Chennai Orders Court June 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.
Siyathammal vs T.V.Visalakshi
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABUMrs.Siyathammal ...Appellant Vs. Mrs.T.V.Visalakshi ...Respondent Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 11.12.2013 in A.S.No.426/2009 on the file of the Court of the XV Addl.City Civil Judge, Chennai and the decree and judgment dated 30.01.2009 and made in O.S.No.1870 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the VIII Asst. City Civil Judge, Chennai. For Appellant : No appearance For Respondents : No appearanceJUDGMENTThe matter was listed for hearing on 23.06.2025 and there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Once again, the case is listed for hearing today, under the caption For Dismissal. But, even today also, none represented on behalf of the appellant.2. Hence, it is evident that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the present second appeal.3. Accordingly, the Second Appeal stands dismissed for ...
Sri Chokkanathaswami and vs Thiagarajan
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and M.P.No.1 of 2015 Sri Chokkanathaswami and Venkatesa Perumal Devasthanam, C.N.Palayam, Cuddalore Taluk By its Trustee Balasubramanian, S/o.Palaniandi, No.5/8, Old Palayam Street, C.N.Palayam, Cuddalore. ...Appellant Vs. 1.Thiagarajan 2.Vasantha 3.S.Venkatraman 4.S.Durairajan ...Respondents Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dated 13.03.2015 and passed in A.S.No.53 of 2014, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif at Cuddalore dated 30.06.2014 and passed in O.S.No.385 of 2009. For Appellant : No appearance For Respondents : Not Ready in noticeJUDGMENTThe matter was listed for hearing on 23.06.2025 and there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Once again, the case is listed for hearing today, under the captio...
M.Suganthi Vs A.Arul Mohan and another
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABUMrs.M.Suganthi Petitioner vs. 1.A.Arul Mohan 2.A.Ananda Mohan ...Respondents PRAYER: Original Petition filed under Section 222 and 276 of Indian Succession Act (39) of 1925 read with Order XXV Rule 4 of O.S. Rules, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order as follows: a) That he may be allowed to prove the Will in common form, and that probate thereof, to have effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu may be granted to him. b) and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner : Mr.A.M.Venkatakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.A.Anandharaj (For R1 & R2)ORDERThis Original Petition has been filed for issuance of Probate for the Last Will and testament dated 14.08.2019 executed by Late.T.N.Arjunan, who died on 06.06.2021. The petitioner has been appoint...
M/s IndusInd Bank Ltd Vs Dnyaneshwar Bhimrao Pandurne
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE M/s.IndusInd Bank Ltd. .. Applicant vs Dnyaneshwar Bhimrao Pandurne .. RespondentORDERAs early as on 12.03.2025 itself, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to re-possess the vehicle. Sufficient opportunities have been granted for the Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant of commission. The Advocate Commissioner has been unable to re-possess the vehicle since the vehicle could not be located. Further extensions were sought for by the learned counsel for the applicant.2.In view of the fact that sufficient opportunities have already been granted for the Advocate Commissioner to re-possess the vehicle, no useful purpose will be served if this application is allowed to be kept pending.ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.vga 3.Accordingly, this application is closed by granting liberty to the applicant to file a fresh application seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner as and whe...
Dr.R.Ramasamy, M.SC., Ph.D., (Deceased), vs the State of Tamil Nadu,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-30-2025
W.M.P.No.25767 of 2025 W.M.P.No.25767 of 2025 in W.P.No.24979 of 2010MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.As this Court has already ordered substitute application vide W.M.P.No.23659 of 2025 in W.P.No.24979 of 2010, the petitioners 2 to 6 namely G.Saroja, R.Kalaiselvi, Nirmala Devi, Yazhini Sri Magadheeshwar, are suo motu impleaded as the petitioners 2 to 6 in this application as well. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendments.2. For the reasons stated in theaccompanying affidavit, this application is ordered and the order dated 18.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.24979 of 2010 is recalled and the writ petition is restored. Registry is directed to list the writ petition on 14.07.2025. 30.06.2025 dpa 1/1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Bhaskar Chandra Lenka Vs The State of TamilNadu
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-30-2025
and (Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR.J.,)Captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition' ['WMP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed with a prayer to dispense with production of original 'impugned Notification No.SRO-C-2/2019 dated 27.02.2019 published in Gazette No.9 dated 27.02.2019 issued by the second respondent' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].2. The reasons to support the dispense with prayer have not beenarticulated in the support affidavit. However, in the hearing, it is submitted that original impugned order was not served on the petitioner and hence, the copy downloaded from the online was filed along with the writ petition. and3. Taking into account the fact that the authenticity of theimpugned order is not subjected to contestation or disputation, as a one off case, we are considering the dispense with prayer making it clear that in the days to come, adequate articulation in the suppo...
The Management Vs P.Mahendran
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL and WMP.No.9445 of 2022 The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Bharathipuram, Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri-636 705. ... Petitioner vs.1. P.Mahendran, S/o.Puttan, Gandhipuram Street, Arampatti Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District-636 206.2. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai. ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the second respondent in Approval Petition No.23 of 2015 and quash the same, consequently direct the second respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 22.01.2015 dismissing the first respondent from service. For Petitioner : Mr.M.AswinFor Respondents : Mr.Durai Gunasekaran for R1 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional ...
Revanza Leasing India Pvt. Ltd Vs Inspector General of Registration
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-30-2025
C.M.P.No.12525 of 2025 and W.A.SR.No.38568 of 2025Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.andN.SENTHILKUMAR, J.(Order of the Court was made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH., J.) For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying petition and since Mr.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate, who appears for the respondents does not very seriously object to condonation, the delay of 38 days in filing writ appeal is condoned and this petition is ordered.2. Let writ appeal benumbered if it is otherwise in orderand listed for hearing in due course. [A.S.M, .J] [N.S, .J] 30.06.2025 ssm https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Kumar Vs The State rep. by
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 30.06.2025Coram:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and Crl.M.P.No.8074 of 2025 --- Kumar, S/o Boopathi .. Petitioner Vs.1. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police,2. Premjothi, W/o Manimaran .. RespondentsCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS to call for the entire records relating to the criminal case in S.C.No.110 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Vellore and quash the same. For petitioner : M/s.P.Lavanya and A.Sivapandi For respondents: Dr.C.E.Pratap, Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side) for R-1 No appearance for R-2 Page No.1/4ORDERThis petition is filed to call for the entire records relating to the criminal case in S.C.No.110 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Vellore and quash the same.2. On a reading of the FIR, charge-sheet and the statements recordedfrom the witnesses, i.e de-facto complainant and the recovery mahazar witness and the medical ...
Meena @ Meenakshi and 5 others Vs No Respondent
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-30-2025
A.No.2336 of 2025 in O.P.No.526 of 2024K.KUMARESH BABU,J.This application has been filed to permit the applicants to appear through video conference for recording of evidence in the above captioned Original Petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this application and being satisfied with the same, the application is ordered as prayed for. Gba 30.06.2025 (1/2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 1 of 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »