Allowed

Andrew John Scoott v. Pl.Murugappan

Madras HC23 Feb 2018CMP/597/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras considered applications to recognize a power of attorney agent to represent the petitioner in civil revision petitions. The petition was allowed subject to the respondent's objection regarding the genuineness of the power executed.

What did the court decide?

Petitions to recognize the agent are allowed, subject to the respondent's objection regarding the genuineness of the power of attorney remaining open to be raised later.

Andrew John Scoott Vs Pl.Murugappan — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twenty Third day of February Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CMP.Nos.597 & 598 of 2018

¶7

and CMP.No.8617 of 2016 in CRP.PD.No.1588 of 2016

¶8

in CRP.PD.Nos.1588 & 3423 of 2016

¶9

ANDREW JOHN SCOOTT, [PETITIONER IN CMP.597 & 598/18 S/O JAMES SCOTT, AT NO. 33/48, AND RESPONDENT IN CMP.8617/16] KOVIL MEDU, YERCAUD TK, SALEM DIST POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT C.CHAKAVARTHI S/O.S.P.CHANDRASEKARAN, NO.158, GOVINDASAMY COLONY, 13^th WARD, KANNAKURICHI VILLAGE, SALEM -8

¶10

¶11

PL.MURUGAPPAN [RESPONDENT IN CMP.597/18 & PETITIONER IN CMP.8617/16]

¶12

M.PALANIAPPAN, [RESPONDENT IN CMP.598/18]

¶13

Petitions praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the respective affidavits filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to

¶14

(i)Recognize Mr.Chakravarty s/o S.P Chandrasekaran residing at No.158 Govindasamy Colony, 13^th Ward, Kannagkurichi Village, Salem -8 as the agent of the petitioner to defend the case on behalf of the respondent in the above CRP (in CMP.No.597/2018);

¶15

(ii)R ecognize Mr.Chakravarty s/o. S.P. Chandrasekaran residing at No.158 Govindasamy Colony, 13th Ward, Kannagkurichi Village, Salem -8 as the agent of the petitioner to defend the case on behalf of the respondent in the above CRP(in CMP.No.598/2018)and

¶16

(iii)Grant an order of interim stay of all further proceedings in OS No. 40/2014 on the file of the Learned I Additional Sub Court, Salem, (in CMP.No.8617/2016)respectively.

¶17

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. SIVA ASSOCIATES, Advocate for the PETITIONER IN CMP.597 & 598/18 AND RESPONDENT IN CMP.8617/16 and of M/S.P.SIVAKUMAR, Advocate for the RESPONDENT IN CMP.597 & 598/18 & PETITIONER IN CMP.8617/16 the court made the following order:-

¶18

The petitioner has filed the application to recognise the power agent to represent on behalf of the petitioner Principal in the Civil Revision Petitions.

¶19

The learned counsel for the respondent objected for the power of agent executed by the Principal.

¶20

Therefore the petitions are allowed subject to the objection raised by the respondent for the genuineness of the power executed by the principal.

¶21

It is open to the respondent to raise the above objection at the later stage.

¶22

The applications are allowed with above terms.

¶23

-sd/23/02/2018 / TRUE COPY /

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. ) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶25

¶26

1 THE I ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, SALEM.

¶27

2 THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SALEM.

¶28

C.C. to M/S.SIVA ASSOCIATES on payment of necessary charges

¶29

C.C. to M/S.P.SIVAKUMAR, Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶30

Order

¶31

¶32

CMP.Nos.597 & 598 of 2018

¶33

and CMP.No.8617 of 2016 in CRP.PD.No.1588 of 2016

¶34

in CRP.PD.Nos.1588 & 3423 of 2016

¶35

Date :23/02/2018

¶36

From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Interim Orders in this format KP(28/02/2018)

Andrew John Scoott v. Pl.Murugappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andrew John Scoott v. Pl.Murugappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palaniammal Vs Karuppaiah

Kannan Vs Raja

Arachelvam Vs Sundarsingh

Karthik Balasubramanian Vs S. Suchitra

S.Mahesh Raja Singh Vs K.Saraswathy

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Vs Farida,W/O.Mohammed Ismail