Tmt.Rajakanni Vs. the Assistant Director

Tmt.Rajakanni. vs The Assistant Director

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 13, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/926010

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/926010
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M.Jaichandren, J.
Decided On: Mar 13, 2012
Case Number: W.P.No.20448 of 2009, W.P.No.20449 of 2009; W.P.No.20450 of 2009 and W.P.No.20215 of 2009
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tmt.Rajakanni.

Advocate Mr.P.Chandrasekar, Adv.

Respondent

The Assistant Director

Advocate Mr.M.Dhandapani, Adv.

Excerpt

this writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in file no.ecir/03/cz/pmla/2009 dated 23.09.2009 and quash the same. w.p.no.20449 of 2009:this writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in file no.ecir/03/cz/pmla/2009 dated 23.09.2009 and quash the same. w.p.no.20450 of 2009:this writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in file no.ecir/03/cz/pmla/2009 dated 23.09.2009 and quash the same. w.p.no.20215 of 2009:this writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in file no.ecir/03/cz/pmla/2009 dated 23.09.2009 and quash the same.common order1. since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.2. these writ petitions have been filed challenging the summons issued by the respondent, dated 23.9.2009, along with the necessary documents, as shown in the schedule therein.3. even though the jurisdiction of the respondent, in issuing the said summons, is under challenge, this court finds that the writ petitions have become infructuous, in view of the fact that the summons issued by the respondent, on 23.9.2009, are not in force, as on date. hence, the writ petitions are dismissed, as infructuous. however, it goes without saying that it would be open to the respondents to issue fresh summons, if so advised, in the manner known to law. no costs. connected m.p.nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.

Full Judgment

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in File No.ECIR/03/CZ/PMLA/2009 dated 23.09.2009 and quash the same. W.P.No.20449 of 2009:

COMMON ORDER

1. Since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.

2. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the summons issued by the respondent, dated 23.9.2009, along with the necessary documents, as shown in the schedule therein.

3. Even though the jurisdiction of the respondent, in issuing the said summons, is under challenge, this Court finds that the writ petitions have become infructuous, in view of the fact that the summons issued by the respondent, on 23.9.2009, are not in force, as on date. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed, as infructuous. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the respondents to issue fresh summons, if so advised, in the manner known to law. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties Tmt.Rajakanni. vs The Assistant Director Same Subject Education Same Judge M.Jaichandren, J.