Dismissed

The Managing Director, v. T.Dhandapani

Madras HC28 Apr 2016CMP(MD)/4449/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court heard a civil miscellaneous petition to condone a delay of 203 days in filing a writ appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 15 of the Letters Patent. After finding no valid reasons in the affidavit filed, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous petition seeking condonation of delay in filing writ appeal is dismissed.

The Managing Director, Vs T.Dhandapani — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶2

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of April Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Honble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR and The Honble Mr.Justice S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

CMP(MD) No.4449 of 2016

¶6

¶7

WA(MD) No.SR26454 of 2015

¶8

1.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶9

TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING COPRATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, CMDA TOWER II, EGMORE, 4TH

¶10

FLOOR, CHENNAI-8.

¶11

2.THE SENIOR REGIONAL

¶12

MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LTD., TRICHY ZONE, TRICHY.

¶13

3.THE DISTRICT MANAGER,

¶14

TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LTD.,

¶15

KARUR DISTRICT, KARUR. ... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Vs T.DHANDAPANI ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶17

This Civil Miscellaneous petition filed under section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith. The High Court will be pleased to condone the delay of 203 days in filing the above writ Appeal appoint the order dated 20.08.2014 made in W.P(MD)No.127/2012 on the file of this Honourable Court and pass cuch further order.

¶18

WA Prayer:

¶19

Writ Appeal filed under section 15 of letters patent against the order dated 20.08.2014 in WP(MD)No.127/12.

¶20

Prayer in WP(MD). 127/ 2012 :

¶21

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.289/R1/2011, dated 02-07-2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all monetary and other attendant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ benefits.

¶22

ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.M.Muniasamy Advocate for the Appellant the court made the following order.

¶23

Going through the supporting affidavit, we find absolutely no reasons to condone the delay of 203 days in filing the writ appeal.

¶24

This petition is dismissed.

¶25

/ TRUE COPY /

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶27

¶28

1.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMILNADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, CMDA TOWER EGMORE, 4TH FLOOR, CHENNAI-8.

¶29

2.THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, TAMILNADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LTD., TRICHY ZONE, TRICHY.

¶30

3.THE DISTRICT MANAGER, TAMILNADU STATE MARKETING CORPROATION LTD., KARUR, KARUR DISTRICT.

¶31

ORDER DATE :28/04/2016

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Dismissing the Petition to condone the delay of 203 days in filing the above wirt Appeal against the order dated 20.08.2014 made in WP(MD) No.127/12 etc., as stated within.

¶34

SDR/GSV-PM/SAR II/20.05.2016/2P/5C

¶35

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

The Managing Director, v. T.Dhandapani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, v. T.Dhandapani

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

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs S.Selvapandi

The Regional Provident Fund Vs M/S. Tvs Sri Chakra Limited

S.Srinivasan, Chartered Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Kaliswaran Vs the District Collector

K.K.Dt Madha Saarbatra Vs the Secretary to Government

The Secretary, Vs J.Selvaraj