Back
R. SURESH KUMAR, G. ARUL MURUGAN
Director of Town and Country Planning – Appellant
Versus
M. S. Chinnachamy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 27.09.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.6776 of 2023.
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(MD)No.6776 of 2023, which is a part of the group of Writ Petitions disposed of by the Writ Court, by order dated 27.09.2023 in a common order.
2.Though the order passed by the Writ Court has been questioned in this Writ Appeal, when the case is taken up for admission, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that only against awarding of cost by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned, this Writ Appeal has been filed. Therefore, to that extent, if the cost imposed by the learned Single Judge is interfered with, the appellants would be satisfied without canvassing the points on merits with regard to the order passed by the Writ Court.
3.He would further submit that in the similar line already a Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.414 of 2024 was allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 19.03.2024, by passing the following orders:-
The court established that costs can be contested separately from the merits of a case, and that prior rulings can influence decisions on cost impositions.
A legal action becomes infructuous when the underlying cause for the action ceases to exist, warranting dismissal of the appeal.
Writ appeals can be dismissed as infructuous when the underlying cause of action has ceased to exist.
The court established that costs imposed by a Tribunal can be reviewed and set aside if compliance with the Tribunal's orders is demonstrated and the affected party does not insist on the payment.
The resolution of grievances in employment matters can lead to the dismissal of related writ appeals when no further issues remain.
All petitioners must be included in a writ appeal challenging a common order to ensure maintainability.
A recorded compromise between disputing parties can effectively resolve the matter, eliminating the need for further judicial intervention.
The court upheld the imposition of costs for abuse of process due to the petitioner's misrepresentation of facts and failure to challenge relevant prior orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
