R. Dakshinamurthy v. Nitin Kumar Dhirajlal Gokal

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

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.

1. Nitin Kumar Dhirajlal Gokal

2. The Metropolitan Magistrate First Class, 23rd Court Esplanade, Mumbai. ...

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

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.

2. Heard Mr.V.Arunagiri, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and Mr.Vivek Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

3. Today, when the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned 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

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J kas

4. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

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