The High Court at Madras dismissed a writ petition filed regarding a charge memo as infructuous because the petitioner had endorsed that fact in the bundle. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 13.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.10491 of 2011
N.Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner
Versus
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to charge memo bearing Ref.MDUC DAC HRM F-2248 W-11/2010 dated 14.09.2010 of the second respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mrs.T.Hemalatha for M/s.V.Suthakar For R1 : No Appearance For R2 : Mr.C.Seethapathy
O R D E R
The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that this Writ Petition has become infructuous and she has also made an endorsement in the bundle to that effect.
/sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
+1 CC to Mr. C. Seethubathy , Advocate Sr.No. 73793
W.P.No.10491 of 2011
MD: 13/11/2017
N.Muthulakshmi
The General Manager, Canara Bank
The Assistant General Manager, Staff Selection (W), Canara Bank
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
