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.
Dr. E.Karthikeyan, Vs Dr.M.Jayanthi, I.F.S.,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-31-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 31.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR Dr.E.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner ..Vs.. 100, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondent PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act praying to punish the respondents for willfully disobeying the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 42390 of 2002 dated 11.07.2013. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondent : Ms.Madhuri Donti ReddyORDERThis contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of theorder dated 11.07.2013 in W.P. No. 42390 of 2002.2. Ms.Madhuri Donti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for therespondent brought to the notice of this Court a copy of the proceedings Proc.No.TNPCB/Per/P6/027168/2025 dated 29.07.2025 in compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.42390 of 2002. In terms of the same, the petitioner is supposed to submit appropriate proposals and then pension will be released. However, the ...
M.Hariharan vs C. Divya Bharathi
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-31-2025
in This Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 504 days in filing the above CMA.SR.No.37627 of 2025.2. Mr.K. Swaminathan takes notice for the second respondent.3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the material available in the record.4. On being satisfied with the averments stated in the affidavit filed insupport of the petition, and finding the reason assigned by the petitioner(s) to be justifiable, the interest for the default period is ordered to be waived. Therefore, the delay in filling CMA.SR.No.37627 of 2025 is condoned.5. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed.6. Registry is directed to list the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal after numbering the same, if they are otherwise in order. smn smn in...
M s Sundaram Finance Ltd Vs M Mariyal
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-31-2025
Arbitration Application No.503 of 2025 M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd., Chennai. .. Applicant Vs. 1.M.Mariyal 2.M.Raja .. Respondents As seen from the affidavit of service enclosing the returned cover, notice sent to the respondents has been returned with an endorsement unclaimed, which amounts to deemed service. Hence, the respondents are set exparte by this Court.2. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court has already repossessed the vehicle and handed over the custody of the same to the applicant.3. Since the prayer sought for in this application has already been achieved, nothing survives for further adjudication in this application. Accordingly, this application is closed. rkm rkm Arb.Appln. No.503 of 2025...
P.G.Arumugam vs Rajammal
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-31-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 06.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL and CMP.No. 14226 of 2021 --- 1.P.G.Arumugam 2.R.Shanthi AppellantsVersus1.Rajammal 2.Mangammal 3.K.Ramakrishnan ... Respondents Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.134 of 2014 on February 12, 2020 passed by I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur. For Appellants : Mr.V.Manisekaran For Respondents-1&2 : Mr.Vishal For Mr.K.Balaji ----JUDGMENTThis matter is listed today under the caption for being mentioned at the instance of the learned Counsel for the appellants.2.Mr.V.Manisekaran, learned Counsel on record for the appellants and Mr.Vishal, representing Mr.K.Balaji, learned Counsel on record for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court. 3.Mr.V.Manisekaran, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he has inadvertently made an endorse...
Additional Commissioner and Regional Director, Vs M/s.Sam Turbo Indust ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-31-2025
in This Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 71 days in filing the above CMA.SR.No.45393 of 2025.2. Mr.R.Jayaprakash takes notice for the respondent.3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s) and perused the material available in the record.4. On being satisfied with the averments stated in the affidavit filed insupport of the petition, and finding the reason assigned by the petitioner(s) to be justifiable. Therefore, the delay in filling CMA.SR.No.45393 of 2025 is condoned.5. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed.6. Registry is directed to list the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal after numbering the same, if they are otherwise in order. smn smn in...
V.M.Susiker Rao Vs Nandhini
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-31-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 31-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU IN OP NO. 144 OF 2025 V.M.Susiker Rao S/o.V.R.Mohan Rao, No.H-11, TNHB, Kolathur, Chennai - 600 099. Applicant(s) Vs Nandhini D/o.Prakasam, Plot No.74, Door No.12, Jaya Nagar Main Road, (behind Sub Treasury Office) Jaya Nagar, Tiruvallur - 602 001. Respondent(s) For Applicant(s):Mr.A.SARAVANAN For Respondent(s): No appearanceORDERThe present application has been filed for grant of an order of interim stay of all further proceedings in G.W.O.P.No.319 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at Tiruvallur, pending disposal of the above transfer O.P. 2.In view of the order passed in A.No.2059 of 2025, the present application stands closed. 31-07-2025 Gba (2/2)...
V.M.Susiker Rao Vs Nandhini
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-31-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 31-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU in O.P.No.144 of 2025 V.M.Susiker Rao S/o.V.R.Mohan Rao, No.H-11, TNHB, Kolathur, Chennai - 600 099. Applicant(s) Vs Nandhini D/o.Prakasam, Plot No.74, Door No.12, Jaya Nagar Main Road, (behind Sub Treasury Office) Jaya Nagar, Tiruvallur - 602 001. Respondent(s) For Applicant(s): Mr.A.SARAVANAN For Respondent(s): No appearanceORDERThe present application has been filed to withdraw the GWOP.No.319 of 2024 pending on the file of Principal District Court, Tiruvallur and transfer the same to the file of this Court to be tried along with the above captioned O.P. 2.In spite of service of notice on the respondent, the respondent had neither entered appearance through her counsel nor present before this Court. 3.A Memo had also been filed before the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur, where G.W.O.P.No.319 of 2024 is pending and is sought to be transferred to the file of this Court. Hence,...
Jayam Traders vs P.Anbazhagan
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-31-2025
Crl.O.P.No.21565 of 2025 in Crl.A.SR. No.23857 of 2024 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J Leave granted. 31.07.2025 bkn Note : Registry is directed to number the Criminal Appeal, if it is otherwise in order. 1/1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Ceat Financial Services Ltd., vs 1.Ashok Kumar Goel,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.07.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSECeat Financial Services Limited ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Ashok Kumar Goel 2.Sri Rama Machinery Corporation Limited ... Respondents Prayer: Original Petition is filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an Arbitrator on behalf of the Respondents in respect of the Petitioner's claim for amounts due and for the vehicle TN-01-J- 4752 under Hire Purchase Agreeement No.03-07-0009-95/96 dated 19.05.95. For Petitioner : No appearanceORDERThis Original Petition is of the year 2000.2. On the last hearing date, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to verify as to whether anything survives for adjudication in this Original Petition.ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.arb3. Today, when this matter is taken up, there is no representation on theside of the petitioner. It can be now inferred that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing with the remedy in...
Dec Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs Balu Iron and Steel Company Rep by its p ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY A.No.126 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.177 of 2024 M/s. Dec Infrastructure, 2-1-434/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad 500044. Telangana State Having its Project office and working site at 15th main road, customs quarters, Near Chandramouleeshwar temple, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Gopalakrishnan Palanisamy ... Applicant/Defendant -vs-1. M/s. Balu Iron & Steel Company,Rep. by its Partner Mr. B. Karthik S/o. A.K.Balasubramanian Having its Branch Office at Old No.8, New No.27, ARK colony, Eldam Road, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.2. M/s.Balu Cement Corporation,Rep. by its Partner Mr. B. Karthik, S/o. A.K.Balasubramanian, Having Branch Office at No. 48/1A, Mayilam Pondy Road, Vanur Taluk, Thiruchitrambalam, Villupuram District 605111. ... Respondents 1 & 2/Plaintiffs3. M/s. Ramesh Iron and Steel Company India Private Limited,Rep. by its Director, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »