Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 17, 2017

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1185732

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/1185732
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M. Venugopal &Amp; K. Kalyanasundaram
Decided On: Feb 17, 2017
Case Number: M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015 in Rev.Apln.Nos. 44 & 45 of 2015
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

1. mr.r.govindasamy, learned special government pleader informs this court that he appears for r1 to r5. no counter is filed on behalf of r1 to r5. 2. admittedly, review application nos.44 and 45 of 2015 filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this court on 14.08.2015, since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner even after the review applications were called for the second time. 3. at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this court that when the review applications came up for hearing on 14.08.2015, he was unable to present with a view to prosecute the matter, because of the reason that he was held up before other court. 4. this court, on being subjectively satisfied as to the reason ascribed on behalf of the petitioner, by taking a lenient and liberal view and to advance the cause of justice, without harping on technicalities, allows the m.p.nos.1 and 1 of 2015 and directs the restoration of review application nos.44 and 45 of 2015 to file. 5. post the review applications on 06.03.2017 at 2.15 p.m.

Full Judgment

1. Mr.R.Govindasamy, Learned Special Government Pleader informs this Court that he appears for R1 to R5. No counter is filed on behalf of R1 to R5.

2. Admittedly, Review Application Nos.44 and 45 of 2015 filed by the Petitioner were dismissed by this Court on 14.08.2015, since there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner even after the Review Applications were called for the second time.

3. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that when the Review Applications came up for hearing on 14.08.2015, he was unable to present with a view to prosecute the matter, because of the reason that he was held up before other Court.

4. This Court, on being subjectively satisfied as to the reason ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner, by taking a lenient and liberal view and to advance the cause of Justice, without harping on technicalities, allows the M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2015 and directs the restoration of Review Application Nos.44 and 45 of 2015 to file.

5. Post the Review Applications on 06.03.2017 at 2.15 p.m.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2017 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject MRTP Same Judge M. Venugopal &Amp; K. Kalyanasundaram