Allowed

K.Geetha v. Valasarajan

Madras HC22 Sept 2022CRL RC/1329/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside an exparte order passed by the Single Judge which disposed of the writ petition on merits without hearing the petitioner. The matter was remitted to the Single Judge for disposal after an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is allowed, the order of the Single Judge is set aside, and the matter is remitted for disposal after hearing.

K.Geetha Vs Valasarajan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.A.No.3551 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.A.No.3551 of 2019 and CMP.No.22805 of 2019

¶7

The Management Sri Ambal Mills Ltd., No.89, Rathina Sabapathy Street Cooperative Colony Coimbatore - 641 038. Rep by C.D.Menon, Director.

¶8

.... Appellant

¶9

¶10

1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan P.B.No.3875, Dr.Balasundaram Road Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶11

2.The Recovery Officer Employees Provident Fund Organisation Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan P.B.No.3875, Dr.Balasundaram Road Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶12

.... Respondents

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶14

W.A.No.3551 of 2019

¶15

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.693 of 2013 dated 11.06.2019 on the file of this Court.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.R.Raghavan for Mr.S.Jayaraman

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.C.Kulanthaivelu

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN.J]

¶20

It is seen from the order of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was not represented when the writ petition in W.P.No.693 of 2013 came to be disposed of on 11.06.2019.

¶21

Mr.R.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant/petitioner would be satisfied with an opportunity of being heard in the writ petition.

¶22

Considering the fact that the appellant/petitioner was not represented by

¶23

a counsel in the writ petition, and the writ petition came to be disposed of on merits, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/petitioner should be

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶25

W.A.No.3551 of 2019

¶26

given a chance to argue the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Hence, without going into the merits of the rival claims, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.06.2019 in W.P.No.693 of 2013 is set aside on the ground that it is an exparte order and the matter is remitted to learned Single Judge for being disposed of in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

[RSMJ] [KBJ] 27.09.2022

¶28

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds

¶29

1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan P.B.No.3875, Dr.Balasundaram Road Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶30

2.The Recovery Officer Employees Provident Fund Organisation Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan P.B.No.3875, Dr.Balasundaram Road Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

W.A.No.3551 of 2019

R.SUBRAMANIAN. J.,

W.A.No.3551 of 2019 and CMP.No.22805 of 2019

¶36

27.09.2022

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

K.Geetha v. Valasarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Geetha v. Valasarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vadivel, M/a 45 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Eswaran, 42 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Raja, M/44 Yrs Vs v.Mani, M/A.38 Yrs

Ravichandran Vs State Represented by

G.Shameer, Aged 44 Years, Vs State by

Mohamed Rabeek Vs State, Represented by