High Court dismissed two writ petitions as withdrawn by the petitioners after they sought to settle with the respondents regarding Centre Tea Board order. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Dismissal of writ petitions as withdrawn; closing of connected miscellaneous petitions.
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: 25.01.2017 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR W.P. Nos. 11535 & 11536 of 2011 and M.P. Nos. 2, 2, 3 & 3 of 2011
P12 to P14 are substituted as LR's deceased P4 V.Srinivasan as per order dated 25.1.17 by D.K.K.J in WMP.983/17 in WP.11535/11
Vs.
PRAYER in both WPs: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the orders dated 30.03.2011 bearing Ref. No. F.No.225/171/2008ITA.II and dated 31.03.2011 bearing Ref.No. F.No.225/144/2008ITA.II passed by the 1st respondent Authority and quash the same insofar as the fresh deed of variation would take effect from 01.11.2004 as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (8) SCC 404 and for a consequential Mandamus to the 2nd
respondent to apply the fresh deed of variation to those employees who have entered the services of the 3rd respondent company on or after 01.11.2004 without adversely affecting the rights and benefits of employees appointed prior to 01.11.2004 after giving an opportunity of hearing to them before approving the fresh deed of variation and to pass further orders.
For Petitioners : Mr. Govardhan
in both cases for M/s. Row & Reddy
For Respondents : Mr. Joseph George Mayiladupuna
in both cases for R1 & R2
Mr. C. Seethapathy
for M/s. P.R. Raman for R3 & R4
C O M M O N O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he
may be permitted to withdraw the writ petitions since settlement
has been entered between the parties. He has also made an
endorsement to that effect.
2. Recording the submission and the endorsement made
by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitions
are dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected M.Ps
are closed. No costs.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
avr
To
1. The Member(IT)
The Central Board of Direct Taxes
Department of Revenue
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi -110 001.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Kolkatta -III, P7 Chowringhee Square
Ayakar Bhawan, Kolkata -700069.
+1 cc to M/s.Row and Reddy for Petitioner sr 4794 +1 cc to M/s.J.Narayanaswamy Advocate sr 5245 +1 cc to Mr.P.R.Raman Advocate sr 4951
W.P. Nos. 11535 & 11536 of 2011 and M.P. Nos. 2, 2, 3 & 3 of 2011
Pk(co) aa31/01/2017
P.R. Sridharan
R. Ramachandran
P.V. Ramachandran
The Central Board of Direct Taxes
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
