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.
S. Shakila Vs Aadhisesha Avinash
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
CMP No. 5797 of 2024 in CMA S.R. N.o. 29916 of 2024T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 241 days in filing the appeal.2. Heard the submission of thelearned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent. The reason assigned by the petitioner for delay is justifiable. Accordingly, this petition is ordered. Further, the interest for the default period is ordered to be waived. 29.07.2025 pbl https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
P.Meenakshi Vs B.Gopalan
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
The matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph 7 of the order, dated 29.07.2025 it has been wrongly typed as 'allowed' instead of 'dismissed'. Therefore, he prays for appropriate corrections. 3.In view of the said submission, paragraph No.7 of the order shall be read as follows: 7. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.4. In all other aspects, the order dated 29.07.2025 shall remain unaltered. 5.Registry is directed to carry out the aforesaid corrections and issue corrected copy to the respective parties. am Page No.1 of 2 am Page No.2 of 2...
P.Meenakshi vs B.Gopalan
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
The matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph 7 of the order, dated 29.07.2025 it has been wrongly typed as 'allowed' instead of 'dismissed'. Therefore, he prays for appropriate corrections. 3.In view of the said submission, paragraph No.7 of the order shall be read as follows: 7. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.4. In all other aspects, the order dated 29.07.2025 shall remain unaltered. 5.Registry is directed to carry out the aforesaid corrections and issue corrected copy to the respective parties. am Page No.1 of 2 am Page No.2 of 2...
P.Meenakshi Vs B.Gopalan
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
The matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph 7 of the order, dated 29.07.2025 it has been wrongly typed as 'allowed' instead of 'dismissed'. Therefore, he prays for appropriate corrections. 3.In view of the said submission, paragraph No.7 of the order shall be read as follows: 7. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.4. In all other aspects, the order dated 29.07.2025 shall remain unaltered. 5.Registry is directed to carry out the aforesaid corrections and issue corrected copy to the respective parties. am Page No.1 of 2 am Page No.2 of 2...
Vivek Kumar vs the Reserve Bank of India
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH IN Vivek Kumar S/o Vijayakumar No 61 Pillayar Kovil Street Keelavanjore Vanjiur Tirumalairayanpattinam Karaikal District. Petitioner(s) Vs1. The Reserve Bank Of India Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr. C.R. GokulvisvasORDERThe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this miscellaneous petition and also made an endorsement to that effect.2. In view of the submissions and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed as withdrawn. AT Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To 1.The Reserve Bank Of IndiaN.ANAND VENKATESH, J.AT...
G.S.Medicals Vs Kamlam Medical Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.07.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN in1. M/s. G.S.Medicals Rep. by its Proprietor, Mrs.R.Radha Chennai 600 100.2. Mrs.R.Radha Chennai 600 100. .... Petitioners VsM/s.Kamlam Medical Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Mr.R.Elavarasan, Wing B, SP-30, Developed plot, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. .... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to exempt the petitioner fromsurrendering before the court of concern during the pending revisionand for suspension and conviction and sentence order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, by order dated 19.12.2024 in C.A.No.46 of 2023 confirming the conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Alandhur in C.C.No.192 of 2019 on 20.03.2023 sentencing the petitioner to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment till the disposal of the criminal revision petition....
S.Anbumani vs the General Manager
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH S.Anbumani S/o.Subuvadan Petitioner Vs Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records based on letter No.Nil on the file of the second respondent dated 13.03.2024 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, further direct the second respondent to sanction the loan amount of Rs.2,44,13,111/-. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srimathi For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader [R1] Mr.B.Raghavulu Naidu & Mr.K.Chandrasekaran [R2] *****ORDERLearned counsel for petitioner has sought for permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and has also submitted a letter dated 22.07.2025 to the Registry. In view of the letter dated 22.07.2025 submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Neutral Citation: Yes/No Index...
V.M.Govindarajan Vs State of TamilNadu
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 29.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and W.M.P.No.12593 of 2023 V.M.Govindarajan ... Petitioner Vs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (ADW), Bangalore Main Road, 3.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District Office, Opposite to District Court, Near Main Bus Stand, Tamil Nadu-635 001. ... RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.10.2022 and consequently, to re-convey the land measuring 1.02 acres situated in Survey No.565/3C1 situated in the Village of Varatanapalli in the Taluk of Krishnagiri as contemplated under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment), Act, 1996, within any rea...
K.Muruganatham, Vs The Director,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 29471 of 2016 AND WMP No. 25515 of 2016 K.Muruganatham, S/o.M.Kuppusamy, 198/A, Kalluli Kadu, Thethakudi North Post, Vedharanyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. Petitioner(s) Vs Educational Officer, O/o.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.3. Mrs.C.Seethalakshmi, Secondary Grade Teacher, Panchayath Union Middle School, Thopputhurai Muslim, Vedaranyam Union, Nagapattinam District. Respondent(s)PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the order passed by the 2 nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2316/A2/AA4/2016 dated 13.08.2016 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to issue fresh order to the petitioner for working as secondary grade teacher in the same place i.e., Panchayat Union Middle School ...
Sister Margaret Mary, vs G.Koteeswara Rao, and Another
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
A.No.2029 of 2025 in C.S..No.287 of 2024K.KUMARESH BABU,J.This application has been filed to condone the delay of 48 days in filing the written statement of the defendant in the above captioned suit.2. Mr.J.Kannan, learned counsel for the first and second respondents would submit that he has no objection in allowing the present application.3. Heard both sides.4. Considering the averments made in theaffidavit filed in support of this application and also taking into consideration that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents has no objection in allowing the present application and being satisfied with the same, the application is ordered as prayed for and the delay is condoned. Registry is directed to take the written statement on record, if it is otherwise in order. Gba 29.07.2025 Page No. 1 of 2 (1/2) Page No. 2 of 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »