Chennai Orders Court April 2025 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Moganraj vs the State Rep by
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :29.04.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANMoganraj ... Petitioner Vs. State, rep by the The Inspector of Police, Crime No.33 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with the Crime No.33 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : M/s.S.Selvakumar For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)ORDERLearned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.SUNDER MOHAN., J.Sma2. In view of the submission and the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 29.04.2025 Sma To 1.The Inspector of Police,2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court....
GANESH Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 29.04.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANGanesh ... Petitioner Vs. State, rep by the The Inspector of Police, Crime No.113 of 2015 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with the Crime No.113 of 2015 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : M/s.J.Pradeep For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)ORDERToday, matter is lister under the caption " For Withdrawal"2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. To that effect, a letter dated 25.04.2025 is also addressed to the Registry.SUNDER MOHAN., J.Sma3. In view of the letter dated 25.04.2025 duly signed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 29.04.2025 Sma To 1.The Inspect...
Vinoth Kumar Vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Vinothkumar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State Represented by Inspector of Police, (crime No.4 of 2024) 2.S.Murali ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial court in Spl.SC.No.95 of 2024 pending on the file of the Court Sessions Judge Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court) At Chennai pending disposal of the main original petition. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.side)ORDERThe personal appearance of the petitioner in Spl.SC.No.95 of 2024 pending on the file of the Court Sessions Judge Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court) At Chennai, is dispensed with. Internet:Yes (3/3) Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking orderlok To 1.Court Sessions Judge Magalir Neethiman...
N.Dhanapandian vs C. Naveen Kumar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-29-2025
CMP.No.10743 of 2025 in A.S.SR.No.54929 of 2024N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 261 days in paying the deficit Court Fee of Rs.66,077/- in the above appeal.2. Considering the nature of thereasons assigned in the affidavit filed along with this petition and taking note of the dispute between the parties, this petition is Ordered and the delay is condoned. 29.04.2025 vrc https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Murugan Vs State by
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-29-2025
CRL MP NO. 8438 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-04-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR CRL MP NO. 8438 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.122 of 2023 Murugan S/o.Rangaraj, No.45/12, Bharathi Nagar 4th Street, Korukkupet, Chennai 600021. Appellant(s) Vs State by Inspector of Police, H-6, R.K.Nagar Police Station, Chennai - 21. (Crime NO.158 of 2013) Respondent(s) For Appellant(s): K.C.S.K.Balaji For Respondent(s): S.Raja Kumar Additional Public ProsecutorORDER(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble M.S.Ramesh J.) This petition has been filed seeking to relax the condition imposed on the petitioner viz., the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police every Monday at 10.30 a.m until further orders, in Crl.M.P.No.8412 of 2024 dated 19.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1560 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.122 of 2023. 2.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.3. The condition No.(iii) imposed o...
M.Rajini (deceased) 1. Raveendran Vs P.CHANDRA
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-04-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CMP Nos. 9292, 9293 & 9294 of 2024 in A.S.No.291 of 2018 M.Rajini (deceased)1. Raveendran Petitioner Vs Dr.P.Chandra Mrs.Vimala Manoharan (deceased) 2.Dr.P.Muthaiah Manoharan 3.Dr.P.Devadas Manoharan 4.Dr.Usha Manohari 5.P.Nathan Manoharan Respondents For Appellant(s): A.Swaminathan For Respondent(s): M/s.Shivakumar And Suresh For R2, 4 and 5 Ms.S.Yogalakshmi for R3 No appearance For R1ORDERThese petitions have been filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 614 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the second respondent/Mrs.Vimala Manoharan in the above appeal; to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the second respondent/Mrs.Vimala Manoharan; and to bring on record the respondents 2 to 5/proposed respondents 2 to 5 as legal representatives of the deceased second respondent/Mrs.Vimala Manoharan and rank them as respond...
Monica Prithviraj vs Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Monica Prithviraj ... Petitioner Vs.4. Adarsh R.S. ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner representation dated 14.03.2025 to issue the petitioner for video, photo and hotel bill of 4th respondent stay at Radisson Hotel on 18.01.2025, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arumugam For Respondents For R1 & R2 : Mr.R. Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)ORDERThis writ petition has been filed for direction directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2025 and to issue the petitioner for video, photo and hotel bill of the fourth respondent's stay at Radisson Hotel on 18.01.2025, within a time frame.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner su...
P.Rakul @ Dararam Dharshan Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-04-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN AND P.Rakul @ Dararam Dharshan S/o.prakash narayan, no.1, rajangam mathya veethi, vadapalani, chennai district - 26. Appellant(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Rakul ALIAS Dararam Dharshan P Petitioner(s) Vs The State, Rep. By For Appellant(s): P.Sundararajan M.Sarathkumar For Respondent(s): Public ProsecutorORDERThis petition has been filed to amend the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai instead of Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.O.P.No.7672 of 2025 dated 17.03.2025.2. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, this criminal miscellaneous petition is ordered as prayed for. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in Crl.O.P.No.7672 of 2025 dated 17.03.2025. skr Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No Note: Issue order copy by 29.04.2025 To 1.The State Rep. by the Inspe...
Rajamani vs the Tahsildar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-29-2025
2025:MHC:1333IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.15431 of 2025 Rajamani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tahsilar, Pappireddypatty Taluk, Pappireddypatty, 2.The Inspector of Police, Bommidi Police Station, Bommidi, Pappireddypatty Taluk, 3.Kuppusamy 4.Raja ..Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 10.12.2024 to give appropriate protection to conduct poojas by the petitioner herein without any hindrance in Kaliamman Temple, B.Thurinjipatty, Pappireddypatty Taluk, Dharmapuri District as a Poojari of the said temple. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For R1 : Mr.P.Balathandayutham, Special Government Pleader. For R2 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (crl.side).ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed seeking ...
M.A.Karunakaran Vs C.P. Sanjeevi Mudali (deceased), 1.Dayalan
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-29-2025
C.M.P.Nos.11012, 11013 & 11014 of 2025 inT.V. THAMILSELVI, J.These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed seeking to condone the delay of 128 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement, to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of 2nd appellant, and to bring on record the proposed appellants 3 and 4 herein as legal representatives of deceased 2nd appellant.2. Mr.G.Pavendhan, learned counsel for petitioners submitted thatpending appeal, 2nd appellant died on 29.06.2024. He would submit that after enduring much effort, the 1st petitioner had collected the particulars and taken steps to collect the case papers, which is not due to any willful negligence on his part. However, the delay of 128 days arose and the delay is neither willful nor wanton. Hence, he has filed the above petitions.3. On considering the facts and circumstances and being satisfiedwith the reasons assigned in the affidavit, all the petitions are allowed. The proposed legal representatives...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »