Disposed¶¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu v. Madras Race Club

Madras HC17 Oct 2025CMP/25695/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court condones 72-day delay in filing original side appeal; respondent undertakes not to obstruct Government's development of ponds and eco park on 167 acres; Section 41(ha) Specific Relief Act cited; Rs.100 crores spent; matter listed for 22.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 72 days in filing original side appeal condoned; respondent undertakes not to obstruct development/strengthening of ponds in subject land. ¶¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Madras Race Club — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.M.P.No.25695 of 2025 in O.S.A.SR.No.167426 of 2025

¶2

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶3

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]

¶4

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the Government has already taken over possession and is in the process of developing public project. The ponds have already been dug up and the land has been handed over to Horticulture Department for developing the eco park in public interest. Therefore, interim order of status quo is causing obstruction for developing public project by the Horticulture Department, which would be of greater benefit for the people residing in Chennai city.

¶5

The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would rely on Section 41 (ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), which would enumerate that 'if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project, no injunction can be granted'. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the Government has already spent about Rs.100 crores for developing ponds and eco park in the subject land measuring to an extent of 167 acres.

¶6

Page No.1 of 3

¶7

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

¶8

Pursuant to the directions of this Court notice was served on the respondent. Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that there is no objection for the respondent to develop the ponds in the subject land by the Government. The respondent will not cause any obstruction for developing or strengthen the ponds in the public interest. Developing ponds in the subject land is the immediate concern raised by the Government, since rainy season started. The statement of the respondent that they will not cause any obstruction to develop or strengthen the ponds is recorded.

¶9

Therefore, the delay of 72 days in filing the original side appeal is condoned. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.25695 of 2025 in O.S.A.SR.No.167426 of 2025 stands ordered. The Registry is directed to number the original side appeal, if it is other wise in order and print the name of Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent in the cause list.

¶10