← Library
Madras High CourtWP/40253/2016withdrawn dismissed

M/S.Ip Rings Ltd v. The Chennai Metropolitan

2017-08-24Honourable Mr Justice M.Duraiswamy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.08.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.40253 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.34274/16, 2778 and 2895 of 2017 M/s IP Rings Ltd., D11/12, Industrial Estate Maraimalai Nagar 603 209 Kancheepuram District rep. by its Company Secretary Mrs.S.Priyamvatha ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

2. The Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Maraimalai Nagar 603 209 Kancheepuram District.

3. S.K.A. Jagannathan ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent if necessary with the assistance of the 2nd respondent to take effective and immediate measures to evict the 3rd respondent, his men, agents, associates and representatives from the property admeasuring 6014.35 sq mts located at C 15/3, MMDA Industrial Complex, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpet and restore possession of the said property to the petitioner.

For Petitioner :Mr.Krishana Srinivas for Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam For Respondents:Mr.M.Karthikeyan (R1) Mr.R.Rajeswaran, SGP (R2) Mr.Agilish for Mr.R.Sankarappan (R3)

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent with the assistance of the 2nd respondent to take effective and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

immediate measures to evict the 3rd respondent from the property admeasuring 6014.35 sq mts located at C 15/3, MMDA Industrial Complex, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpet and restore possession of the said property to them.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has instructed him to withdraw the writ petition for the reason that the petitioner had taken possession of the property and that the 1st respondent viz., The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, is contemplating to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also made an endorsement to that effect. However, this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

3. In these circumstances, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side are recorded.

4. In view of the submission and the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

No costs.

Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rg To

1. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

2. The Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Maraimalai Nagar 603 209 Kancheepuram District.

+1cc to Mr.R.Sankarappan, Advocate, S.R.No.61354 +1cc to Mr.S.Ramasubramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.61905 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.61937 W.P.No.40253 of 2016 LRS(CO) GN(08/09/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/