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 →

Kannan vs the Managing Director

Kannan vs The Managing Director

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jun 30, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1668609

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 Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP(MD)/20791/2016

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kannan

Respondent

The Managing Director

Excerpt

before the madurai bench of madras high court dated: 30.06.2026coramthe honourable mr.justice m.dhandapani and w.m.p(md)nos.14852 & 14853 of 2016 kannan ... petitioner vs 3.d.j.kennedy, taluk cable operator, tamil nadu arasu cable tv corporation limited, gdr vision, sathankulam taluk, thoothukudi district. ... respondentsprayer: writ petition filed under article 226 of constitution of india, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pursuant to the impugned order of the 1st respondent vide proceedings in a.d11/1291/2015 dated 10.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents not to extend the lease period of the 3rd respondent as tco for sathankulam taluk beyond the stipulated period of one year granted as per the impugned allotment order made by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent in his proceedings in a.d11/1291/2015, dated 10.02.2016.for petitioner : no appearance for respondents : ms.j.r.annie abinaya (r1 & r2) additional standing counselorderon 29.06.2026, when the writ petition came up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. accordingly, this writ petition is listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. in such circumstances, this court is left with no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution. 2.accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. ncc : yes / no index : yes / no ps tom.dhandapani, j.ps

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P(MD)Nos.14852 & 14853 of 2016 Kannan ... Petitioner Vs 3.D.J.Kennedy, Taluk Cable Operator, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, GDR Vision, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pursuant to the impugned order of the 1st respondent vide proceedings in A.D11/1291/2015 dated 10.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents not to extend the lease period of the 3rd respondent as TCO for Sathankulam Taluk beyond the stipulated period of one year granted as per the impugned allotment order made by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent in his proceedings in A.D11/1291/2015, dated 10.02.2016.

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Ms.J.R.Annie Abinaya (R1 & R2) Additional Standing Counsel

ORDER

On 29.06.2026, when the Writ Petition came up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the Writ Petition for non-prosecution. 2.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ps To

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

ps

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Kannan vs The Managing Director 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