Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 15, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1188329

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/1188329
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M. Venugopal
Decided On: Sep 15, 2016
Case Number: Crl.O.P.No. 3379 of 2008
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

m. venugopal, j. 1. it comes to be known that the learned additional chief metropolitan magistrate, egmore, chennai had addressed a letter in dis.no.971 of 2016 dated 29.08.2016, to the registrar general of this court, inter alia stating that ... on 11.08.2016, written arguments was filed by a2 and also filed a petition for revoking memo of appearance of counsel and the same was accepted by this court etc., and ultimately, prayed for one month time being granted to dispose of the case in c.c.no.8650 of 2000 pending on his file. 2. at this stage, the learned special public prosecutor for cbi cases brings it to the notice of this court that in c.c.no.8650 of 2000 on the file of the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, witnesses p.w.1 to p.w.113 were examined and exs.p1 to ex.p233 were marked and on the side of the defence, witnesses d.w.1 and d.w.2 were examined. 3. considering the fact that the learned additional chief metropolitan magistrate, allikulam, egmore, chennai-3 had sought for further one month time to dispose of the case in c.c.no.8650 of 2000 pending on his file (vide letter dated 29.08.2016 in dis. no.971 of 2016), this court acceding to the said request grants one month time from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to dispose of the case in c.c.no.8650 of 2000 and to report compliance to this court without fail.

Full Judgment

M. Venugopal, J.

1. It comes to be known that the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai had addressed a letter in Dis.No.971 of 2016 dated 29.08.2016, to the Registrar General of this Court, inter alia stating that ... on 11.08.2016, written arguments was filed by A2 and also filed a Petition for revoking memo of appearance of counsel and the same was accepted by this Court etc., and ultimately, prayed for one month time being granted to dispose of the case in C.C.No.8650 of 2000 pending on his file.

2. At this stage, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases brings it to the notice of this Court that in C.C.No.8650 of 2000 on the file of the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.113 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P233 were marked and on the side of the defence, witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined.

3. Considering the fact that the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai-3 had sought for further one month time to dispose of the case in C.C.No.8650 of 2000 pending on his file (vide letter dated 29.08.2016 in Dis. No.971 of 2016), this Court acceding to the said request grants one month time from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to dispose of the case in C.C.No.8650 of 2000 and to report compliance to this Court without fail.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M. Venugopal