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.

Manilingam Vs. Jayaram Gounder

Manilingam vs Jayaram Gounder

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 05, 1973
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/814637

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
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manilingam

Respondent

Jayaram Gounder

Legal References

Reported In
1973CriLJ1438

Excerpt

- orderk.n. mudaliyar, j.1. i am bound by the practice prevailing in this court, which is embodied in the judgment of krishnaswamy reddy, j, in cri. r. c. no. 516 of 1967 (in re kottimo. alias mohammed unne), wherein it is stated that the accused must surrender to undergo the sentence imposed on him by this court before any application can be entertained. in my view, s. c. cri. m. p. no. 2 of 1973 is incompetent in law. therefore s. c. cri. m. p. no. 2 of 1973 is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

1. I am bound by the practice prevailing in this Court, which is embodied in the judgment of Krishnaswamy Reddy, J, in Cri. R. C. No. 516 of 1967 (In Re Kottimo. alias Mohammed Unne), wherein it is stated that the accused must surrender to undergo the sentence imposed on him by this Court before any application can be entertained. In my view, S. C. Cri. M. P. No. 2 of 1973 is incompetent in law. Therefore S. C. Cri. M. P. No. 2 of 1973 is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial