Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.66 seconds)Documents citing
V.M. Chandrasekaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By Its ... on 28 February, 2002
D.Jayanthi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 13 December, 2011
"3.Despite notice, the respondents have not filed any reply affidavit till date. When the matter is called, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order passed in W.P.No.43313 of 2006 (M.Chandrasekar Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others) dated 25.3.2009. In paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the said order it is stated as follows:
A.Rajeswari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 November, 2011
"3.Despite notice, the respondents have not filed any reply affidavit till date. When the matter is called, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order passed in W.P.No.43313 of 2006 (M.Chandrasekar Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others) dated 25.3.2009. In paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the said order it is stated as follows:
M.Kandasamy vs The Special Tahsildar (La) on 5 November, 2014
8.The learned counsel for the petitioner has at this juncture
drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment reported in CDJ 2010 MHC
7064 (V.Chandrsekaran Vs. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority, Chennai), wherein I had an occasion to deal with the
similar issues. In the case decided above, Section 6 declaration was
challenged and quashed and no fresh proceeding was initiated as in the
present case and the property was sold to the writ petitioner therein, who
entered into an agreement with the promoter and he obtained planning
permission from CMDA for carrying on development activities. In the course of
such activities, he filed an application for revised planning permission,
wherein CMDA insisted for NOC from TNHB and CMDA also sought to revoke the
earlier permission for want of NOC from TNHB. While dealing with such issue,
it is observed by me in paragraph No.7 as follows;
1