Dismissed

E. Lakshmi Narayanan, v. Theh Chairman of

Madras HC14 Nov 2019WP(MD)/9542/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 for default and non-prosecution. The petitioner had no appearance, and the writ was previously dismissed against a fourth respondent on default in 2013. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for default for non-prosecution; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

E. Lakshmi Narayanan, Vs Theh Chairman of — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.9542 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD)No.9542 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶5

E.Lakshmi Narayanan ... Petitioner /Vs./

¶6

1.The Chairman of Madurai District

¶7

Co-operative Milk Producers cum District Collector, Madurai.

¶8

2.The General Manager,

¶9

Madurai District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Madurai – 20.

¶10

3.The Assistant General Manager (Sales),

¶11

A 1301, Madurai District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Madurai – 20.

¶12

4.N.Padmavathy ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of CERTIORARI, calling for a records in Na.Ka.No.2418/Sale.1/2011 dated 18-08-2011 on the file of the 2^nd Respondent and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : No appearance For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.V.Nirmal for Mr.E.Mareeskumar For R-4 : Dismissed.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of proceedings of this Court made yesterday ie., 13.11.2019, which reads as follows:

¶17

'Mr.V.Nirmal, learned counsel representing Mr.E.Mareeskumar on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 is before this Court.

¶18

To be noted, writ petition has already been dismissed for default against fourth respondent on 26.06.2013 itself. Today, there is no representation for writ petitioner.

¶19

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

¶20

1/2

¶21

W.P(MD)No.9542 of 2011

¶22

List this matter under the caption 'FOR DISMISSAL' tomorrow ie., 14.11.2019.'

¶23

Pursuant to the earlier proceedings, this matter is listed under the caption 'FOR DISMISSAL' today.

¶24

Position is no different today. In other words, Mr.V.Nirmal, learned counsel representing Mr.E.Mareeskumar for respondents 1 to 3 is before this Court, but there is no representation for writ petitioner. Writ petition has already been dismissed as against fourth respondent on 26.06.2013.

¶25

In the light of this trajectory, instant Writ Petition is dismissed for default / non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar ()

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

¶31

¶32

The District Collector, The Chairman of Madurai Co-operative Milk Producers cum District Collector, Madurai.

¶33

Order made in W.P(MD)No.9542 of 2011 14.11.2019

¶34

VB(28.11.2019) 2P 2C

¶35

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

¶36

2/2

E. Lakshmi Narayanan, v. Theh Chairman of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Lakshmi Narayanan, v. Theh Chairman of

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

Zamindarini Kamulammal Vs the District Educational

A.Selvaraj Vs the District Collector and

R.Rajendran Vs the Assistant

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs State of Tamilnadu

M. Lingammal Vs the District Collector

D.Sivakumar, Vs the District Collector