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.
The Annamalai University vs Somasundaram M
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-02-2025
C.M.P.No.2864 of 2025 in W.A.SR.No.12044 of 2025R.SURESH KUMAR, J.ANDHEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.(Order of the Court was made by R. SURESH KUMAR, J.) This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 213 days in filing the above writ appeal.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.3. Ms.H.Nandhini, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent and she has no serious objection in allowing the petition.4. Having satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this petition is ordered and the delay is condoned.5. Registry is directed to number the appeal and place the same for admission, if the papers are otherwise in order. (R.S.K., J.) (H.C., J.) 02.09.2025 vji https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
G.Palanisamy Vs The Inspector General of
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-02-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN G.Palanisamy ... Petitioner -Vs- Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, praying to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in 17092/U1/2017 dated 29.11.2017 and quash the same consequently directing the first respondent to take action against the 4th respondent in accordance with the law. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ragupathy Rai For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Spl.Govt.PleaderORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in 17092/U1/2017 dated 29.11.2017 and direct the first respondent to take action against the 4th respondent .2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prayer sought for in this petition has become infructuous, since the 4th respondent died.3...
Annamalai University vs P.Sampath
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-02-2025
C.M.P.No.2779 of 2025 in W.A.SR.No.13723 of 2025R.SURESH KUMAR, J.ANDHEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.(Order of the Court was made by R. SURESH KUMAR, J.) This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 189 days in filing the above writ appeal.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.3. Ms.H.Nandhini, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent and she has no serious objection in allowing the petition.4. Having satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this petition is ordered and the delay is condoned.5. Registry is directed to number the appeal and place the same for admission, if the papers are otherwise in order. (R.S.K., J.) (H.C., J.) 02.09.2025 vji https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Annamalai University vs K.Balan
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-02-2025
C.M.P.No.2776 of 2025 in W.A.SR.No.13587 of 2025R.SURESH KUMAR, J.ANDHEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.(Order of the Court was made by R. SURESH KUMAR, J.) This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 189 days in filing the above writ appeal.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.3. Ms.H.Nandhini, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent and she has no serious objection in allowing the petition.4. Having satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this petition is ordered and the delay is condoned.5. Registry is directed to number the appeal and place the same for admission, if the papers are otherwise in order. (R.S.K., J.) (H.C., J.) 02.09.2025 vji https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Annamalai University vs R.Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-02-2025
C.M.P.No.2772 of 2025 in W.A.SR.No.14967 of 2025R.SURESH KUMAR, J.ANDHEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.(Order of the Court was made by R. SURESH KUMAR, J.) This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 189 days in filing the above writ appeal.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.3. Ms.H.Nandhini, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent and she has no serious objection in allowing the petition.4. Having satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this petition is ordered and the delay is condoned.5. Registry is directed to number the appeal and place the same for admission, if the papers are otherwise in order. (R.S.K., J.) (H.C., J.) 02.09.2025 vji https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
N.Sathishkumar vs the State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-02-2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.09.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P.No.5001 of 2023 N.Sathishkumar ...Appellant Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Vellore 632 001. ...Respondents PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 07.12.2022 in W.P.No.33004 of 2022 and allow the Writ Appeal. For Appellant : Mr.S.Thiruvengadam For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Spl. Govt. Pleader for RR1 and 2 Mr.P.S.Prabhu for RR3 ******JUDGMENT(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not pressing the Writ Appeal as it has become infructous. He had also made the following endorsement to that effect:- W.A. is not pressed and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.2. In view of the submission and endorsement made by the learnedcounsel for the appellant, this Writ Appeal is dism...
M.Murugan Vs Special Deputy Collector
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-02-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN WP No. 6453 of 2019 and WMP Nos.7266 & 7268 of 2019 M.Murugan S/o. Maran. Petitioner(s) Vs1. Special Deputy Collector 2.K.Shantha Kurian, W/o. Late. C.A.Kurian. Respondent(s)PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records relating to proceedings Notice dated 08.11.2018 A.P.No. 10 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court, Thiruchirapalli Camp at Coimbatore) and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): M/s.A.V.Arun For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar for R2ORDERThe learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous. 2.In view of the same, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismiss...
Murugan vs State Rep. by
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-02-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :02.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Murugan, (M/28 years) S/o Theerthagiri, Kanathampatti, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District. ..Petitioner/Accused-1/versus/State rep.by The Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Salem, Salme District. (Crime No.32 of 2022) ..Respondent/Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C./483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail in respect of Spl.C.C.No.128 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for EC/NDPS Act Cases, Salem. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Prabhu For Respondent :Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)ORDERThe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2.In view of the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition is d...
M.Muthukaruppan Vs The District Revenue Officer
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-02-2025
]IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P.No.5268 & 5269 of 2019 M.Muthukaruppan ..... Petitioner Vs1. The District Revenue Officer, Chennai Esplanade Road, Chennai-600 1082. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Egmore, Chennai-600 0313. P.L.Alamelu4. R.Algammai5. M.Palaniappan6. M.Ravi ..... RespondentsPrayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in J2/15450/2016 dated 27.06.2018 and quash the same as illegal, irregular and without Jurisdiction. For Petitioners : Mrs.V.Srimathi For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.V.Anil Kumar For R4 to R6 : No appearanceORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.06.2018 passed in J2/15450/2016 by the first respondent, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order pa...
P.R.Pachamuthu Vs The District Collector
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Sep-02-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P.Nos.5678 & 5679 of 2019 P.R.Pachamuthu ..... Petitioner VsAriyalur. ..... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in proceedings No. O.Mu. A2/15226/2011, dated 24.04.2012, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the 3rd respondent to issue patta to the petitioner for lands in S.Nos. 275/ 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e1, 1e2, 1e3, 1e4, measuring an extent of 4 acres 10 in Kadambaur Village, Udiyarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur. For Petitioners : Mrs.V.SrimathiFor R1 to R3 : Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government PleaderORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.04.2012 passed in proceedings No.O.Mu.2/15226/2011 by the first respondent, thereby rejected the reque...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »