Chennai Orders Court June 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.
Mrs. S. Jothi, vs Sidheeswaran,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-19-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19-06-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI REV.APLW Nos. 14, 15 & 16 of 2006 Mrs. S. Jothi, Applicant Vs1. Sidheeswaran, 2.The State Of Tamilnadu, 3.The District Collector / 4.The Tahsildar, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. Respondent(s) REV.APLW No. 15 of 2006 Mrs. S. Jothi, Applicant Vs1. Sidheeswaran, 2.The State Of Tamilnadu, 3.The District Collector / 4.K. Dhanasekaran, Respondent(s) REV.APLW No. 16 of 2006 1Mrs. S. Jothi, Applicant Vs1. The State Of Tamilnadu,2.The Inspector Of Panchayat And District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal. 3.Sidheeswaran, Respondent(s) PRAYER in REV.APLW No. 14 of 2006: To Review the Order passed in WPMP No. 30182/2005 in WP No. 27761/2005 dated 20.2.2006. PRAYER in REV.APLW No. 15 of 2006: To Review the Order passed in WPMP No. 34296/2005 in WP No. 31303/2005 dated 20.2.2006.PRAYER in REV.APLW No. 16 of 2006: To Review the Order passed in WPMP No. 42732/2005 in WP No. 39854/2005 d...
P.SRAVAN KUMAR Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-19-2026
in Heard Mr.S.Sagayanathan, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.M.Dinesh, learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first Respondent.2. Private notice has been served to the second respondent. But there was no representation for the second respondent either in person or through his counsel.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that this CriminalMiscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 220 days in filing the criminal revision petition.4. Mr.M.Dinesh, learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first Respondent has reported no objection for allowing this petition. He has stated that he has not filed any counter affidavit.5. Therefore, it appears that both the respondents have nothing to say dn either to entertain the condonation petition or to justify the convincing reasons to condone the delay.6. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in supportof this Crim...
Kiruthika (Minor) Vs R.Gnanavel,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-19-2026
C.M.P.No.2536 of 2026 in C.M.A.SR.No.11076 of 2026A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. Mr.K.Sasindran, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the first respondent, stated that he has no objection to this petition being allowed.3. The reasons adduced in theaffidavit filed in support of this petition being satisfactory, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered and consequently, the delay of 224 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to the condition that the claimant/petitioner will not be entitled to any interest for the delay period i.e., for 224 days, in the appeal. 19.06.2026 ham Note: Registry is directed to number the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, if it is, otherwise, inorder and list the same for admission in duecourse. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Pushpanadhan Vs N.Karthi
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-19-2026
C.M.P.No.2696 of 2026 in C.M.A.SR.No.14743 of 2026A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1050 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. The reasons adduced in theaffidavit filed in support of this petition being satisfactory, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered and consequently, the delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to the condition that the claimant/petitioner will not be entitled to any interest for the delay period i.e., for 1050 days, in the appeal. 19.06.2026 ham Note: Registry is directed to number the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, if it is, otherwise, inorder and list the same for admission in duecourse. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Dayana Sumitha Doss Vs P.Prabhu
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-19-2026
CMP No.5796 of 2026 in CMA SR No.16663of 2026C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.andK.RAJASEKAR, J.(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.) This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 28 days in preferring the appeal against IDOP No.1509 of 2024 on the file of the V Addl.Family Court at Chennai. 2.Notice had been directed to the respondent, notice had been served and counsel had entered appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. 3.In affidavit filed, it had been stated that owing to personal inconvenience, appeal could not be filed within the specified period. It is seen that IDOP No.1509 of 2024 had been filed by the petitioner seeking divorce and the same had been dismissed.4.It would only be appropriate the issuesare examined by the Court. The delay stands condoned. Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order and list the appeal for admission. Registry may also print the name of the counsel for the respondent in the cause li...
The Branch Manager Vs Chandrasekaran
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-19-2026
C.M.P.No.3136 of 2026 in C.M.A.SR.No.10990 of 2026A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 140 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. Though notice has been served on the respondents and their names are printed in the cause list, there is no representation on their behalf.3. The reasons adduced in theaffidavit filed in support of this petition being satisfactory, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered and consequently, the delay of 140 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 19.06.2026 ham Note: Registry is directed to number the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, if it is, otherwise, inorder and list the same for admission in duecourse. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
S.Sushanth Vs M.Vijayakumar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-19-2026
C.M.P.No.4472 of 2026 in C.M.A.SR.No.19750 of 2026A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 258 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. Learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner/appellant submitted that the notice issued to R1, the driver of the insured vehicle, was returned with the endorsement no such person. He further submitted that R1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal and no pay and recover was passed. Therefore, he prayed that notice to R1 may be dispensed with.3. Ms.I.Malar, learned counsel, whotakes notice for R2, submitted that no order of pay and recover was passed by the Tribunal, therefore, she has no objection to dispensing with service of notice on R1.4. The reasons adduced in the affidavitfiled in support of this petition being satisfactory, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered and consequently, the delay of 258 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to the condition that the claimants/petitioners...
M.Govindan Vs Elumalai.K.V
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-19-2026
C.M.P.No.3124 of 2026 in C.M.A.SR.No.17342 of 2026A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 335 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. Though notice has been served on the respondents and their names are printed in the cause list, there is no representation on their behalf.3. The reasons adduced in theaffidavit filed in support of this petition being satisfactory, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered and consequently, the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to the condition that the claimants/petitioners will not be entitled to any interest for the delay period i.e., for 335 days, in the appeal. 19.06.2026 ham Note: Registry is directed to number the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, if it is, otherwise, inorder and list the same for admission in duecourse. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Ch. Pullamma Vs Karantothu Balaji
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-19-2026
C.M.P.No.2940 of 2026 in C.M.A.SR.No.17343 of 2026A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 354 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned counsel who takes notice on behalf of the second respondent, stated that he has no objection to this petition being allowed.3. Though notice has been served on the first respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation on his behalf.4. The reasons adduced in theaffidavit filed in support of this petition being satisfactory, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered and consequently, the delay of 354 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to the condition that the claimants/petitioners will not be entitled to any interest for the delay period i.e., for 354 days, in the appeal. 19.06.2026 ham Note: Registry is directed to number the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, if it is, otherwise, inorder and list the same for admission in duecourse....
R.Govindarajan Vs State of Tamil Nadu,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-19-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.06.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR R.Govindarajan S/o. O.Ramasamy, Deputy Horticulture Officer (Retd) Seeliyur (via), Coimbatore 641 113. ... Petitioner vs Chennai 600 018. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 and 3 tosend a proposal to the first respondent revising the pay with arrears as well as the pension pay with arrears of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2010 on a par with his junior Mr.B.T.Manimaran who also retired as the Deputy Agriculture Officer within time frame with a further direction to the first respondent to grant the approval for it to be implemented by the fifth respondent, namely the Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlement), within further time frame.For Petitioner : Mr.N.Santhoshkumar For Respondents : Mrs.Y.Kavitha Government CounselORDERThe learned counsel for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »