Chennai Orders Court September 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.
K.Mahalingam Vs The Secretary
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-23-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.09.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and W.M.P.No.11995 of 2021 K.Mahalingam Advocate, E.No.Ms.885/1998 ... Petitioner Vs.1. The Secretary,2. Mrs.Mehrunnisa, W/o.Late. Hyath Basha ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the Notice of hearing dated 12.02.2021 in D.C.C.No.37/2021 issued by the 1st respondent based on the resolution passed in Resolution No.329/2020 dated 19.12.2020 on the 2nd respondent's complaint No.348/2019 dated 16.07.2019 and quash the same. Page Nos.1/4 For Petitioner : Mr.K.Mahalingam For Respondents : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaar Standing Counsel [R1] Mr.S.Vijayakumar [R2]ORDER(Order of the Court delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM.J.,) This writ petition has been filed challenging the notice of hearing issued by the Disciplinary Commit...
K.Mahalingam Vs The Secretary
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-23-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.09.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Mr.K.Mahalingam, Advocate, E.No.MS.885/1998 ... Petitioner Vs.1. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.2. Mr.R.Mohan Ranganathan, Advocate, E.No.Ms.409/19953. Mr.N.Sudharshan, Advocate, E.No.Ms.1049/19934. Ms.R.Sathyabama, Advocate, E.No.Ms.696/19885. Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, Advocate, E.No.Ms.979/2007 ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the resolution passed by the first respondent in Resolution No.390/2020 dated 19.12.2020 and quash the same, consequentially direct the first respondent to refer and Page Nos.1/5 proceed with the disciplinary committee on the petitioner's complaint No.411/2011 dated 06.09.2019 against the respondents 2 t...
S.A.Bhimaraja Vs The Secretary
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-23-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.09.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and W.M.P.No.10418 of 2022 Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, S/o.Thiru. Ayyanar Raja ... Petitioner Vs.1. The Secretary,2. R.Mohan Ranganathan, Advocate, E.No. MS 409/1995 ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,to call for the entire records pertaining to the resolution passed by the 1st respondent in resolution No.663/2021 dated 18.12.2021 and quash the same, consequentially direct the 1st respondent to refer and proceed with the Disciplinary Committee on the petitioner's Complaint No.102/2021 against the 2nd respondent, in accordance with the provisions under 35 of Advocates Act, 1961. Page Nos.1/4For Petitioners : Mr.K.Mahalingam For Respondents: Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaar Standing Counsel [R1] Mr.Saaisudharsan Sathiyamoorthy [R2] (Change of vaka...
Chinnasamy vs Rami
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-23-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23-09-2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and C.M.P.No.7477 of 20241. CHINNASAMY S/o. Late Kariya Gounder, Door No.292/2, Pannandhur, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District2. Banumathi W/o. Chinnasamy, Door No. 292/2, Pannandhur, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District3. Manonmani W/o Ganapathy, Door No.189/A3 Pannandhur, pochampalli Taluk,Krishnagiri District4. Kala W/o. Vadivel, Door No.189/A3 Pannandhur, pochampalli Taluk,Krishnagiri District ..Petitioners Vs1. RAMI W/o. Elangeswaran, No.935, Indira Nagar Colony, Pannandhur, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District2. K Arunachalam S/o. kannupaiah, Vadamangalam, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District ..RespondentsPRAYER- To withdraw and transfer the O.S.No.193/2021 pending on the file of the Honourable Sub Court, Uthangarai to Sub Court Krishnagiri. For Petitioners: V.Balamurugan For Respondents: Sathiyaraj E. (For R1) M/s. A. Ilayaperumal, (For R2)ORDERThis Transfer peti...
Veera Gounder vs Venkatachalam (Deceased), 1.Poopathi
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-23-2025
This petition has been filed to bring on record the respondents 2 to 4 herein, as legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent, namely Venkatachalam, and rank them as respondents 3 to 5 in S.A. No.910 of 2023.2. The learned counsel for the respondents did not raise anyobjection in allowing this petition and this Court is satisfied with the reasons attributed in the affidavit filed in support of the above petition. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.3. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments in S.A. No.910 of 2023 and list the same in usual course. bga bga [1/2]...
S Babu Vs Lakshmi
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-23-2025
inThese petitions have been filed (i) to condone the delay of 3242 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 2nd respondent, namely Ayothiraman, (ii) to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 2nd respondent and, (iii) to bring on record the respondents 8 to 11 herein, as legal representatives of the deceased 2nd respondent, namely Ayothiraman, and rank them as further respondents in S.A. No.583 of 2024, respectively.2. The learned counsel for the respondents did not raise any objectionin allowing these petitions and this Court is satisfied with the reasons attributed in the affidavits filed in support of the above petitions. Hence, these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed.3. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments in S.A. No.583 of 2024 and list the same in usual course. [] bga bga in [1/2]...
P.Padmavathi vs the Registrar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-23-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR P.Padmavathi Petitioner/Appellant W/o.Late.S.Ponnusamy, No.5/26, Vaishali Flats, Temple Avenue, Srinagar, Colony, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015. Vs 1.The Registrar Central Adminsitrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai-600 104.2. Union Of Idnia Rep. By The Revenue Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Goi, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.3. The Chairman Cbic (erstwhile Cbec) North Block New Delhi-110 0014. The Chief Vigilance Officer Cbic (erstwhile Cbec) Ii Floor, Htel Samrat, Kautilya Marg, Chankayapuri, New Delhi-110 021.5. The Chief Commissioner Of Gst Newry Towers, No.2054-i, Ii Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.6. The Commissioenr Of Gst And Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate (erstwhile Service Tax-iii Commissioenrate) Newry Towers, No.2054-i, Ii Avenue Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.7. The Pay And Accounts Officer, Chennai-600 034 ....
J.Rathnamala Vs The District collector
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-23-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI J.Rathnamala Petitioner(s) Vs1. The District collectorChennai 2.Revenue Divisional Officer South Chennai, Guindy, Chennai 3.The Thasildar Sholinganallur Taluk, 4.P.S.Jayanthi W/o. Late P.s.srinivasalu 5.P.S.Sridevi D/o. Late P.s.srinivasalu 6.P.S.Sri Hari S/o. Late P.S.srinivasalu, All Are At F-4, Saranya Apartments, Muthaiya Nagar, Nanmangalam, Chennai- 600117. R4 To R6- Are Impleded As Per Court Order Dt.09.08.2019 By PDAJ In WMP.No.15943/2019 in WP.No.12808/2019 Respondent(s) PRAYER; This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 15.02.2019 in accordance with law. For Petitioner(s): No appearance For Respondent(s): Mr.T.M.Rajangam, GA RR1 to 3 M/s.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan For R4,R6 R5- Not ready noticeORDERThe petitioner seeks a direction to the re...
D.Suresh vs a.Vijayalakshmi
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-23-2025
This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 396 days in filing the appeal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. Despite the receipt of notice, on behalf of the first and second respondents, none represented.4. The petitioner would aver that the second respondent/InsuranceCompany deposited the amount only on April 2024. The said amount was received by the petitioner in the first week of August 2024. Thereafter, he joined the work at Coimbatore and returned to Chennai only in the month of March, 2025 and contacted his counsel in order to prefer the appeal. Hence, the delay of 396 days occurred in filing the appeal.5. The reasons assigned by the petitioner in the affidavit appear tobe reasonable and acceptable. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this petition, subject to the condition that the interest for the delay period of 396 days shall stand waived. kmm kmm...
Munni vs V. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-23-2025
in This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1043 days in filing the appeal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.3. The learned counsel for the second respondent raised his objections in allowing this petition.4. The 1st petitioner would aver that her son died in road trafficaccident and she is in financial crisis to run her day to day life. She has spent money for treatment of her son and for maintaining the family. Hence, the delay of 1043 days occurred in filing the appeal. Meanwhile, due to her financial condition and ill health, the said delay was caused, which is not willfull.5. The reasons assigned by the petitioners in the affidavit appearto be reasonable and acceptable. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this petition, subject to the condition that the interest for the delay period of 1043 days shall stand waived. kmm kmm in...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »