Dismissed

M/s Sakthi Enterprises, v. The Branch Manager

Madras HC12 Nov 2021WP/11851/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash orders rejecting a change in constitution application due to alleged encroachment. The court directed the respondent to approve the change in constitution following proper procedure within 8 weeks, separating the constitutional approval process from the independent inquiry into encroachment allegations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the application for approval of change in constitution by following proper procedures within 8 weeks.

M/s Sakthi Enterprises, Vs The Branch Manager — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.NO.11851 OF 2015 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2015

¶6

M/s.Sakthi Enterprises, Rep. By its Partner, Tmt.A.Madurai Meenatchi, Tiny Shed No.257(SP), Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. ... Petitioner

¶7

The Branch Manager, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Administrative Block Building, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER:-

¶9

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the letters issued in Ref.Rc.No.682/A6/09 dated 17.11.2009 and Ref.Rc.No.682/A6/2009 dated 14.09.2010 passed by the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to give approval of change in constitution.

¶10

F or Petitioner : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi For Mr.R.Naresh Kumar For Respondent : No appearance

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to quash the order dated 17.11.2009 and 14.09.2010 passed by the respondent and direct the respondent to give approval of change in Constitution .

¶13

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

¶14

2. The petitioner states that, Tmt.A.Madurai Meenatchi and her husband Mr.C.A.Ashok Kumar were inducted as one of the partners of a business called M/s.Sakthi Enterprises along with one Tmt.V.P.Padmini. The business of the Company is manufacture of engineering components. Subsequently, Tmt.V.P.Padmini retired and thereafter the said Tmt.A.Madurai Meenatchi and her husband Mr.C.A.Ashok Kumar became full-fledged partners of the firm and they have registered themselves as M/s.Sakthi Enterprises in the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation.

¶15

3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the Deed of Partnership Retirement Reconstitution dated 29.02.2008 was registered with the Registrar of Companies under the provisions of the Act. The said Deed of Partnership Retirement Reconstitution was submitted to the respondent for approval of change in Constitution. While considering the case of the petitioner, the respondent issued the impugned order by stating that there is an encroachment and the said encroachment is to be removed. In other words it is contended by the respondent that the petitioner have encroached the SIDCO land.

¶16

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner has not encroached any such land and the canals situates adjacent to the petitioner company is mistakenly construed as encroachment.

¶17

5. In any event, approval of change in the Constitution need not be linked with the encroachment. If at all there is an allegation of encroachment against the petitioner. The approval of change in the Constitution is to be considered based on the facts and circumstances and if any encroachment is identified by the Authorities, actions are to be initiated independently for removal of encroachment and merely stating in the impugned order, that the petitioner has encroached the land. They cannot reject the application submitted by the petitioner for approval of change in Constitution. The petitioner company has already registered with the SIDCO Industrial Estate and therefore the said application is to be considered independent.

¶18

6. Under these circumstances without reference to the allegation of encroachment against the petitioner, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking approval of change in Constitution is to be considered by the respondent by following the procedures as contemplated within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order.

¶19

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

¶20

7. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No Costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

nti/vs

¶26

¶27

The Branch Manager, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Administrative Block Building, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.R.Naresh Kumar , Advocate, S.R.No.58386

¶29

W.P.NO.11851 OF 2015 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2015

¶30

GPL(CO) PBS/29/11/2021

¶31

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

M/s Sakthi Enterprises, v. The Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sakthi Enterprises, v. The Branch Manager

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

M. Yogalakshmi Vs the Tamil Nadu Housing Board

M/S.Tulsiyat Tek Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Tamilnadu

Makkah Tours and Travels Vs Union of India

InD Barath Thermal Power Ltd. Vs Dr.M.Sai Kumar I.A.S

M/S.Qualitychef Agro Foods Vs Union of India

S.Muthurathinam Vs the District Collector