Disposed

The State of Tamilnadu v. v.Srikanth

Madras HC1 Nov 2017WA/2378/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a Writ Appeal where the respondent petitioner withdrew his claim for professional fees after the Government sanctioned a nominal sum. The intra-court appeal was disposed of by admitting the withdrawal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal and connected miscellaneous petition were disposed of by admitting the withdrawal of the respondent's claim. No costs.

The State of Tamilnadu Vs v.Srikanth — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.11.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN And THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

W.A.No.2378 of 2013

And

M.P.No.1 of 2013

The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

The Collector, Chennai District, Chennai. 4. The Tahsildar, Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai – 600 003. 5. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department WRO Middle Pennaiar Basin Circle, Thiruvannamalai – 3. ... Appellants/Respondents Vs.

¶10

V.Srikanth ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

Prayer:

¶12

Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 11.12.2012 in W.P.No.23160 of 2012.

¶13

W.P.No.23160 of 2012 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to settle the petitioners professional fees as per his representation dated 31.1.2012 and 14.2.2012.

¶14

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

¶15

For Appellants : Ms.A.Srijayanthi Special Government Pleader

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.V.Srikanth

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.)

¶19

The writ petition filed by the respondent claiming his fees for appearance in C.S.No.861 of 1999 was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The order is under challenge before us.

¶20

2.The respondent filed an affidavit dated 02.12.2013 indicating that he is withdrawing the claim.

¶21

3.We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants and the respondent who appeared as party in person.

¶22

4.The learned Single Judge adjudicated the claim made by the respondent. In view of the treatment meted out to the respondent by the Government by sanctioning a sum of Rs.500/- as against the claim of Rs.1,91,269/-, the respondent is withdrawing his claim.

¶23

5.In view of the affidavit dated 02.12.2013 withdrawing the claim, nothing survives for adjudication in the intra court appeal.

¶24

6.The intra court appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar pri To

¶27

The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶28

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

¶29

The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Collector,
Chennai District,
Chennai.
4. The Tahsildar,
Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk,
Chennai – 600 003.
5. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department WRO
Middle Pennaiar Basin Circle,
Thiruvannamalai – 3.
+1cc to Mr.V.Srikanth, Advocate, S.R.No.77931
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.77661
W.A.No.2378 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
VGI(CO)
CA(20/11/2017)

¶30

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

The State of Tamilnadu v. v.Srikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamilnadu v. v.Srikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.R. Poongavanam (Decd) Vs the Land Acquisition Officer

Tarun Karthik (Minor) Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its

K.M.v.Bhuvaneshwaran Vs the Indian Oil Corporation

K.Dharaniperumal, Vs The Secretary to Government

M/S. Rohini Hotels (Madras Vs the Chairman Tamilnadu

Thamilaga Indhu Saiva Koyilgal Vs Arulmigu Vaithianathaswamy