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.
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 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.25,000/- 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...
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd Vs Rajendra Balu Kanse
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited ... Applicant Vs. Rajendra Balu Kanse ... 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...
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd Vs Tarun Mafatbhai Patel
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited ... Applicant Vs. Tarun Mafatbhai Patel ... 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 applica...
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd Vs Abdul Muthali B
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited ... Applicant Vs. Abdul Muthali B ... 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...
The Vellore District Cooperative Bank vs the Presiding Officer
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA IN CRP NO. 2229 OF 2024 The Vellore District Cooperative Bank Rep. by its Special Officer, No.1, Officers Line, Vellore- 632 001. Appellant(s) Vs The Presiding Officer Principal District Judge, Vellore District Court, Vellore. and 4 Others Respondent(s) For Appellant(s): Gopinath Radhakrishnan M.Swetha For Respondent(s):ORDERThis petition is filed by the petitioner to implead the petitioner herein as respondent No.6 in the above civil revision petition.2. Heard M/s.Thilagavathi, learned senior counsel for M/s.R.Gopinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for respondent-5.3. Considering the submissions made on either side and being satisfied with the reasons statedin the affidavit filed in support of this petition, this petition is allowed. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendments and post the matter on 06.08.2025 a...
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Sivashankari,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN CMP Nos.11326 to 11328 of 2025 in CMA Nos.SR 59960, 60025 & 60086 of 2025 CMP No.11326 of 2025 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, The Initiating Officer (Benami Prohibition Unit) Room No.02, Ground Floor Income Tax Investigation Wing Building 108, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam Chennai - 600 034. Appellant(s) Vs Sivashankari, Flat No.S-1, Rose Garden, New No.31, Old No.13/2, Bharathi Road, Perambur Chennai-600011 and another Respondent(s) For Appellant(s): Ms.M.SheelaORDER(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the applicant.2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, we are inclined to allow the prayer and grant exemption from filing the certified copy of the order.3. Applications are, accordingly, allowed.4. List the appeals along with CMA No.1448 of 2025. (MANINDRA MO...
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd Vs M/s Nanik Tech Info Pri ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-24-2025
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited ... Applicant Vs. Nanik Tech Info Pvt. Ltd. ... 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 app...
Kongu Ilaignar Peravai vs State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-23-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.M.P.No.2943 of 2025 in Kongu Ilaignar Peravai Annur Chapter Rep. by its President K.Sathyamoorthy, S/o.Kalisamy D.No.305/30b, Avinashi Road Nagammapudur Post, Annur Taluk, Coimbatore District 641 653. Petitioner(s) Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Addl. Secretary State Highways Secretariat, Chennai 9 and 10 Others Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.SaravanakumarORDER(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This is an application seeking to condone the delay in re- presentation of the writ petition.3. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.4. Writ petition be listed for admission. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (SUNDER MOHAN,J) 23.07.2025 kpl...
R.Avyakt Vignesh Vs No Respondent
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-23-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU R.Avyakt Vignesh PetitionerPRAYER: Original Petition filed under Sections 372 Part X, Indian Succession Act, 1925 and under Order XXV Rule 6 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying that a Succession Certificate may be granted to the petitioner with power to collect the debts and to receive the interest and dividends on and negotiate and transfer the securities specified in the Schedule. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balamurali for M/s.Shivakumar & SureshORDERThe petitioner seeks Succession Certificate in respect of the debts heldby Late D.Rajeshwaran, who died intestate on 14.05.2024. The petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased. The deceased and his wife had no issues. Hence, the petitioner was adopted by the deceased and his wife through anorder of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in O.P.No.52 of 2009 dated18.04.2009. The wife of the dec...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »