Dismissed¶21

CoAction Communication Private Limited v. State Industries Promotion

Madras HC12 Feb 2026WA/2215/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench (S.M. Subramaniam J., author; C. Kumarappan J.) — WA No. 2215 of 2022, decided 12-02-2026. Writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order dated 27.07.2022 in WP No.7999/2022 (CoAction Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. SIPCOT). Appeal dismissed as withdrawn without costs after appellant elected withdrawal following a request, objected to by respondent, to invoke the Arbitration clause. No statutory interpretation, no cases cited, no quantum; limited utility as precedent.

What did the court decide?

As the appellant chose to withdraw the Writ Appeal, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs. ¶21

CoAction Communication Private Limited Vs State Industries Promotion — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WA No. 2215 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

WA No. 2215 of 2022

¶7

CoAction Communication Private Limited Formerly known as SDP Telecom (India) Pvt. Ltd, Having their office at Plot No.OZ-11/4, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Oragadam-603 003, Rep. by Saurabh Aggarwal, Authorized Signatory

¶8

Appellant(s)

¶9

¶10

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) Having their registered office at No.19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Rd, Egmore, Chennai-08.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dt. 27.07.2022 passed in WP No.7999/2022.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

For Appellant(s): Mr.Arun C.Mohan

¶17

WA No. 2215 of 2022

¶18

For Respondent(s): M/s.K.Palaniappan For Sole Respondent *****

¶19

J U D G M E N T (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶20

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued the matter for considerable length of time with great deft. The learned counsel for the respondent also completed his arguments. When the Court commenced dictation to pass orders, the learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that the appellant may be permitted to invoke the Arbitration clause, which was objected by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶21

2.In view of the fact that the appellant has chosen to withdraw the Writ Appeal, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

¶22

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(C.KUMARAPPAN J.) 12-02-2026

¶23

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kmi

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

WA No. 2215 of 2022

¶27

¶28

1.State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) Having their registered office at No.19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Rd, Egmore, Chennai-08.

¶29

3/4

¶30

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

¶31

WA No. 2215 of 2022

¶32

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN J.

¶33

kmi

¶34

WA No. 2215 of 2022