Chennai Orders Court March 2026 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.
T.R. Loganathan Vs Latha
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI T.R.Loganathan ..Petitioner(s) Vs Erode-638 001. ..Contemnor(s) Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for committing gross contempt of this Court by deliberately and wilfully disobeying the order of this Court made in W.A.No.2787 of 2021 dated 17.11.2023. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Ayyathurai For Contemnor(s): Mr.M.Murali VinodhORDERThis Contempt Petition is filed seeking to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court dated 17.11.2023 in W.A.No.2787 of 2021. Page1 of 32. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the order of this Court dated 17.11.2023 made in W.A.No.2787 of 2021 has been complied with by settling the terminal benefits in favour of the petitioner.3. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, this Cont...
D. Arputham vs the Commissioner
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.03.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER D.Arputham W/o.S.Kolangiyappa ... Petitioner vs.3. S.Anandhan S/o.V.Sabapathy RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to consider the petitioners representation dated 06.10.2025 to take appropriate action against the encroachment made by the 3 rd respondent within a time frame. Page Nos.1/4 For Petitioner : Mr.A.M.Sheik Mohammed Rafiq For Respondents : Mr.E.C.Ramesh Standing Counsel for R1 and R2 Mr.S.N.Subramani, for R3 *****ORDER[Made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,] The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioners representation dated 06.10.2025.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent has obstructed the common pathway by putting up cons...
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs S. Saranraj
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
C.M.P.No.7397 of 2026 in C.M.A.SR.No.133373 of 2024R.KALAIMATHI, J.Having been satisfied with the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of this condone delay petition, this petition stands ordered. The delay of 293 days in representing the above appeal in C.M.A. SR.No.133373 of 2024 is hereby condoned. 2.Registry is directed to number the above C.M.A.SR.No.133373 of 2024 and post the Appeal for Admission in the regular course, if the papers are otherwise in order. 27.03.2026 kas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Sathyanathan vs the Commissioner
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.03.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER Satyanathan S/o.P.Marthandan ... Petitioner vs.1. The Commissioner Ripon Building Chennai-600 003.2. The Zonal Officer (Zone 6)3. The Executive Engineer4. The Assistant Engineer Div-74, Zone 6 Mangalapuram, Perambur High Road (East) Chennai-600 102. Page Nos.1/55. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (Head Office) No.05 Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk Near Vivekananda House, Chennai-600 005.6. Mrs.Kannammal S/o.Late Venugopal RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 28.10.2025 or any other alternative remedy. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vignesh For Respondents : Mr.E.C.Ramesh Standing Counsel for R1 to R4 Mr.B.Balaji Standing Counsel for R5 R6 No appearance *****ORDER[Made by S.M.SUBRAM...
The Branch Manager Vs DHIVYA
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
CMP No.7567 of 2026 in CMA SR.No.34049 of 2025 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J., AND K.RAJASEKAR.J., (Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.) This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 183 days in representing the above CMA SR.No.34049 of 2025. 2.Taking note of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. 3.The Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise inorder.(C.V.K.J., ) (K.R.S.J., ) 27.03.2026 sli 1/1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
S.Antoni Vincent, Vs K.Gunasekaran and another
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
aIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR S.Antoni Vincent, Supt. Staff No.ASO169 (PPO1521), S/o.Susai Amalanathan, No.39, Royal City, Angalamman Kovil Street, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore-607 001. ..Petitioner(s) Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limtied, Employees Post Retirement Benefit Fund Scheme, ..Contemnor(s) Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents herein for willful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble court dated 20.03.2023 in W.P.No. 8569 of 2023 for contempt For Petitioner(s): M/s. J.PRADEEP, For Contemnor(s): Mr.M.Aswin, Standing Counsel Page1 of 4ORDERThis Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondents herein for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 20.03.2023 in W.P.No.8569 of 2023.2. When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have complied ...
K.Bakkiyaraj vs the District Collector
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR in WP No. 33281 of 2016 K.Bakkiyaraj S/o.Karumbayuram, North Street, Kanchivai Village (Post), Kuthalam (Taluk), Nagapattinam District ..Petitioner(s) Vs1. The District Collector O/o.District Collector, Nagapattinam District.2. The Thasildar O/o. Thasildar, Taluk Office, Respondents Kuthalam (Taluk), Nagapattinam District3. Marutharaj S/o.Kaliyaperumal, South Street Ganganathapuram, Kuthalam Taluk,4. Megala D/o.Govindhasamy, No.169, Mettu Theru, Kuthalam Taluk, Mayiladuthruai District.5. Vimala W/o.Suresh, Mela Theru, Pazhaiyakoodalur, Kuthalam Taluk Page1 of 56. Vinoth Raj S/o.Ranjitham, New Colony Theru, Komal, Kuthalam Taluk,7. Vijayalakshmi D/o.Anandhan Rayarpura Agraharam,8. Shanmugam S/o.Balakrishnan, No.10/15, Baradhitheru,9. Sumathira W/o.Sudhakar, Vilavadi Colony, 10.Charles Adaikalaraj, S/o.Sebesthikannu, Madhakovil Theru, Sembian, Komal Post, Kuthalam Taluk, ..Proposed ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Fourth Force Surveillance Indo Pv ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.03.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN CMP No.328 of 2026 and WA SR No.190539 of 20251. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Wing, Central Circle 2(1),New Income Tax Building, 46 MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034. and another2. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 2, Investigation Wing Building, 1st Floor No.46, MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34. Appellants Vs1. Fourth Force Surveillance Indo Pvt. Ltd Rep. by its Authorized Signatory - R.J. Gokulram, 76, Temple Towers, Third Floor, North Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. RespondentPRAYERTo condone the delay of 366 days in re-presenting the above Writ Appeal. For Appellant(s): Mr. A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent(s): Mr. M.V.Swaroop For Respondent.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the appli...
Malathi Panneerselvam Vs Rangarajan
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.03.2026CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI Malathi Panneerselvam ..Petitioner(s) Vs Rangarajan The Revenue Divisional Officer(South) Guindy, Chennai-600 032 ..Contemnor(s) Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 to punish the second respondent for committing contempt of the orderdated 12.08.2025 in W.P. No. 30354 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.K. Rajasekaran For Respondent : Mr.A. Selvendran Spl. Govt. Pleader -----ORDERWhen the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order dated 12.08.2025 passed in W.P. No.30354 of 2025, which is the subject matter of this Contempt Petition has been duly complied with by the respondent. In support of his submission, he has produced a copy of the proceedings dated 23.03.2026 issued by the respondent.2. The said submission has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. Since t...
K. Kuppuswamy Vs The Adjudicating Authority
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.03.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP Crl. No. 657 of 20261. K. Kuppuswamy2. Krishnaveni3. K. Arunachalamoorthy Somanur, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District. Petitioners Vs Rathnasamy Nadar Road, RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 24-05-2024 made in OC No.2142/2024 passed by the 1st Respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to accept the fixed deposit of the amount that may be determined by this Court as a substitute to the attached properties and further direct the respondents to forthwith release and return the petitioners attached properties. For Petitioners : Mr. C.Harish For Respondents : Mr. P.Sidharthan Special Public ProsecutorORDER(Order of the Court was m...