Disposed

M/s.Hdfc Standard Life v. The Registrar

Madras HC7 Feb 2017WP/40270/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the single-judge bench observed that the petitioner had not explained why the writ remained open. Finding that the matter had become infructuous, the court ordered the closure of the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition were closed with no costs awarded.

M/s.Hdfc Standard Life Vs The Registrar — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 07.02.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

W.P.No.40270 of 2016

and

WMP No.34316 of 2016

M/s.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Registered Office at Roman House, HT, Parekesh Marg,

¶9

No.169, Backbay Reclamation, Church Gate, Mumbai 400 020,

¶10

through the authorized person Mr.P.Anand ..Petitioner Vs

¶11

1 The Registrar,

¶12

The District Consumer Redressal Forum, Ooty.

¶13

The Commissioner, Mumbai City, Mumbai. 3.Tmt.Sanathai

¶14

4.Tmt.G.Sakunthala

¶15

5.Suga

¶16

6.Venkatesh [ RESPONDENTS]

¶17

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to kept the warrant abeyance issued on 01.09.2016 in E.A.No.4/2014 in C.C.No.26/2013 by the District Consumer Forum, Ooty against the petitioner company till disposal of the F.A.No.206/2015 against C.C.No.26/2013 on the file of the State Consumer Commission, Tamilnadu.

¶18

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

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayakumar For Respondents: Mr.A.Kumar for R1 and R2

¶20

Special Government Pleader

¶21

Mr.B.Singaravelu for R3 to R6

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to kept the warrant abeyance issued on 01.09.2016 in E.A.No.4/2014 in C.C.No.26/2013 by the District Consumer Forum, Ooty against the petitioner company till disposal of the F.A.No.206/2015 against C.C.No.26/2013 on the file of the State Consumer Commission, Tamilnadu.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
matter has become infructuous.
3.Considering the fact that the matter has become
infructuous, the writ petition is closed. No costs. The
connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Vri
To
1 The Registrar,
The District Consumer Redressal Forum,
Ooty.
2. The Commissioner,
Mumbai City, Mumbai.
+1cc to Mr.R. Dhanalakshmi, Advocate, S.R.No.7915
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.8143
GMI(CO)
md(02/03/2017)

¶25

W.P.No.40270 of 2016

¶26

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

M/s.Hdfc Standard Life v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Hdfc Standard Life v. The Registrar

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

M/s.Orion Ventures, Vs The Southern Railway

J. Chandirasekaran Vs P. Devaraj

A. Vasanthi Vs Rajendran

K.Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Maheshwari Builders Vs Chief Engineer

M/S. Mohata Construction Vs Chief Engineer