Dismissed

The Management, v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC26 Oct 2021WP/3361/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 for non-prosecution as the petitioner and respondents failed to appear or contact counsel despite intimation. Counsel for all sides stated parties had not contacted them, leading to separate memos being filed. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending indefinitely.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Management, Vs the Presiding Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P. No. 3361 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011

¶6

The Management, P.L.R. Textiles Limited, 2224, Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore – 641 005, Rep. by its Director, Mr. P.R.Prabhakar ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶9

Antony D. Cruz ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Order/award passed by the First Respondent made in C.P. 534 of 2003 dated 17.06.2010 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms. Kavya Silambanan for M/s. Profexs Associates

¶12

For Respondents: R1 – Court

¶13

Mr. A.Deivasigamani for Mr. G.B. Saravana Bhavan (for R2)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

(through video conference)

¶16

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Second Respondents state that despite intimation sent, the respective parties have not contacted them and as such, they are not able to conduct the case and they have filed separate memos dated 25.10.2021 to that effect through e-mail, which are placed on record. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the Writ Petition pending indefinitely.

¶17

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

¶18

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. It is made clear that the Petitioner is not precluded from applying for revival of the Writ Petition, if necessary, in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

¶25

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶26

Copy to

¶27

The Management, P.L.R. Textiles Limited, 2224, Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore – 641 005, Rep. by its Director, Mr. P.R.Prabhakar

¶28

+1cc to Mr.G.B.Saravana Bhavan, Advocate, S.R.No.54772 +1cc to Mr.K.Sathish, Advocate, S.R.No.55630

¶29

W.P. No. 3361 of 2011

¶30

PP(CO) GN(02/11/2021)

¶31

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

The Management, v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Management, v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiru.Pradeep K.Mohan Vs the Inspector of Plantations

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer

Selliamman Constructions Vs the Enforcement Officer

Swami Vivekananda Vs the Assistant Provident Fund

The Liquidator Vs the Assistant Providet Fund

The Assistant General Manager Vs the Central Government