Dismissed

Syndicate Bank v. Smt S.Saroja

Madras HC1 Dec 2021WA/1748/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ appeal as abated because the petitioner died in 2013 and the appellants failed to bring her legal representatives on record despite repeated delays. The appeal was also dismissed due to unserved notices stemming from incorrect details provided by the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed as abated against the 1st respondent; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Syndicate Bank Vs Smt S.Saroja — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 01.12.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶7

W.A.No.1748 of 2013

¶8

and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶9

1.Syndicate Bank,

¶10

rep by its General Manager (P),

¶11

Head Office, Manipal.

¶12

2.Dy.General Manager, Syndicate Bank,

¶13

Zonal Office, 27/28,

¶14

Woods Road, Chennai – 600 002.

¶15

... Appellants/1^st & 2^nd Respondents

¶16

Vs.

¶17

1.S.Saroja

¶18

...1^st Respondent/Petitioner

¶19

2.Union of India,

¶20

rep by Ministry of Finance, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶21

...2^nd Respondent/3^rd Respondent

¶22

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.04.2013 made in W.P.No.4213 of 2001.

¶23

Prayer in WP.No.4213 of 2001: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to India for the issuance of a writ of declaration that the action of the respondent bank in issuing circular No.187/99/BC/PD/59/HRDD dated 27.09.99 in unilaterally changing the service conditions in so far as the petitioner is concerned as illegal and contrary to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently, direct the respondent bank to restore the position prevailed prior to the aforesaid circular regarding appointment to the dependents of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds by providing employment to the petitioner's son S.Balaji, who is qualified to be appointed as clerk.

¶24

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

¶25

For Appellants : Mr.T.S.Rajeev Gandhi for M/s.N.V.S. And Associates For Respondents : Notice not ready

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Though the 1^st respondent, who is the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.4213 of 2001, had died in the year 2013 itself, the appellants have not taken any steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased 1^st respondent. The appellants have been taking time since 2019 to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased 1^st respondent. However, till today, the appellants have not taken any steps. In these circumstances, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed as abated as against the 1^st respondent.

¶28

2.It is also pertinent to note that the notice sent to the 2^nd respondent in the Writ Appeal, who is also the 2^nd respondent in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.4213 of 2001, was also returned unserved for the reason that the appellants have not given the correct details. Since the Writ Petitioner herself is no more and that no steps have been taken to bring on record her legal heirs, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed as abated. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as abated. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

¶34

The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Union of India, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶35

+1cc to M/s.N.V.S & Associates, Advocate SR.No.62865

¶36

W.A.No.1748 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶37

NR(CO) CB(13/12/2021)

¶38

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

Syndicate Bank v. Smt S.Saroja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syndicate Bank v. Smt S.Saroja

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

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Vs B. Ragavendran

M/S.Talent Steel Industries (P) Ltd. Vs the Chairman

The Pachaiyappas Trust Vs Dr.Shrimathy Ramalingam

Coimbatore Regional Mill Vs Coimbatore Periyar Districts

The Govenment of Tamilnadu Vs N. Dhanapal

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs L.Girinivasan