Petitioner Vs. Respondent - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1189371
SubjectLand Acquisition
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided OnAug-02-2016
Case NumberCrl.O.P.(MD)No. 12067 of 2016
JudgeThe Honourable Ms. Justice V.M. Velumani
AppellantPetitioner
RespondentRespondent
Excerpt:
v.m. velumani, j. 1. when the matter is taken up for hearing today under the caption 'for being mentioned', the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the order copy, the name of the second petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as sevam instead of selvam. 2. heard the learned government advocate(crl.side). 3. in view of the same, the registry is directed to carry out the correction and issue fresh order copy. 4. time is extended for a period of one week from today.
Judgment:

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. When the matter is taken up for hearing today under the caption 'for being mentioned', the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the order copy, the name of the second petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as Sevam instead of Selvam.

2. Heard the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side).

3. In view of the same, the Registry is directed to carry out the correction and issue fresh order copy.

4. Time is extended for a period of one week from today.