER ]

¶7

Vs 1 M/S GEORGE TOWN BENEFITS SOCIETY LTD. NO.40 ADIAPPAN NAICKEN STREET CHENNAI-600 079. 2 M/S ALWIN & COMPANY GOVT & PUBLIC AUCTIONERS REAL ESTATE & HOUSE PROPERTY AGENTS C.J.COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR NO.149 THAMBU CHETTY ST. CHENNAI -600 001. [ RESPONDENTS ]

¶8

(R2 dismissed as per order dated 12.6.2007)

¶9

COMMON PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from bringing the property at No.7/1, New West street, Avvai Nagar, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 095 in T.S.No.55/3 of Puliyur Village for an extent of 1800 sq.ft. for public Auction Sale.

¶10

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶11

For Respondents:Mrs.T.P.Savitha -R1

¶12

Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

None appears for the petitoiner. Heard Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent.

¶15

2.The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from bringing the property at No.7/1, New West street, Avvai Nagar, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 095 in T.S.No.55/3 of Puliyur Village for an extent of 1800 sq.ft. for public Auction Sale.

¶16

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

¶17

3.At the time when the writ petition was entertained an interim order was granted, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rupees one lakh, within a period of four weeks from the date of order, failing which the interim order would be vacated. Though the first respondent has entered appearance, no counter affidavit has been filed so far. Further there is nothing to show as to whether the conditional interim order was complied with.

¶18

4.In such circumstances, the Writ Petition stands closed, leaving it open to the first respondent to proceed in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpa
To
1 M/S GEORGE TOWN BENEFITS SOCIETY LTD.
NO.40 ADIAPPAN NAICKEN STREET
CHENNAI-600 079.
+ 1 cc to Mrs. T.P. Savitha, Government Advocate SR.68227
EV(CO)
Eu 7.1.16
W.P. No.15404 of 2003

¶20

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

Mr.M.Kesavan v. M/S George Town Benefits

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.M.Kesavan v. M/S George Town Benefits

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.L.M.Matriculation Higher Vs The Commissioner

S.Parvathinathan, Vs Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation

G.Padmanabhan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mrs.Thiruvambal Vs the Commissioner

AA-226, Modakurichi Primary Vs the Presiding Officer

M/S.Eid Parry (India) Ltd. Vs the Executive Engineer