Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 1 REVISED ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF T.NADU RESPONDENT(S) WITH Crl.A. No. 172/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Ms. Nithya, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R While Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2013 is partly allowed, Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2013 is dismissed in terms of the Signed Order. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (RASHI GUPTA) SR. P. A. (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 2 ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF T.NADU RESPONDENT(S) WITH Crl.A. No. 172/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Ms. Nithya, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Appeal is dismissed in terms of the Signed Order. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (RASHI GUPTA) SR. P. A. (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF T.NADU RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2013 O R D E R CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The concurrent finding of fact recorded on the charge by the first appellate court, namely, the High Court of Judicature at Madras is under challenge in this appeal questioning the correctness of the same, urging various legal contentions. Learned counsel Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna appearing on behalf of the appellant invited our attention to the impugned judgment with reference to the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 is injured eye-witness. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited our attention to the FIR and the wound certificate and contended that the appellant herein has also sustained grievous injury on the back side of the head. In this connection, an FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional police which was registered and, thereafter, it was closed by the police.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 4 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that having regard to the grievous injuries sustained by appellant at the time of occurrence, that should have been properly explained by the prosecution for consideration of the courts below. The appellant has exercised his private defence that would fall in the explanation of Section 304 Part-I of IPC. The concurrent finding of the fact recorded by the High Court on the charge against the appellant, the grievous injuries sustained by him has not been considered by it while imposing the sentence upon him. Ha ving regard to the above fact situation, the appellant ought to have been charged under Section 304 part I of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, we have modified the charge framed against the appellant from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-I of IPC. Since the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellant, the High Court ought to have considered this aspect of the case to find out how the grievous injuries were sustained by the appellant. After careful consideration of this important aspect of the matter by us and having regard to the fact that appellant has used his private defence and sustained grievous injuries, the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that charge under Section 302 of IPC is not correct, the offence would fall under the provisions of Section 304 Part-I of IPC. In our considered opinion, the sentence should have been imposed under Section 304 Part–I of
Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 5 IPC. The submission made in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellant is tenable and, therefore, the same is accepted. It is brought to our notice that he has already undergone sentence of eight years. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had stated that he is aged about 70 years as of now and, therefore, it will be just and proper for this Court to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to eight years, the period of sentence undergone, holding that the appellant is guilty of the charge under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. With the aforesaid modification of the charge and the sentence imposed upon the appellant, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and proper for this court to direct the appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) as compensation to the wife and son of the deceased. We order accordingly. If Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) is not paid within eight weeks' time from today, the appellant shall undergo default sentence for a further period of one year. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2013: This appeal filed by 'Moorthy' does not have merit and the judgment and order passed by the High Court is on proper
Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 6 evaluation of evidence on record, therefore, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the High Court on the charge. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. ..........................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ..........................J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 31, 2016.
Ð;Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 1 REVISEDITEM NO.103 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013RAMAN @ RAMASAMY APPELLANT(S) VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU RESPONDENT(S)WITHCrl.A. No. 172/2013(With Office Report) Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELFor Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AORMs. Nithya, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RWhile Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2013 is partly allowed,Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2013 is dismissed in terms of the SignedOrder. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (RASHI GUPTA)SR. P. A. (SUMAN JAIN)COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 2ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013RAMAN @ RAMASAMY APPELLANT(S) VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU RESPONDENT(S)WITHCrl.A. No. 172/2013(With Office Report) Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELFor Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AORMs. Nithya, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RAppeal is dismissed in terms of the Signed Order.Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (RASHI GUPTA)SR. P. A. (SUMAN JAIN)COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY APPELLANT VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU RESPONDENT WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2013 O R D E R CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties.The concurrent finding of fact recorded on the charge bythe first appellate court, namely, the High Court of Judicatureat Madras is under challenge in this appeal questioning thecorrectness of the same, urging various legal contentions. Learned counsel Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna appearing on behalfof the appellant invited our attention to the impugned judgmentwith reference to the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 isinjured eye-witness.Learned counsel for the appellant also invited ourattention to the FIR and the wound certificate and contendedthat the appellant herein has also sustained grievous injury onthe back side of the head. In this connection, an FIR waslodged with the jurisdictional police which was registered and,thereafter, it was closed by the police.Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 4Learned counsel for the appellant submits that havingregard to the grievous injuries sustained by appellant at thetime of occurrence, that should have been properly explained bythe prosecution for consideration of the courts below. Theappellant has exercised his private defence that would fall inthe explanation of Section 304 Part-I of IPC. The concurrentfinding of the fact recorded by the High Court on the chargeagainst the appellant, the grievous injuries sustained by himhas not been considered by it while imposing the sentence uponhim. Ha ving regard to the above fact situation, the appellantought to have been charged under Section 304 part I of IPC andnot under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, we have modified thecharge framed against the appellant from Section 302 of IPC toSection 304 Part-I of IPC.Since the prosecution has failed to explain the injuriessustained by the appellant, the High Court ought to haveconsidered this aspect of the case to find out how the grievousinjuries were sustained by the appellant. After carefulconsideration of this important aspect of the matter by us andhaving regard to the fact that appellant has used his privatedefence and sustained grievous injuries, the contention urgedon behalf of the appellant that charge under Section 302 of IPCis not correct, the offence would fall under the provisions ofSection 304 Part-I of IPC. In our considered opinion, thesentence should have been imposed under Section 304 Part⬠I ofCriminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 5IPC. The submission made in this regard by the learned counselfor the appellant is tenable and, therefore, the same isaccepted. It is brought to our notice that he has alreadyundergone sentence of eight years. Having regard to the factthat the appellant had stated that he is aged about 70 years asof now and, therefore, it will be just and proper for thisCourt to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to eightyears, the period of sentence undergone, holding that theappellant is guilty of the charge under Section 304 Part-I ofIPC. With the aforesaid modification of the charge and thesentence imposed upon the appellant, having regard to the factsand circumstances of this case, it would be just and proper forthis court to direct the appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (RupeesOne Lac) as compensation to the wife and son of the deceased.We order accordingly.If Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) is not paid withineight weeks' time from today, the appellant shall undergodefault sentence for a further period of one year.The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2013:This appeal filed by 'Moorthy' does not have merit and
the judgment and order passed by the High Court is on properCriminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 etc. 6evaluation of evidence on record, therefore, we do not find anygood reason to interfere with the concurrent finding recordedby the High Court on the charge. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. ..........................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ..........................J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 31, 2016.
REVISED ITEM NO.119 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 172/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 27/07/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv.(NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List tomorrow. (VINOD KUMAR JHA) COURT MASTER (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.119 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 172/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 27/07/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv.(NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears for the State. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in part. List tomorrow as part heard. (VINOD KUMAR JHA) COURT MASTER (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER
B REVISED ITEM NO.119 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 172/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 27/07/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv.(NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List tomorrow. (VINOD KUMAR JHA) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVINOD KUMARDate: 2016.07.2817:20:21 ISTReason:ITEM NO.119 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s)WITHCrl.A. No. 172/2013(With Office Report)Date : 27/07/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELFor Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv.(NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears for the State. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in part. List tomorrow as part heard. (VINOD KUMAR JHA) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
+ITEM NO.21 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR DR. K.ARUL Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 172/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 20/11/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr Subrata Das, Adv. Mr. N. Rajaraman,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr A Santhakumaran, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The ld. counsels for both parties report that they do not wish to file any additional documents. Registry to process for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. (DR. K.ARUL) Registrar
ITEM NO.50 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 172/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 17/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Vanita Chandrakant Giri, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the parties for filing additional documents. List again on 20.11.2014. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) Registrar
R ITEM NO.50 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 172/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 17/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Vanita Chandrakant Giri, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the parties for filing additional documents. List again on 20.11.2014. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2014.09.1916:45:50 ISTReason:
º ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP No. 11822/2014 in Criminal Appeal No(s). 153/2013 RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s) (for early hearing and office report) Date : 07/07/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Ms. Vanita C. Giri, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Let Criminal Appeal along with Crl.M.P. for bail be posted for final hearing within six months from today. Crl.M.P. No. 11822 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly. (PARDEEP KUMAR) (RENU DIWAN) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byPardeep KumarDate: 2014.07.0822:39:49 ISTReason:
ÜITEM NO.38 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4328/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/11/2009 in CRLA No.296/2009, of TheHIGH COURT OF MADRAS)RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing O.T. andbail)WITH SLP(Crl) NO. 4308 of 2011(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing c/c ofthe impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and bail and officereport)Date: 18/01/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr.T.V.George, Adv. Mr. N. Rajaraman, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr.A.Santha Kumaran, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The prayer for suspension of sentence is rejected. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
fITEM NO.6 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4328/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/11/2009 in CRLA No.296/2009, of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing O.T. and bail)WITH SLP(Crl) NO. 4308 of 2011(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, exemption from filing O.T., bail and office report)Date: 04/01/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. Santha Kumaran, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that he will file vakalatnama by Monday. List the matters after a week under the heading "After Notice Matters". | (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) | | (SHARDA KAPOOR) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |
üITEM NO.5 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4328/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/11/2009 in CRLA No.296/2009, of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing O.T. and bail)WITH SLP(Crl) NO. 4308 of 2011(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing O.T., bail, exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and office report)Date: 10/12/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. A. Santha Kumaran, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the respondent-State, let the matters be listed after two weeks. | (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) | | (SHARDA KAPOOR) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |
xITEM NO.7 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4328/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/11/2009 in CRLA No.296/2009, of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing O.T. and bail)WITH SLP(Crl) NO. 4308 of 2011(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing O.T., exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, bail and office report)Date: 19/11/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Rajee M. Roy, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. A. Santha Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Two weeks' further time is granted to the counsel for the respondent-State to file vakalatnama, memo of appearance and counter affidavit. | (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) | | (SHARDA KAPOOR) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |
ìITEM NO.8 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4328/2011RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,exemption from filing O.T.,bail)WITH SLP(Crl) NO. 4308 of 2011(With office report)Date: 17/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R No request for filing counter affidavit. List before the Hon'ble Court as per rules.| | |(S.G.SHAH) || | |REGISTRAR |hj
ÜITEM NO.20 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4328/2011RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,exemption from filing O.T.,bail)WITH SLP(Crl) NO. 4308 of 2011(With office report)Date: 20/07/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Nobody is present. Let there be fresh notice with dasti service on unservedrespondent, which is permitted to be served through the standing counsel,if spare copies are filed before 31.7.2012, else list before the Hon'bleJudge in Chamber for non-prosecution. If notice is issued, list again on 17.9.2012. Registry has to explain that why the matter has not been listed forthe last one year. | |(S.G.SHAH)REGISTRAR | |hj
\206ITEM NO.11 + 32 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)....../2011 CRLMP.NO(s). 9458/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/11/2009 in CRLA No. 296/2009of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)RAMAN @ RAMASAMY Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF T.NADU Respondent(s) With CRLMP.NO(s). 9458/2011 (for c/delay in filing SLP)WITHS.L.P. (Crl.) No............./2011 [CRLMP 10381/2011] (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 11/05/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. N. Rajaraman,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Gautam, Adv. Mr. Prasad Baboo Karthikeyon, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the applications for the condonation of delay as well as on the special leave petitions. ( Rajesh Dham ) ( Indu Satija ) Court Master Court Master