Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 12, 2017

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1186029

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/1186029
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M. Venugopal
Decided On: Jan 12, 2017
Case Number: Crl. M.P. No. 607 of 2017 in Crl. A. Sr. No. 42353 of 2016
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. it appears that the petitioner had paid the cost of rs.1,500/-, admittedly, belatedly on 09.01.2017. on behalf of the petitioner, the reason assigned for the belated payment is because of the fact that the petitioner's wife is the only person to save her family and she is working as a servant maid in a house and therefore, the petitioner could not pay the money in time. 2. on being subjectively satisfied as to the reason ascribed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant/accused, this court, by taking a lenient, liberal and pragmatic view, allows this petition. 3. in fine, the crl.m.p.no.607 of 2016 is allowed.

Full Judgment

1. It appears that the Petitioner had paid the cost of Rs.1,500/-, admittedly, belatedly on 09.01.2017. On behalf of the Petitioner, the reason assigned for the belated payment is because of the fact that the Petitioner's wife is the only person to save her family and she is working as a servant maid in a house and therefore, the Petitioner could not pay the money in time.

2. On being subjectively satisfied as to the reason ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused, this Court, by taking a lenient, liberal and pragmatic view, allows this Petition.

3. In fine, the Crl.M.P.No.607 of 2016 is allowed.

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