Skip to content
Try for free
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.
See full guide →

Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Aug 02, 2016
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1189371

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 12067 of 2016
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

Respondent

Excerpt

v.m. velumani, j. 1. when the matter is taken up for hearing today under the caption 'for being mentioned', the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the order copy, the name of the second petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as sevam instead of selvam. 2. heard the learned government advocate(crl.side). 3. in view of the same, the registry is directed to carry out the correction and issue fresh order copy. 4. time is extended for a period of one week from today.

Full Judgment

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. When the matter is taken up for hearing today under the caption 'for being mentioned', the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the order copy, the name of the second petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as Sevam instead of Selvam.

2. Heard the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side).

3. In view of the same, the Registry is directed to carry out the correction and issue fresh order copy.

4. Time is extended for a period of one week from today.

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Justice V.M. Velumani
Land Acquisition

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales