Dismissed

M/S.Rr Infraa Construction v. the Divisional Engineer

Madras HC24 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21149/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court Bench, coram Justice J. Nisha Banu, dismissed two writ petitions filed by a construction company seeking quashing of orders regarding bill payments. The petitions were dismissed as withdrawn upon the petitioner's request to withdraw them.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the writ petitions; petitions dismissed as withdrawn; no costs awarded.

M/S.Rr Infraa Construction Vs the Divisional Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.10.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.21149 & 21150 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.18966 & 18967 of 2018

¶7

M/s.RR Infraa Construction, Old No.4-C, New No.9, N.C.C.Office Road, Visalatchipuram, Madurai 625 014, Rep. by its Managing Partner, R.Ramu ... Petitioner in both WPs Vs.

¶8

The Divisional Engineer, Office of the Divisional Engineer, Construction and Maintenance (Highways), Salem – 4.

¶9

... Respondent in WP(MD)No.21149/18

¶10

The Divisional Engineer (Highways), Office of the Divisional Engineer (H), C&M, Krishnagiri.

¶11

... Respondent in WP(MD)No.21150/18

¶12

PRAYER in WP(MD)No.21149/18:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Lr.No.23/2018/A1 dated 24.04.2018, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to disburse the bill amount together with 12% GST payable by the petitioner in respect of contract work under Agreement No.148/2015-16 dated 26.02.2016 with the respondent.

¶13

PRAYER in WP(MD)No.21150/18:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Memo.No.1410/GST2018/A3 dated 24.07.2018, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to disburse the bill amount together with 12% GST to the petitioner in respect of contract work under Agreement No.55/2015-16 dated 21.12.2015 with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondent as followed by Southern Railways.

¶14

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai (In both Wps) For Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganatham, AGP (In both Wps)

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has given a letter, dated 11.10.2018, to the Registry seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶18

Permission is granted.

¶19

Recording the said letter and the endorsement made, these writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶22

¶23

1.The Divisional Engineer, Office of the Divisional Engineer, Construction and Maintenance (Highways), Salem – 4.

¶24

2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways), Office of the Divisional Engineer (H), C&M, Krishnagiri.

¶25

+1 CC To MR.K.APPADURAI, Advocate SR. NO. 91965

¶26

+1 CC TO The Special Government Pleader SR.NO. 92241

¶27

W.P.(MD)Nos.21149 & 21150 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.18966 & 18967 of 2018 24.10.2018

¶28

¶29

TR/RP/SAR-IV(09.11.2018)2P 5C

¶30

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

M/S.Rr Infraa Construction v. the Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Rr Infraa Construction v. the Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Ramachandran, Vs the District Collector

A.Selvam, Vs the District Collector

Chandra Jothi, Vs the District Collector

M. Jain Allaudin, Vs the District Collector

The Executive Officer, Vs the Presiding Officer

Tvl.Yuvraj Fire Works Vs the Commissioner of Commercial