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.
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs G.Gokulakrishnan @ Santhosh
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 17786 OF 2025,CMA SR NO. 55407 OF 2023 Rep by its Divisional Manager, D.No.110, JN St, Puducherry 605 001. Vs CMP No. 17786 of 2025 Vs CMA SR No. 55407 of 2023 Vs S/O. Gandhi, Permanent Address East Street, Nedumaruthur, Kodangudi Post, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, Nagai District. Now residing at School Street, Sedapalayam and Post, Cuddalore Taluk. and another For Appellant(s): Mr.C.Johnson For Respondent(s): R-2 - No AppearanceORDERCMP No. 17786 of 2025 has been filed to permit the petitioner to effect the newspaper publication against first respondent in CMP No. 13803 of 2023 in CMA(F).SR. No. 55407 of 2023.2. CMP No. 13803 of 2023 has been filed to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal.3. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.4. The reason assigned by the petitioner for delay is justifiable. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. pbl...
R.Kiliambal, Vs The Union of India,
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. 32039 of 2016 R.Kiliambal, W/o.K.Rajaraman, No.1, Cuddalore Road, Krishna Nagar, Thirubuvanai, Palayam Village, Puducherry-605 107. Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary To Government, Transport Department, Govt. of Union territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.2. Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Puducherry.3. The General Manager - Cum- Company Secretary, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Puducherry. 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 on the file of the third respondent relating to the impugned orders dated 19.08.2016 bearing File no.350/PRTC/Legal/13-14/1383 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as within the age limit and include her ...
S.Mavallaban Vs Sivagami
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 in Crl.R.C.No.528 of 2025 S.Mavallaban .... Petitioner Vs Sivagami .... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to pass an order of exemption for surrendering of the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry in S.T.C.No.1062 of 2014 dated 16.11.2023, in pursuance with order of dismissal passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner in C.A.No.09 of 2024 dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry.For Petitioner : Ms.V.Kayalvizhi For Respondent : Mr.B.BalavijayanORDERThis Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to exempt the petitioner from surrendering before the trial Court.2. In view of the order passed by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.7459 of 2025dated 29.07.2025, granting suspension of sentence, no further order is necessary in this petition. Accordingly, ...
The Management vs a.Mahalakshmi
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.M.P.No. 16704 of 2025 in REV.APLW.SR No.166978 of 2024 IN WP(MD).No.28881 of 2022 The Management, No.K.1751, Govindanur Primary Agri Co-operative Credit Society, Govindanur, Puravipalayam (PO), Pollachi T.K -642 110 ... Petitioner/Petitioner vs. A.Mahalakshmi ...Respondent/Respondent Prayer in W.M.P.No.16704 of 2025: Petition is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 2005, to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the review petition against the writ petition in W.P.No.28881 of 2022 on the file of this Court dated 21.06.2024. Prayer in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.166978 of 2024: Application is filed under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28881 of 2022 dated 07.08.2024. For Petitioner(s) : M/s.Kanimozhi Mathi For Respondent(s): Mr.S.P.SrinivasanORDERThis writ miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 12 days in fili...
Sivasankari vs Rajasegar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated :29.07.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI Sivasankari ... Petitioner vs Rajasegar .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw HMOP No.737 of 2023 on the file of Family Court, Puducherry and transfer the same to the file of Sub Court, Karaikal. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vetriselvi For Respondent : No appearanceORDERWhen the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle.P.B.BALAJI.,J.sr2. Permission is granted. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Tr.C.M.P.No.582 of 2024 is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. 29.07.2025 Index: Yes/No Website:yes/noSpeaking Order/Non-speaking Ordersr To The Sub Court, Karaikal...
Axis Bank Ltd vs Rintu Bibin
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
M/s.Axis Bank Ltd. ... Applicant Vs. Rintu Bibin ... RespondentTill 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 be keptpending. 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 paid the initial remuneration to the advocate commissioner.ab ab...
Axis Bank Ltd vs Kongari Praveen
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
M/s.Axis Bank Ltd. ... Applicant Vs. Kongari Praveen ... RespondentTill 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 be keptpending. 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 paid the initial remuneration to the advocate commissioner.ab ab...
Axis Bank Ltd vs Ashok Kumar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
M/s.Axis Bank Ltd. ... Applicant Vs. Ashok Kumar ... RespondentTill 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 be keptpending. 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 paid the initial remuneration to the advocate commissioner.ab ab...
Axis Bank Ltd vs Simpson Xavier
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
M/s.Axis Bank Ltd. ... Applicant Vs. Simpson Xavier ... RespondentTill 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 be keptpending. 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 paid the initial remuneration to the advocate commissioner.ab ab...
Axis Bank Ltd vs Parupudi Venkat Padma Subba Rao
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jul-29-2025
M/s.Axis Bank Ltd. ... Applicant Vs. Parupudi Venkat Padma Subba Rao ... RespondentTill 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 be keptpending. 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 paid the initial remuneration to the advocate commiss...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »