Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 07, 2016
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1186558

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.M.P.No. 13037 of 2016 In Crl.A.Sr.No. 51128 of 2016
Subject
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Respondent

Excerpt

venugopal, j. 1. heard mr.k.murugesan, learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant and mr.r.ravichandran, learned government advocate (crl. side) for the respondent. 2.the petitioner/appellant/accused has filed the present criminal appeal in sr.no.51128 of 2016 as against the judgment dated 21.09.2016 in spl.s.c.no.03/2016 passed by the learned sessions judge, mahila court, perambalur. 3. the reasons attributed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant/ accused for the delay of 11 days in preferring the present appeal is due to the fact that he took some time to secure the lower court's judgment from the trial court's learned counsel and also because of the 'poverty'. 4. considering the fact that the petitioner/appellant has assigned the reason of 'poverty' and also he took some time to obtain the judgment of the trial court from his lower court learned counsel, this court, by taking a lenient and liberal view and avoiding a pedantic approach and also hyper technical or technical approach, in the interest of justice, condones the delay of 11 days in filing the crl.a.no.51128 of 2016, subject to the condition that the petitioner/appellant/accused shall pay a sum of rs.125/- (rupees one hundred and twenty five only) as costs to the tamil nadu mediation and conciliation centre, high court, madras, on or before 23.12.2016, failing which, it is made clear that the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this court. 5. in fine, the crl.m.p.no.13037 of 2016 is ordered, in above terms.

Full Judgment

Venugopal, J.

1. Heard Mr.K.Murugesan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ Appellant and Mr.R.Ravichandran, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent.

2.The Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has filed the present Criminal Appeal in Sr.No.51128 of 2016 as against the Judgment dated 21.09.2016 in Spl.S.C.No.03/2016 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.

3. The reasons attributed on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused for the delay of 11 days in preferring the present Appeal is due to the fact that he took some time to secure the lower Court's Judgment from the trial Court's Learned Counsel and also because of the 'Poverty'.

4. Considering the fact that the Petitioner/Appellant has assigned the reason of 'Poverty' and also he took some time to obtain the Judgment of the trial Court from his lower Court Learned Counsel, this Court, by taking a lenient and liberal view and avoiding a pedantic approach and also hyper technical or technical approach, in the interest of Justice, condones the delay of 11 days in filing the Crl.A.No.51128 of 2016, subject to the condition that the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused shall pay a sum of Rs.125/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Five Only) as costs to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras, on or before 23.12.2016, failing which, it is made clear that the Petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.

5. In fine, the Crl.M.P.No.13037 of 2016 is ordered, in above terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial