Disposed

India Silk House P.Ltd., v. The Member Secretary

Madras HC1 Aug 2017WP/19714/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Madras High Court directed the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to consider a representation from the petitioner regarding the preservation of a heritage building by the second respondent and to pass orders within eight weeks after notice to both parties, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the CMDA to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within eight weeks after notice to both parties, considering pending litigation and a prior court order.

India Silk House P.Ltd., Vs The Member Secretary — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.19714 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.21268 of 2017

¶6

India Silk House (P) Ltd., rep by its Managing Director Pritam Lalchand Mahtani,

¶7

846, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 2.Anjuman-E-Mufid-E-Ahl-Islam Trust rep by Syed Khaleefathullah, 846, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Shanmugam for M/s.Shanmugha Associates For Respondent : Mr.K.Raja Srinivas (R1) O R D E R

¶10

Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, learned counsel takes notice for the 1^st respondent. By consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶11

2.Mr.Shanmugam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the petitioner's representation dated

¶12

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

¶13

03.06.2017 to initiate action against the 2^nd respondent, who is attempting to convert the Heritage Building “India Silk House Building” into one of Training Centre by altering and destructing the existing structure of the Heritage Building instead of preserving the Heritage Building as per the directions of the CMDA, thereby, directing the 2^nd respondent not to precipitate the issue further against the decision of the Heritage Committee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, consequent to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.25306 of 2006 dated 29.04.2010, the 1^st respondent has not considered the said representation yet.

¶14

3.Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the 2^nd respondent has also filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of possession, which is also pending. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1^st respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation and also the pending litigation between the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2017 and pass orders in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the litigation pending between the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner and also the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.25306 of 2006 dated 29.04.2010, after giving notice to the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶22

+1cc to M/s.Shanmugha Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.54821

¶23

W.P.No.19714 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.21268 of 2017

¶24

AR(CO)
CU(07/08/2017)

¶25

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

India Silk House P.Ltd., v. The Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

India Silk House P.Ltd., v. The Member Secretary

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

G.Natesan Vs The Commissioner

A.Kudiarasu Vs The Thasildar

Lanco Tanjore Power Company Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity

M/s.Sbm Construction & Vs District Registrar

M/s.New chennai Township Vs The Inspector General of

Pille Gowdu, Vs The District Collector