Skip to content
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.

Logesh R Vs The Additional Controller

Logesh R vs The Additional Controller

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 27, 2026
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1474665

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

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

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/23556/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Logesh R

Respondent

The Additional Controller

Excerpt

.....kept pending. page2 of 45. since the pleading is that it is only an inadvertent error and the matter is pending with the first respondent, the writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:(i) the first respondent shall take up the communications sent by the second respondent institution seeking correction of the error on 28.06.2019 as well as on 02.11.2019, etc;(ii) the first respondent shall verify whether the same isonly a clerical error / an error by oversight and if so, ordercorrection of the error and issue the necessary certificate to the petitioner;(iii) if the first respondent comes to the conclusion thatthere was no clerical or other error and doubts the case of the petitioner, then an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to present their views and after hearing the petitioner, orders in accordance with law shall be passed; and(iv) the above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy.(v) there shall be no order as to costs. neutral citation: no nsl page3 of 4d.bharatha chakravarthy, j.nsl to2. the authorized representative, iikm business school, iikm campus, bhut road, west hill chungam, kozhicode- 5. page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Logesh R ..Petitioner Vs

2. IIKM Business School, Represented by its Authorized Representative, IIKM Campus, Bhut Road, West Hill Chungam, Kozhicode- 5. ..Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for an issuance of mandamus, directing the respondents herein to in July, 2019 within a time frame that may fixed by this Court and for a further direction to issue graduation certificate immediately and to pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Sugumaran For Respondents: Mr.S.Venkatesh for M/s.Ajmal Association for R1 Not Ready in Notice - R2

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus directing the respondents to Page1 of 4 in July, 2019 within a time frame fixed by this Court and for a further direction to issue graduation certificate immediately and to pass such further or other orders.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is

stated that the institution is no longer at the said address and therefore service could not be effected. Further it is not necessary to serve the institution, as the institution has already sent a communication to the first respondent University.

3. Under the circumstances, in view of the nature of order that is passed, the writ petition is disposed of without completion of service to the second respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the

petitioner duly underwent the course and in the list of marks sent by the second respondent institution, instead of entering the petitioner’s mark as 19 for internal assessment, they had wrongly entered it as zero, it was nothing but a data entry mistake. In spite of this being brought to the notice of the first respondent University, till date no orders have been passed to correct the mistake. The institution itself had sent a communication through email on 02.11.2019 and the same is kept pending. Page2 of 4

5. Since the pleading is that it is only an inadvertent error and the matter is pending with the first respondent, the writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:

(i) The first respondent shall take up the communications sent by the second respondent institution seeking correction of the error on 28.06.2019 as well as on 02.11.2019, etc;

(ii) The first respondent shall verify whether the same is

only a clerical error / an error by oversight and if so, order

correction of the error and issue the necessary certificate to the petitioner;

(iii) If the first respondent comes to the conclusion that

there was no clerical or other error and doubts the case of the petitioner, then an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to present their views and after hearing the petitioner, orders in accordance with law shall be passed; and

(iv) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy.

(v) There shall be no order as to costs. Neutral Citation: No NSL Page3 of 4

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

nsl To

2. The Authorized Representative, IIKM Business School, IIKM Campus, Bhut Road, West Hill Chungam, Kozhicode- 5. Page4 of 4

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial