Petitioners sought quashing of complaints pending in Mumbai before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Court held that since proceedings are pending adjudication, no cause of action existed for the writ petitions.
Writ petitions disposed of as infructuous. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Writ Petition Nos.4612, 4629,4030, 4031 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 02/12/2022
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.4612, 4029, 4030, 4031 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3 of 2011
R.Dakshinamurthy 33/8 C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet Chennai 600 018.
.. Petitioner in W.P.4612/2011
Kaashyap Technologies Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory R.Chandrasekar 33/8 C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet Chennai 600 018.
2.A.Venkatramani Managing Director 33/8 C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet Chennai 600 018.
3.R.Chandrasekar General Manager 33/8 C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet Chennai 600 018.
4.Gopalan Ramamurthy Director 33/8 C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet Chennai 600 018.
Page No:1/4
Writ Petition Nos.4612, 4629,4030, 4031 of 2011
5.Ganesan Annasamy Director
33/8 C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet Chennai 600 018.
6.Thiruvengadam Santhanam Director
33/8 C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet Chennai 600 018.
7.Vasumathy Vasudevan Director 33/8 C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet Chennai 600 018.
... Petitioners in WP.4029,
4030, 4031/2011
Vs.
Respondents in all the writ petitions
COMMON PRAYER : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writs of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the complaint in C.C.Nos.3305509, 2300595, 2300594, 230042 of 2010 pending on the file of the second respondent, quashing the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to return the complaint in the said case to the first respondent for presentation to the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the same.
Page No:2/4
Writ Petition Nos.4612, 4629,4030, 4031 of 2011
For Petitioners ... Mr.V.Arunagiri For respondents ... Mr.Vivek Menon for Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh for R.1
C O M M O N O R D E R
These writ petitions have been filed praying to call for the records, relating to the complaints in C.C.Nos.3305509, 2300595, 2300594, 230042 of 2010 pending on the file of the second respondent, and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to return the complaints to the first respondent for presentation to the appropriate Court.
counsel appearing for the first respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the proceedings initiated before the competent Court at Mumbai are pending adjudication. Thus, the cause arose for the purpose of filing the instant writ petitions did not exist and hence, no further adjudication is required.
Page No:3/4
Writ Petition Nos.4612, 4629,4030, 4031 of 2011
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
kas
02/12/2022
Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order
kas To The Metropolitan Magistrate First Class, 23rd Court Esplanade, Mumbai.
W.P.Nos.4612, 4029, 4030, 4031 of 2011
Page No:4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions filed under Article 226 for quashing of complaints are maintainable when the proceedings before the Court are pending adjudication.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Dakshinamurthy
Kaashyap Technologies Limited
Nitin Kumar Dhirajlal Gokal
The Metropolitan Magistrate First Class, 23rd Court Esplanade, Mumbai
N. SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
