Dismissed

D.Packrisamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC14 Oct 2022WP/22588/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a mandatory injunction directing a cooperative bank to sanction a loan application. The High Court unanimously held that the petition had become infructuous due to the lapse of time, as it was filed as a writ petition rather than as an ordinary civil suit which would have been subject to the applicabl

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous due to passage of time. No costs awarded to any party.

D.Packrisamy Vs The District Collector — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.22588 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

W.P.No.22588 of 2014

D.Packrisamy

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Nagapattinam,

¶11

2.The District Manager,

¶12

THADCO, Nagapattinam District.

¶13

3.The Special Officer/ General Manager, Kumbakonam Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam.

¶14

4.The Branch Manager, Kumbakonam Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Talainayar, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District. ..Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to forward the petitioner's loan application to 4^th respondent and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to sanction the loan Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner.

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.22588 of 2014

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Manobala, for Mr.P.Vijendran For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram for R3 and R4 Mr.A.Selvendiran, Special Government Pleader for R2

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Mr.M.Manobala, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Vijendran,

¶22

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition itself has become infructuous due to passage of time.

¶23

2. Recording the statement made by the learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs.

¶25

14.10.2022

¶26

dsa Index : No Internet : Yes Non-Speaking order

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.22588 of 2014

¶30

¶31

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Nagapattinam,

¶32

2.The District Manager, THADCO, Nagapattinam District.

¶33

3.The Special Officer/ General Manager, Kumbakonam Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam.

¶34

4.The Branch Manager, Kumbakonam Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Talainayar, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District.

¶35

3/4

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.22588 of 2014

¶38

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶39

dsa

¶40

W.P.No.22588 of 2014

¶41

14.10.2022

¶42

4/4

¶43

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

D.Packrisamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Packrisamy v. The District Collector

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

S.Sonali Pai Vs Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research

M/s.Ananthakumar and Co. Vs The Chief General Manager

Devi.C Vs The State of TamilNadu

Arulmigu Kanniamman Koil Vs Chennai City Municipal

T.John Sugumar Vs The District Collector

M.Sokki Vs The Director General of Police