Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 13945 Mad
Judgement Date : 13 July, 2021
W.A.No.2084 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.2084 of 2013
and
M.P.No. 1 of 2013
Virendra Mehta ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The State of Tamilnadu represented
by the Secretary to the government,
Public (SC) Dept., Fort St. George,
Chennai-6 00 009.
2.The Union of India represented by
The Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Finance, Dept. of revenue,
(COFEPOSA-UNIT), New Delhi.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of police,
Egmore, Chennai-8
4.The Deputy Director,
Enforcement directorate, No.6, Haddows road,
Shasthri Bhavan, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-34.
... Respondents
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2084 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 27.08.2013 made in W.P.No.7543 of 2013 by a learned Single
Judge of this Court.
For Appellant : No appearance
For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
(Government Advocate)
For R2 : No appearance
For R4 : Mr.Rajnish pathiyil
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated
27.08.2013 made in W.P.No.7543 of 2013 by a learned Single Judge of this
Court.
2. At the outset, a perusal of the records would go to show that on the
past two hearings, namely, on 08.07.2021 and 09.07.2021 there was no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.No.2084 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
representation on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, in order to give one
more chance to the appellant, we directed the Registry to post the matter
under the caption, ''for dismissal'' on 13.07.2021. Even today, when the
matter was listed under the caption ''for dismissal'', no one appeared on
behalf of the appellant.
3. Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned counsel appearing
for the 4th respondent would also state that the appellant is not interested in
prosecuting the matter.
4. In view of the non-representation on the side of the appellant for
the past three hearings, we are of the view that the appellant is not interested
in prosecuting the matter. Therefore, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed for
default. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
13.07.2021
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.No.2084 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
T.RAJA, J.
and V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vsn
W.A.No.2084 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
13.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!