B. Stalin, Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court v. Lawyer Chambers Buildings,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai-23.4. P. Muthuvijaya Pandian,Treasurer, M.B.H.A.A
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissedfor default
Provisions considered
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDated :: 24..06..2011Coram::THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNAandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMYWrit Petition (MD)No.5804 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011B. Stalin, Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,S/o. S. Baskaran, Ettimangalam Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. ..... Petitioner- Vs -1. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, High Court Buildings, Chennai - 104.
The Registrar (Admn), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 23.
The M.B.H.A.A., represented by the Secretary K.Samidurai, Lawyer Chambers Buildings, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.
P. Muthuvijaya Pandian, Treasurer, M.B.H.A.A., Lawyer Chambers Buildings, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai – 23. ......RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to notify and conduct the election for the period 2011-2012after rectification and registration of the MBHAA under the SocietiesRegistration Act delegating duties and liabilities of the body as done by the other associations within the Madurai Bench premises by considering the representation dated 16.05.2011. For Petitioner:: Mr. W. Peter Ramesh Kumar(Did not appear)
Operative part
O R D E R(Order of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) When the matter was taken up for hearing on 23.06.2011, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the matter was directed tobe posted today (24.06.2011) under the caption "for dismissal". Though this matter is listed today under the caption "for dismissal", there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed for default. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are also dismissed. SDASST REGISTRAR ( CRL SIDE )/TRUE COPY/Dpn/- SUB ASST REGISTRAR TO:1. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, High Court Buildings, Chennai - 104. 2. The Registrar (Admn), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 23.DM::2011:JULY::05:: Writ Petition (MD)No.5804 of 2011and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 1P:3C::
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissedfor default
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Registration Act, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.