Chennai Orders Court July 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.
M.Ravi Vs The Registrar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
in and (Order of the Court was made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,) This common order will now dispose of the captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petitions' [hereinafter 'WMPs' for the sake of brevity].2. Captioned WMPs have been filed with prayer to dispensewith production of 'order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the first respondent in SHRC Case.No.4013 of 2014' [hereinafter 'impugned orders' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].3. Mr.M.Velmurugan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners, is before this Court.4. Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that the originalimpugned orders were not readily available with writ petitioners at the time of filing of captioned writ petitions and therefore, photocopies of the impugned orders were filed along with the typed set of papers and that has necessitated the captioned WMPs. and mk5. Taking into account the fact that the authenticity of theimpugned orders is not subjected to contestatio...
Sharath Sharathi vs T.Jayanthi
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
in in AND [Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.] This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 21 days in filing the above civil miscellaneous appeal.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.3. Mr.J.Franklin, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent and he has no serious objection.4. Having satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this petition is ordered and the delay is condoned. in AND vji5. Registry is directed to number the civil miscellaneous appeal and place the same for admission, if the papers are otherwise in order. [R.S.K., J.] [P.D.B., J.] 24.07.2025 vji in...
T.K. VELUMANI Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR T.K.Velumani .. Petitioner Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District. (Cr.No.3 of 2023) .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to release the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No.3 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijayasundar For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page No.1 of 6ORDERThe petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 408, 420, 477(A) and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.3 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the ownerof the Sriram Weigh Bridge. The case pro...
S.PHILIPS Vs K. Ponnusamy (died) 1. Amirtham
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN S. Philips S/o. Late. Susainathan, No.14, Thiruveedhi Amman Koil St, Kilpauk, Chennai 10. Vs Petitioner in both cases K. Ponnusamy (died)1. AmirthamW/o. Late. K. Ponnusamy, D.No.14, Thiruveedhi Amman Koil St, Kilapuk, Chennai 10. and 7 Others Respondents in both cases In both cases For Petitoner: Mr.D.Ravindranathan for M/s.Krishna Law Associates For Respondents: Ms.C.Selvi for R3 to R6COMMON ORDERThese two applications have been filed to condone the delay of 624 days in filing the application to restore the Second Appeal and to restore the Second Appeal which has been dismissed for non prosecution on 23.06.2023. The defendants in the Original suit are the appellants. The suit had been decreed and the appeal filed by the present appellants C.V. KARTHIKEYAN,J., vum had been dismissed by the first appellate Court. The Second Appeal had been dismissed for non prosecution on 23.06.2023...
Angammal (died) 1. Sundari, Vs Mariappan,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
CMP No.17267 of 2025 in CRP.SR.No.168100 of 2024N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.This petition has been filed to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the docket Order dated 16.10.2024 in REA.Nos.3 and 4 of 2024 in REP.No.489 of 2010 in O.S.No.1166 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.2. Considering the nature of the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed along with this petition, this petition is Ordered. 24.07.2025 vrc https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd Vs M/s Yes Prints Rep by i ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited ... Applicant Vs. Yes Prints ... Respondent --- For Applicant : D. Pradeep KumarTill date, the vehicle has not been repossessed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle could not be located. Sufficient opportunity has been granted to the applicant to enable the advocate commissioner to execute the warrant of commission. However, till date, the advocate commissioner could not execute the warrant of commission since the vehicle is not traceable.2. No useful purpose will be served, if this application is allowed to bekept pending. Accordingly, this application is closed. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application seeking for appointment of an advocate commissioner as and when the vehicle is located. While considering the fresh application, this Court shall consider retaining the very same advocate commissioner, who has been appointed in this application since the applicant has already...
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd Vs Chandan Kumar R N
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited ... Applicant Vs. Chandan Kumar R.N. ... Respondent --- For Applicant : D. Pradeep KumarTill date, the vehicle has not been repossessed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle could not be located. Sufficient opportunity has been granted to the applicant to enable the advocate commissioner to execute the warrant of commission. However, till date, the advocate commissioner could not execute the warrant of commission since the vehicle is not traceable.2. No useful purpose will be served, if this application is allowed to bekept pending. Accordingly, this application is closed. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application seeking for appointment of an advocate commissioner as and when the vehicle is located. While considering the fresh application, this Court shall consider retaining the very same advocate commissioner, who has been appointed in this application since the applicant has...
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd Vs Shaik Reshma
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited ... Applicant Vs. Shaik Reshma ... Respondent --- For Applicant : D. Pradeep KumarTill date, the vehicle has not been repossessed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle could not be located. Sufficient opportunity has been granted to the applicant to enable the advocate commissioner to execute the warrant of commission. However, till date, the advocate commissioner could not execute the warrant of commission since the vehicle is not traceable.2. No useful purpose will be served, if this application is allowed to bekept pending. Accordingly, this application is closed. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application seeking for appointment of an advocate commissioner as and when the vehicle is located. While considering the fresh application, this Court shall consider retaining the very same advocate ab commissioner, who has been appointed in this application since the applicant has al...
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd Vs M/s Yes Prints Rep by i ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited ... Applicant Vs. Yes Prints ... Respondent --- For Applicant : D. Pradeep KumarTill date, the vehicle has not been repossessed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle could not be located. Sufficient opportunity has been granted to the applicant to enable the advocate commissioner to execute the warrant of commission. However, till date, the advocate commissioner could not execute the warrant of commission since the vehicle is not traceable.2. No useful purpose will be served, if this application is allowed to bekept pending. Accordingly, this application is closed. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application seeking for appointment of an advocate commissioner as and when the vehicle is located. While considering the fresh application, this Court shall consider retaining the very same advocate commissioner, who has been appointed in this application since the applicant has already...
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd Vs The Director, Mobility ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. ... Applicant Vs. M/s. The Director, Mobility Fulfilment Services Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent --- For Applicant : D. Pradeep Kumar The vehicle has been repossessed by the Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner has also filed a report to that effect. The applicant is directed to pay an additional remuneration of Rs.20,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.2. Notice has been duly served on the respondent. The name of therespondent is also printed in the cause list today. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. Hence, the respondent is set exparte by this Court. ab3. Since the vehicle has already been repossessed and custody of the same has been handed over to the applicant and the respondent is also set exparte, this application is closed. 24.07.2025 ab...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »