K.Rathi vs E.Praveenkumar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Apr 30, 2026

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1477070

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/1477070
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs.Justice R. Kalaimathi
Decided On: Apr 30, 2026
Case Number: CMP/26257/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K.Rathi

Respondent

E.Praveenkumar

Excerpt

cmp.no.26257 of 2025 in cma.sr.no.106166 of 2025r.kalaimathi, j.heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2.the respondents filed counter and would object that the reasons stated in the affidavit cannot be taken as a sufficient cause, since the deceased was working in mtc as conductor and the legal representatives of the deceased would have received the terminal benefits. 3.the 1st petitioner would aver that on account of the accident, she lost her husband and due to financial inability and her ill health, cma could not be preferred in time and hence a delay of 311 days occurred. 4.it could be seen that at the time of accident one son of the deceased was aged about 19 years and another son is a minor. after the death of the 1st petitioner’s husband, she faced financial difficulties. 5.accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit, this petition is ordered on the condition that the interest for the delay period shall stand waived. 30.04.2026 kas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Full Judgment

CMP.No.26257 of 2025 in CMA.SR.No.106166 of 2025

R.KALAIMATHI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2.The respondents filed counter and would object that the reasons stated in the affidavit cannot be taken as a sufficient cause, since the deceased was working in MTC as conductor and the legal representatives of the deceased would have received the terminal benefits. 3.The 1st petitioner would aver that on account of the accident, she lost her husband and due to financial inability and her ill health, CMA could not be preferred in time and hence a delay of 311 days occurred. 4.It could be seen that at the time of accident one son of the deceased was aged about 19 years and another son is a minor. After the death of the 1st petitioner’s husband, she faced financial difficulties. 5.Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit, this petition is ordered on the condition that the interest for the delay period shall stand waived. 30.04.2026 kas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties K.Rathi vs E.Praveenkumar Same Judge Honourable Mrs.Justice R. Kalaimathi