Chennai Orders Court April 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.
KARTHIKEYAN Vs Thulasimani,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 17955 OF 2025 Karthikeyan S/o.Muniappagounder, No.137, Sivarasree Illam, Lakshmipuram, Palani Town and Taluk, Dindigul. ..Petitioner(s) Vs Thulasimani, W/o.Late Loganathan, D.No.2/250, Salimedu Thottam, Kaniampoondi Village, Avinashi, Tiruppur. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Final Order dated 23.04.2025 made in I.A.No.52 of 2022 in O.S.No.141 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Avinashi.For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For Respondent(s): Ms.M.P.GunasriORDERChallenging the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 made in I.A.No.52 of 2022 in O.S.No.141 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Avinashi, the second defendant has preferred this revision. Page1 of 42. The second defendant filed an application before the trial Court toreject the plaint stating th...
The Managing Director Vs Rajeswari
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
CMP.No.17603 of 2024 in CMA.SR.No.103004 of 2024R.KALAIMATHI, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 2.Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 is not having any serious objection in allowing the above petition. 3.Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit, this petition is ordered. 30.04.2026 kas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Priya vs Kaliyamoorthi
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
CMP.No.17315 of 2024 in CMA.SR.No.99102 of 2024R.KALAIMATHI, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has got serious objection in allowing the above petition. 3.Notice sent to the 1st respondent has been returned as unclaimed. Simultaneously, the private notice sent to the 1st respondent is served and his name is also printed in the cause list. 4.The 1st petitioner would mainly aver that on account of the accident that took place on 27.08.2019, she has lost her husband and inorder to mobilize necessary funds towardslitigation expenses, a delay of 386 days occurred. 5.Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit, this petition is ordered on the condition that the interest for the delay period shall stand waived. 30.04.2026 kas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Rajendiran vs K.Paramasivam
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
CMP.No.18756 of 2024 in CMA.SR.No.106311 of 2024R.KALAIMATHI, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.Ms.Janani, learned counsel would submit that Mr.J.Chandran takes notice for the 3rd respondent / Insurance Company and she has serious objection in allowing the above petition. 3.Despite the receipt of notice and the name of the 2nd respondent having been printed in the cause list, he neither appeared nor entered appearance through his counsel. 4.The petitioner would aver that though the award passed on 12.02.2021 in MCOP No.485 of 2017, on the file of MACT, Additional District Court, Hosur, the award amount is deposited only in the year 2023. He would further aver that due to financial constraints, a delay of 1156 days occurred in preferring the appeal. 5.Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit, this petition is ordered on the condition that the interest for the delay period shall stand waived. 30.04.2026 kas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Sowndari vs Sankalp Mandovara
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
CMP.No.18574 of 2024 in CMA.SR.No.103359 of 2024R.KALAIMATHI, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2.None represents the 2nd respondent. 3.Despite the receipt of notice and name of the 1st respondent having been printed in the cause list, the 1st respondent neither appeared nor entered appearance through his counsel. 4.The 1st petitioner would aver that on account of the accident that was occurred on 26.11.2017, her husband Ponnusamy passed away, and she is not in a position to mobilize funds for the litigation expenses, hence a delay of 786 days occurred in preferring the above appeal. 5.Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit, this petition is ordered on the condition that the interest for the delay period shall stand waived. 30.04.2026 kas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
The Government of Tamil Nadu vs Sanghi Trading Corporation
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.04.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN CMP No.3358 of 2026 in WA SR No.61011 OF 2023 1.THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Rep. by the Commissioner & Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600009.2.THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF LAND REFORMS Chepauk Chennai - 005. 3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND TAX AND CEILING Madhavaram, Chennai 99. : Petitioners Vs M/s.SANGHI TRADING CORPORATION Rep. by its Partner Suresh Kumar Sanghi Having Office at No.17-A Sembudoss Street Chennai 001. : Respondent Prayer : To dispense with the production of the certified copy of the rder dated 5.10.2021 made in WP.No.24890/2005. For Petitioners : Mr.Karthik Jagannath, Government AdvocateORDER(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This application is filed to dispense with the production of certified co...
K.Rathi vs E.Praveenkumar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
CMP.No.26257 of 2025 in CMA.SR.No.106166 of 2025R.KALAIMATHI, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2.The respondents filed counter and would object that the reasons stated in the affidavit cannot be taken as a sufficient cause, since the deceased was working in MTC as conductor and the legal representatives of the deceased would have received the terminal benefits. 3.The 1st petitioner would aver that on account of the accident, she lost her husband and due to financial inability and her ill health, CMA could not be preferred in time and hence a delay of 311 days occurred. 4.It could be seen that at the time of accident one son of the deceased was aged about 19 years and another son is a minor. After the death of the 1st petitioners husband, she faced financial difficulties. 5.Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit, this petition is ordered on the condition that the interest for the delay period shall stand waived. 30.04.2026 kas h...
Minor Abror, D/o.Nazar Basha, Vs R.Nataraj,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
CMP.No.21620,17980,17958, 17964 of 2025 in CMA.SR.No.108859, 108864, 108860, 108861 of 2025R.KALAIMATHI, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has got serious objections in allowing the above petitions.3.The petitioner would aver that she has sustained grievous injuries on account of the accident that took place on 01.09.2021 and her family members too sustained injuries in the said accident and she is continuously taking treatment and she was not in a position to prefer appeals in time, hence a delay of 1115 days has occurred in preferring the above appeals.4.Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit, these petitions are ordered on the condition that the interest for the delay period shall stand waived. 30.04.2026 kas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
V.GANESH Vs M. Yellappa
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
CMP.No.20622 of 2023 in CMA.SR.No.112449 of 2023R.KALAIMATHI, J.Heard.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which is filed to condone the delay of 77 days in filing the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is ordered. 30.04.2026 kas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Mohamed Thamimul Ansari Vs Rukshana Afrin
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Mohamed Thamimul Ansari S/o. S.A.Shaick Ibrahim, New No.94, old No.49/2, Vasantha Garden Main Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023. Temporarily residing at 371, Elam village Ln, Unit 319, San Jose, CA 92134, USA. ..Petitioner Vs Rukshana Afrin, D/o.Mohamed Rafi, Alliance Orchid Springs, 207, Palm block, 54, Water Canal Road, Korattur, Chennai - 600 076. ..RespondentPrayer : Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, to punish the respondent for contempt of court for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 13.12.2022 passed in A.No.4830 of 2022 in O.P.No.662 of 2022. For Petitioner : Mr. J.Saravanavel For Respondent/Contemnor : Mr.V.Bala Page1 of 2SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.kjORDERLearned counsel for the contempt petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties was resolved. Taking note of the same, the contempt petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »