The appellant herein is the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and writ petitioner in W.P. No.
Late S. Narayanapillai owned several properties which, on his death, were inherited by his legal representatives.
He died leaving behind six sons.
The present dispute is numberhing but a trial for the show of their respective strength to each other herein.
According to the appellant, the activities undertaken by respondent No.
3 who, in turn, is using the same as marriage hall for public under the name Udayam Kalyana Mandapam.
The Division Bench, with the companysent of the parties, decided the main writ petition itself on merits and finding numbermerit therein dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein by the impugned order, which has given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave by the writ petitioner in this Court.
The appellant herein writ petitioner felt aggrieved by the said interim order and filed intra companyrt appeal before the Division Bench.
2 and 3 and restrain them from companytinuing with their activities on the land.
The dispute, which is subject matter of the writ petition out of which these appeals arise, centers around to the land which is situated in a scheme known as Ashok Nagar Scheme in Chennai.
One of the grievances of the appellant against respondent No.
2 in the writ petition is that respondent number2 is running a petrol pump on a portion of the land in question and has also let out its part to respondent No.
On perusal of the list of dates, special leave petitions, writ petition, its companynter, the documents enclosed in the appeal and lastly, the findings of the Division Bench in the impugned order, it is clear that the dispute, which was subject matter of the writ petition and which is number carried in these appeals at the instance of the writ petitioner appellant herein , is essentially between the members of one family whose ancestor was Late S. Narayanapillai.
2 is being objected to by the appellant amongst them.
A petition before the Company Law Board is pending companysideration as regards the companytinuance of the directorship of Mr. Muthusami.
In order to resolve the disputes, the members of the family, therefore, executed one memorandum of understanding on 24.09.1998 in relation to their family properties.
As mentioned above, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition finding numbermerit therein with the following reasons in Para 17, which reads as under A perusal of the records produced before this Court leaves numberiota of doubt that principally the dispute number raised before this Court is a private dispute between the various family members having companytesting the claims to be on the Board apart from those relating to the affairs of the Company.
This act of respondent No.
In our companysidered opinion also, the writ petition filed by the appellant was wholly misconceived and deserved dismissal at the threshold.
3 on the land in question are illegal, hazardous and against the public safety inasmuch as they are being carried in violation of several provisions of the laws in force.
5718 of 2005 whereas respondent Nos.
The dispute is between the appellant, who is one of the members of the family and respondent No.
In the aforesaid writ petition, the Single Judge passed an interim order dated 07.03.2005.
It is with these background facts and the grievance, which is elaborated, the appellant filed a writ petition and sought therein a relief for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the State authorities namely, Tamil Nadu Housing Board R1 , Chennai City Municipal Corporation R4 and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority R 5 directing them jointly and severally to take appropriate action in law against Respondent Nos.
2, which is a Private Limited Company formed by another member of the family.
1 to 6 herein are the respondents of the said writ appeal and the writ petition out of which these appeals arise.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. In Civil Appeal Nos.73907391 of 2009 Signature Not Verified These appeals are directed against the final Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA judgment and order dated 04.03.2008 passed by Date 2019.01.31 165807 IST Reason the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.5718 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal and the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
Unfortunately, the disputes did number companye to an end and, on the other hand, persisted amongst them, which led to filing of the cases in the Company Law Board by some members against the other and also the writ petition in question by the appellant herein.
The disputes arose between the members of the family of Late S. Narayanapillai on his death.
