Allowed¶20

Padmini Raghavan v. nil

Madras HC14 Nov 2025A/5415/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; A.No. 5415 of 2025; O.P.No.151 of 2022; Letters of Administration; extension of time; execution of security bond; Rs.25,000/-; order dated 26.07.2023; old age; ill health; one-month extension; P. Dhanabal, J.; 14-11-2025; no respondents; applicant Padmini Raghavan; advocate M/s.J.Moshika.

What did the court decide?

One-month extension, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, for execution of the security bond of Rs.25,000/-. ¶20

Padmini Raghavan Vs nil — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A NO. 5415 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

A.No. 5415 of 2025

¶7

in O.P.No.151 of 2022

¶8

Padmini Raghavan W/o.S.Raghavan, No.31, 4th Trust Cross Street, Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.

Applicant(s)

NIL

Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s): M/s.J.Moshika

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This application has been filed by the applicant seeking extension of time for executing of the draft bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as per the order of this Court dated 26.07.2023.

¶16

2.According to the applicant, the main petition was filed for grant of Letters of Administration, This Court vide its order dated 26.07.2023 also allowed the application and granted Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner /applicant. As per the order of this Court, the petitioner / applicant has to execute a security bond for a sum of

¶17

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

¶18

Rs.25,000/-, due to old age, the petitioner was unable to contact his counsel to execute the security bond. The bond ought to have been executed within a period of three months. Therefore, the present application has been filed by the petitioner / applicant seeking extension of time for executing the bond as directed by this Court.

¶19

3.In this case, there is no respondent. Considering the above said reasons stated by the petitioner applicant, and also considering the fact that Letter of Administration has already been granted by this Court and this Court directed the petitioner to execute the bond, and also, according to the petitioner /applicant, he is unable to execute the bond due to his ill health, this Court is inclined to allow this application.

¶20

4.In the result, this application stands allowed. Time is extended for another period of one month for execution of the bond, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

14-11-2025

¶22

kas

¶23

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

Padmini Raghavan v. nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmini Raghavan v. nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.R.Jawahar Vs Mr.G.Sriramulu and 9 Others

Mr. Jawahar and 2 others Vs R. Venugopal and 7 others

Mrs.Anitha MAthews Vs Anand Pradeepkumar Fredrick and 2 others

Sangeetha Somu Vs R.Thilakeswaran

Supraja Ramachandran Vs Sreeram Chandrasekaran

C.Natarajan and another Vs No Respondent