The Manager Vs Valli

The Manager vs Valli

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jun 24, 2026

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1433429

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/1433429
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan,Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jun 24, 2026
Case Number: CMP/10431/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Manager

Respondent

Valli

Excerpt

cmp no.10431 of 2026 in cma sr no.200928 of 2025c.v.karthikeyan, j.andk.rajasekar, j.(order of the court was made by c.v.karthikeyan, j.) this petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in mcop no.951 of 2018 on the file of the mact additional district judge, ftc, kancheepuram. 2.notice had been directed to the respondents, notice had been served and proof affidavit had also been filed. but there is no appearance for the respondents. 3.it had been stated that owing to administrative reasons, there has been a delay of 21 days. 4.in view of the reasons stated, the delay stands condoned. registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order. (c.v.k.j., ) (k.r.s.j., ) sli 24.06.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Full Judgment

CMP No.10431 of 2026 in CMA SR No.200928 of 2025

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

and

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.) This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in MCOP No.951 of 2018 on the file of the MACT Additional District Judge, FTC, Kancheepuram. 2.Notice had been directed to the respondents, notice had been served and proof affidavit had also been filed. But there is no appearance for the respondents. 3.It had been stated that owing to administrative reasons, there has been a delay of 21 days. 4.In view of the reasons stated, the delay stands condoned. Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order. (C.V.K.J., ) (K.R.S.J., ) sli 24.06.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties The Manager vs Valli Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan,Honourable Mr.Justice ...