G.Velukannan Scaffolding Contractor v. v.Y.P.Construction

Madras HC25 Nov 2025CRL A/92/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court criminal appeal Crl.A.No.92 of 2025 (decided 25.11.2025, T.V.Thamilselvi, J.) filed under Section 419 BNSS against dismissal of complaint S.T.C.No.8044 of 2024 (Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai) for non-prosecution due to appellant's illness despite a memo; Court held the reason justifiable and ordered restoration of the case for final disposal; appeal allowed, no costs. Appellant: G. Velukannan Scaffolding Contractor (proprietor G. Velukannan); Respondents: V.Y.P. Construction Power Associates and Jacob Jabestin; Appellant's counsel: P.V. Murugan.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Trial Court (Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai) to restore S.T.C. No.8044 of 2024 for hearing for final disposal; appeal allowed with no costs. ¶¶27

G.Velukannan Scaffolding Contractor Vs v.Y.P.Construction — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.A.No. 92 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :25.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.A.No.92 of 2025

¶7

G. Velukannan Scaffolding Contractor, represented by its proprietor, G. Velukannan, having office at 29/11, Brewery Road, Henoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

Vs.

¶10

V.Y.P. Construction Power Associates 7/84-1, Kamarajar Nagar, Servaikaranmadam, Tuticorin – 628 103.

¶11

Jacob Jabestin, M/s. V.Y.P. Construction, S/o. Vethamuthu, 1 H/1122, 2^nd Street, Bharathi Nagar, Thoothukkudi, Tamilnadu – 628 008

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.A.No. 92 of 2025

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 419 of the BNSS to aside the order dated 27.08.2024 made in S.T.C. No.8044 of 2024 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Allikulam. Egmore, Chennai.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.P.V. Murugan For Respondent : Returned Either served or unserved for R1 & R2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The Criminal Appeal filed under Section 419 of the BNSS to aside the order dated 27.08.2024 made in S.T.C. No.8044 of 2024 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Allikulam. Egmore, Chennai.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was illness during the hearing, he could not appear before the Trial Court at the time of calling, even though he was present before calling for the hearing in the Trial Court. Despite he filed a memo to that effect, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent from the case. Hence, this appeal.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.A.No. 92 of 2025

¶25

On a perusal of the records, it is seen that even though Court notice sent to the respondent is returned unserved, private notice has been served on him. However, no representation for the respondent. Further,

¶26

the complaint of the petitioner has been dismissed only for nonprosecution of the petitioner due to his illness, reason justifiable, hence, this Court deems it fit to direct the Trial Court to restore the case for hearing for final disposal.

¶27