Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

MARG Limited Vs The Chief Engineer

MARG Limited vs The Chief Engineer

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 08, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1431820

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/8207/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

MARG Limited

Respondent

The Chief Engineer

Excerpt

.....to complete the work as per the terms of the minutes of the meeting held on 17.07.2019.2.the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was awarded tender for construction of fishing harbour at mahe in the union territory of puducherry on 14.02.2011 and for failure to complete the work within the stipulated time, the second respondent issued the impugned notices, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 17.04.2020. hence, this court may without going into the merits of the case, issue direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s reply dated 17.04.2020 and to pass appropriate orders.3.considering the limited relief now sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this court without going into the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s reply dated 17.04.2020 on merits and in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already passed.4.the writ petition is disposed of. no costs. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. pri index: yes/ no speaking order: yes/ no ncc: yes/ nom.dhandapani,j.pri to and

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI And M/s.MARG Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.K.S.Gajendra Babu Sri Sai Subhodaya Apartments, Basement, No.57/2B, East Coast Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041. ... Petitioner Vs. Mahe - 673 310. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records and quash the impugned show cause notice dated 29.11.2019 in No.9-16/PW/ DBM/D1/19-20/932 and notice on final action dated 07.04.2020 in No. 9-16/PW/DBM/D1/2020-21/4 issued by the second respondent and consequently permit the petitioner to complete the work as per the terms of the Minutes of the Meeting held on 17.07.2019. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Gokula Krishna For Respondents : Mr.R.Sreedhar Additional Government Pleader (P)

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records and quash the show cause notice dated 29.11.2019 in No.9-16/PW/DBM/D1/19-20/932 and notice on final action dated 07.04.2020 in No. 9-16/PW/DBM/D1/ 2020-21/4 issued by the second respondent and consequently permit the petitioner to complete the work as per the terms of the Minutes of the Meeting held on 17.07.2019.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was awarded tender for construction of Fishing Harbour at Mahe in the Union Territory of Puducherry on 14.02.2011 and for failure to complete the work within the stipulated time, the second respondent issued the impugned notices, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 17.04.2020. Hence, this Court may without going into the merits of the case, issue direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s reply dated 17.04.2020 and to pass appropriate orders.

3.Considering the limited relief now sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s reply dated 17.04.2020 on merits and in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already passed.

4.The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

pri To And

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties MARG Limited vs The Chief Engineer Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales