Skip to content
Try for free
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.
See full guide →

Senthilkumar vs Subramanian

Senthilkumar vs Subramanian

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 14, 2025
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1706364

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CMP/3380/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Senthilkumar

Respondent

Subramanian

Excerpt

cmp no.3380 of 2025 in cma sr no.1886 of 2025s.sounthar, j.respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte before the tribunal and hence, notice to them is dispensed with. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fourth respondent. being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed along with the petition, the delay of 537 days in filing the appeal is condoned. petitioners are not entitled to claim interest for the above said delay period. registry is directed to number the civil miscellaneous appeal, if it is otherwise in order and list the same for admission. registry is directed to print the name of mr.d.bhaskaran, counsel for the fourth respondent at the time of admission.14.03.2025 mst https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Full Judgment

CMP No.3380 of 2025 in CMA SR No.1886 of 2025

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

Respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte before the Tribunal and hence, notice to them is dispensed with. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed along with the petition, the delay of 537 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Petitioners are not entitled to claim interest for the above said delay period. Registry is directed to number the civil miscellaneous appeal, if it is otherwise in order and list the same for admission. Registry is directed to print the name of Mr.D.Bhaskaran, counsel for the fourth respondent at the time of admission.

14.03.2025 mst https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2025 Same Parties Senthilkumar vs Subramanian Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice S. Sounthar

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales