Dismissed

The Commissioner v. Umayal

Madras HC28 Oct 2024CMP(MD)/12998/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition filed to condone a 109-day delay in filing a writ appeal. The court held that the petition was dismissed due to default for non-compliance with a prior order regarding the payment of gratuity and batta.

What did the court decide?

The petition for condonation of delay was dismissed for default due to non-compliance of the court order dated 01.10.2024.

The Commissioner Vs Umayal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.12998 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Twenty Eighth day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Four

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN and

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶7

CMP(MD) No.12998 of 2024 in WA(MD) SR No.65174 of 2024

¶8

1 THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,

¶9

NUNGAMPAKKAM, CHENNAI

¶10

2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, MUTHUSAMY NAGAR, THIRUPATHUR ROAD, SIVAGANGAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT ... Petitioners / Appellants

¶11

¶12

UMAYAL ... Respondent / Respondent

¶13

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 109 days in filing the present writ appeal against the order dated 02.02.2024 in WP(MD). No. 2064/2024 on the file of this Honourable Court.

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

CMP(MD) No.12998 of 2024

¶17

Prayer in WA(MD) SR No.65174 of 2024:

¶18

To allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 02.02.2024 made in Writ Petition(MD) No.2064 of 2024 in the interest of judstice.

¶19

Prayer in WP(MD). 2064/ 2024 :

¶20

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to settled the interest amount towards the belated payment of Gratuity amount of the petitioners late husband within prescribed time limit as fixed by this Honble Court.

¶21

ORDER : This civil miscellaneous petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.D.SACHI KUMAR, Additional Government Pleader for the petitioners, the Court made the following order:-

¶22

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 109 days in fling the appeal.

¶23

Batta is not paid and the order of this Court dated 01.10.2024 is not complied

¶24

with.

¶25

Hence, the present petition is dismissed for default, for non-compliance of the order of this Court.

¶26

sd/28/10/2024

¶27

/ TRUE COPY /

¶28

/11/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II /III /IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶29

MBI

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

CMP(MD) No.12998 of 2024

¶33

¶34

1 THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, NUNGAMPAKKAM, CHENNAI

¶35

2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, MUTHUSAMY NAGAR, THIRUPATHUR ROAD, SIVAGANGAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT

¶36

ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.12998 of 2024 in WA(MD) SR No.65174 of 2024 Date :28/10/2024

¶37

ED/ JGB /SAR- (07/11/2024) 3P / 3C

¶38

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

The Commissioner v. Umayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Umayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise Vs Vadivel Pyrotech Pvt. Ltd.

L. Subathra Vs Gomathi Kathiresan

R.Arivudai Nambi(Died) Vs Ameerdeen

The Tahsildar, Vs M.Duraisami(died)

The State of Tamilnadu represented by The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Vs Tvl.City Plywoods

Muruganandam, Vs v.Balasubramanian