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.

D.Mathiazhagan vs State Rep.by, the Inspector of Police,

D.Mathiazhagan vs State Rep.by, the Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 03, 2025
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1754855

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
CRL MP/1633/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D.Mathiazhagan

Respondent

State Rep.by, the Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

crl.m.p.no.1633 of 2025 in crl.a.sr.no.49154 of 2024 m.s.ramesh, j., andn.senthilkumar, j.this petition is filed to condone the delay of 235 days in preferring the above criminal appeal against theorder passed by the learned additionalsessions judge, arani, thiruvannamalai district in s.c.no.31 of 2010.2. this court is convinced withthe reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. since the delay has been satisfactorily explained, the delay is condoned and this petition is allowed. [m.s.r.j] [n.s.j] 03.02.2025 anu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis page no.1/1

Full Judgment

Crl.M.P.No.1633 of 2025 in Crl.A.Sr.No.49154 of 2024 M.S.RAMESH, J., and

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 235 days in preferring the above Criminal Appeal against the

order passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District in S.C.No.31 of 2010.

2. This Court is convinced with

the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Since the delay has been satisfactorily explained, the delay is condoned and this petition is allowed. [M.S.R.J] [N.S.J] 03.02.2025 Anu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1/1

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial