Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jun 02, 2016

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190857

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/1190857
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: M. Venugopal
Decided On: Jun 02, 2016
Case Number: M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2013 in W.P.(MD)No. 15693 of 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

m. venugopal, j. 1. there is no representation on the side of the petitioner. 2. it appears that the copy of the original order passed by the second respondent was filed before the office of the first respondent together with revision petition. as such, the petitioner has projected the instant writ petition with the aid of xerox copy of the order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.04.2010. 3. viewed in that perspective, the production of original impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.04.2010, is dispensed with for the present. accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed.

Full Judgment

M. Venugopal, J.

1. There is no representation on the side of the petitioner.

2. It appears that the copy of the original order passed by the second respondent was filed before the Office of the first respondent together with revision petition. As such, the petitioner has projected the instant writ petition with the aid of xerox copy of the order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.04.2010.

3. Viewed in that perspective, the production of original impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.04.2010, is dispensed with for the present. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

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