Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
VAK Engineering Pvt., Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Minor Inam Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge Chengalpet) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to dismissal order (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. violation of natural justice procedure (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. discretion to entertain writ despite alternate remedy (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. appeal can’t be dismissed on merits if counsel absent (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. restoration of appeal and interim orders (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
ORDER :
V. Lakshminarayanan, J.
Heard Mr.Aswin Prasanna for the writ petitioner, Mr.Ramanlal for the respondents 2 and 14 and Mr.M.J.Jassem Mohamed for the respondents 15 and 16.
2. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the first respondent in MICMA No.28 of 1993 dated 12.06.2015 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the first respondent. Though several grounds have been raised on the merits of the claim, I am not inclined to go through the same in this proceedings. This is for the following reasons:-
3. The matter came up before the first respondent pursuant to an order passed by this court in STA.No.2 of 1996 dated 23.12.2009. By that order, this court, sitting as a special Tribunal, had set aside the earlier order passed by the 1st respondent and had remand
Judicial bodies must strictly adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring that both parties are heard before dismissing an appeal on merits.
The court emphasized that any order impacting rights must adhere to the principles of natural justice, requiring a fair hearing before issuance.
The court reinforced that review petitions are not an opportunity to re-argue cases or appeal decisions already made unless clear, patent errors exist.
Natural justice complied when reply considered and hearing offered, even if not availed.
Impugned orders quashed solely for violating principles of natural justice; remitted for fresh consideration.
A statutory alternative remedy is usually required, unless natural justice is violated, which allows for judicial review.
The discretionary power of the court in deciding writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the exclusion of writ proceedings from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Removal of a Sarpanch requires adherence to natural justice principles and independent findings. Failure to present facts disqualifies claims for writ relief.
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
