Allowed

Ramachandran v. Paulraj

Madras HC19 Nov 2024CMP(MD)/16494/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition was filed to condone a delay of 136 days in representing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The court allowed the petition based on the reasons given in the affidavit, imposing an ancillary condition of payment of court costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to condone delay of 136 days on the condition of paying Rs.5,000 costs to the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

Ramachandran Vs Paulraj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P.(MD)No.16494 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Nineteenth day of November Two Thousand and Twenty Four

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

¶5

C.M.P.(MD)No.16494 of 2024 in C.M.A.(MD) SR.No.38489 of 2024

¶6

1 RAMACHANDRAN

¶7

2 GURUMURTHY,

¶8

3 P.S.R.KUMAR 4 K.MURUGAN

¶9

... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

1 PAULRAJ,

2 RAVISEKARAN,

... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to condone the Delay of 136 days in representing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA(MD).S.R.NO.38489 of 2024 on the file of this Hon`ble court and thus render justice.

¶15

PRAYER IN C.M.A.(MD) SR.No.38489 of 2024:

¶16

To set aside the Fair and Decretal order passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai in I.A.No.1/2021 in O.S.No.69/2021 dated on 09.01.2024 and allow the persent Appeal.

¶17

ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.M.PRABU, Advocate for the petitioners, the court made the following order:-

¶18

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

¶19

1/3

¶20

C.M.P.(MD)No.16494 of 2024

¶21

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 136 days in (*)representing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A(MD)SR.No.38489 of 2024.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant.

¶23

Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, this petition is allowed on the condition to pay costs of Rs.5,00/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Court, within a period of two weeks from today. Failing which, this petition shall automatically stand dismissed without reference to this Court.

¶24

sd/-

¶25

19/11/2024

¶26

(*)CORRECTED ORDER ISSUED

¶27

/ TRUE COPY /

¶28

/11/2024

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I / II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶30

JBR

¶31

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

¶32

2/3

¶33

C.M.P.(MD)No.16494 of 2024

¶34

¶35

TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2024 ALREADY DESPATCHED

¶36

THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT, SIVAGANGAI

¶37

COPY TO

¶38

THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶39

ORDER IN C.M.P.(MD)No.16494 of 2024 in C.M.A.(MD) SR.No.38489 of 2024 Date :19/11/2024

¶40

RK/VR (28/11/2024) 3P / 3C

¶41

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Ramachandran v. Paulraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran v. Paulraj

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

M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Minor Marimuthu

The Branch Manager Vs M.Suriyanivas

Abdul Salam Vs The Managing Director

K. Balasubramanian Vs v. Muthupandi

Renganathan Vs Dhanasekaran

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sankararaj