G. Ganesan Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by Its Chief Executive Officer and A. Bond Strands Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by the Managing Director Ramalinga Raya Reddy

G. Ganesan vs Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by Its Chief Executive Officer and A. Bond Strands

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Chennai Decided Jun 26, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/839535

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/839535
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: P. Sathasivam and ;V. Dhanapalan, JJ.
Decided On: Jun 26, 2006
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 752 of 2006 and WAMP. No. 1538 of 2006
Subject: Property
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LABOUR & SERVICES Part Time employee: [Tarun Chatterjee & H.S. Bedi, JJ] Employee employed on part-time basis but under control and supervision of employer is a workman. He would be entitled to benefit of continuous service under Section 25 and protection of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947.

Key legal issue: Property
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G. Ganesan

Advocate S. Elamurugan, Adv.

Respondent

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by Its Chief Executive Officer and A. Bond Strands

Advocate A.L. Somayaji, Sr. Counsel for ;Dakshyanai Reddy, Adv. for Respondent No. 1

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)3MLJ1000

Excerpt

- labour & services part time employee: [tarun chatterjee & h.s. bedi, jj] employee employed on part-time basis but under control and supervision of employer is a workman. he would be entitled to benefit of continuous service under section 25 and protection of section 25-f of i.d. act, 1947. p. sathasivam, j.1. the above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 31.03.2006 made in wpmp. no. 37677 of 2005 & wvmp. no. 240 of 2006 in writ petition no. 34802 of 2005, in and by which the learned judge, after finding that the writ petitioner has violated condition nos.3 and 5 of the agreement dated 19.10.2004 and failed to deposit 25% of the amount, vacated the interim order granted earlier. against which the writ petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.2. it is not in dispute that as per the terms of allotment, the allottee/petitioner has to deposit 25% of the cost of the plot, which comes to rs.19,92,000/- towards initial deposit and the same has to be deposited within a period of 30 days on receipt of the allotment order. the said clause further makes it clear that failing which, it will automatically result in cancellation of the allotment. in view of the same and in the light of the admitted factual position that the petitioner / appellant has not deposited the entire 25%, viz., rs.19,92,000/-, we are of the view that the learned judge is perfectly right in vacating the interim order on the ground of non-compliance of the condition prescribed in the agreement dated 19.04.2004. accordingly, we do not find any valid ground for interference; hence, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. no costs. connected wamp., is also dismissed.

Full Judgment

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 31.03.2006 made in WPMP. No. 37677 of 2005 & WVMP. No. 240 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 34802 of 2005, in and by which the learned Judge, after finding that the writ petitioner has violated Condition Nos.3 and 5 of the Agreement dated 19.10.2004 and failed to deposit 25% of the amount, vacated the interim order granted earlier. Against which the writ petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.

2. It is not in dispute that as per the terms of allotment, the allottee/petitioner has to deposit 25% of the cost of the plot, which comes to Rs.19,92,000/- towards initial deposit and the same has to be deposited within a period of 30 days on receipt of the allotment order. The said clause further makes it clear that failing which, it will automatically result in cancellation of the allotment. In view of the same and in the light of the admitted factual position that the petitioner / appellant has not deposited the entire 25%, viz., Rs.19,92,000/-, we are of the view that the learned Judge is perfectly right in vacating the interim order on the ground of non-compliance of the condition prescribed in the agreement dated 19.04.2004. Accordingly, we do not find any valid ground for interference; hence, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected WAMP., is also dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2006 Same Parties G. Ganesan vs Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep... Same Subject Property Same Judge P. Sathasivam and ;V. Dhanapalan, JJ.

Property The agreement Interim order