Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jul 04, 2016

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190046

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/1190046
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: M. Venugopal
Decided On: Jul 04, 2016
Case Number: W.P.(MD).No. 11756 of 2016
Subject: Trusts and Societies

Case Summary

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

Trusts and Societies

Key legal issue: Trusts and Societies

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

m. venugopal, j. 1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. a cursory perusal of the averments of the affidavit of the writ petition at paragraph no.4, latently and patently indicates that in adangal column, it is inadvertently mentioned that as 'thirumarainathar 5th mandagapadi trustee muthuraman @ manickam chetty-1, t.lakshmi-2' .as a matter of fact, these two persons mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the affidavit of the writ petition have not been arrayed as parties to the writ petition. hence, the petitioner is directed to implead these two persons as respondents to the writ petition. in this regard, the petitioner is granted one week's time. 3. the registry is directed to list the matter on 12.07.2016.

Full Judgment

M. Venugopal, J.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. A cursory perusal of the averments of the affidavit of the writ petition at paragraph No.4, latently and patently indicates that in adangal column, it is inadvertently mentioned that as 'Thirumarainathar 5^th Mandagapadi Trustee Muthuraman @ Manickam Chetty-1, T.Lakshmi-2' .As a matter of fact, these two persons mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit of the writ petition have not been arrayed as parties to the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner is directed to implead these two persons as respondents to the writ petition. In this regard, the petitioner is granted one week's time.

3. The Registry is directed to list the matter on 12.07.2016.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Trusts and Societies Same Judge M. Venugopal

Trusts and Societies matter of fact