Jeyakumar.K vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — CMP(MD)/6073/2026

Case under U/s 5 Limitation Act Section 1684. Disposed: Uncontested--ORDERED on 08th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMD010593892026

Filing Number

CMP(MD)/36676/2026

Filing Date

21-Apr-2026

Registration No

CMP(MD)/6073/2026

Registration Date

29-Apr-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar , Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiraman

Coram

Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar , Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiraman

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

Service ( 140 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

08-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ORDERED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 5 Limitation Act Section 1684

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Jeyakumar.K

    Adv. S.RAMSUNDARVIJAYRAJ,Saravanakumar.P,Saravanakumar.P, Saravanakumar.P

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu

  2. 2.The Director/Commissioner

  3. 3.The Regional Joint Director of Training

  4. 4.The Deputy Director/Principal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish KUMAR,Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiramanView PDF

    The Madras High Court granted Jeyakumar.K's petition to condone a 144-day delay in filing a writ appeal against the Government of Tamil Nadu and training officials. The court accepted the reasons stated in the supporting affidavit, with the State counsel raising no serious objections, and directed the Registry to number the appeal if other procedural requirements were met. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Jun-2026

    To Condone Delay In Filing

    Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar , Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiraman

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CMP(MD)/6073/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Madras High Court granted Jeyakumar.K's petition to condone a 144-day delay in filing a writ appeal against the Government of Tamil Nadu and training officials. The court accepted the reasons stated in the supporting affidavit, with the State counsel raising no serious objections, and directed the Registry to number the appeal if other procedural requirements were met. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case