Dismissed

Nabeesa v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC21 Jun 2023WA/1277/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Writ Appeal challenging an order of the single Judge regarding a consensual agreement. The bench refused to examine the merit of the appellant's claim that consent was not given, directing the appellant to seek clarification or file a review petition if untrue.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to prefer a review before the learned single Judge.

Nabeesa Vs the Presiding Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1/4

¶2

W.A.No.1277/2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED :: 21-06-2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶9

W.A.No.1277 of 2023

¶10

Tmt.Nabeesa ... Appellant

¶11

-vs-

¶12

1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶13

2.The Management of Anai Mudi Estate...

¶14

Respondents

¶15

Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 30.10.2019, passed in W.P.No.22653 of 2003, on the file of this Court.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.S.Saravanan For Respondent 2 : Mr.Anand Gopalan, for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

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

¶19

2/4

¶20

W.A.No.1277/2023

¶21

(By S.Vaidyanathan,J .)

¶22

This appeal is preferred against the order, dated 30.10.2019, passed in

¶23

W.P.No.22653 of 2003, by the learned single Judge.

¶24

In Paragraph 7 of the impugned order, the learned single Judge has made it clear that it was a consensual order.

¶25

However, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he had not given any consent; that the matter was heard through Video Conferencing; and that it was erroneously recorded that there was consent.

¶26

We are not inclined to go into that aspect and also the various points raised in the grounds by the appellant. If there was no consent, it is for the appellant to represent the same before the learned single Judge and seek necessary clarification or file a review.

¶27

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter, we

¶28

dismiss this Writ Appeal, giving liberty to the appellant to prefer a review before the learned single Judge, which will be considered by the learned single Judge in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.12816 of 2023 is also

¶29

dismissed.

¶30

Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) Internet : Yes/No 21-06-2023 Speaking / Non-speaking Order dixit

¶31

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

3/4

W.A.No.1277/2023

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶36

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

¶37

4/4

¶38

W.A.No.1277/2023

¶39

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J. AND K.RAJASEKAR,J.

dixit

W.A.No.1277 of 2023

21-06-2023

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

Nabeesa v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabeesa v. the Presiding Officer

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

The Management of Metropolitan Vs D.Hari

N.Shankar Vs the Managing Director

The Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Vs the Assistant Pf Commissioner

The Administrative Officer Vs M.Kalyani

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited Vs Kawman Ex-Act Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.

The Authorised Officer Vs Edward Selvakumar