Skip to content

Chennai Court March 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.

Mar 28 2025

Reka vs the Tahsildar

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-28-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY REKA ... Petitioner Vs THE TAHSILDAR VELACHERY TALUK OFFICE, VELACHERY, CHENNAI. ... RespondentPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record pertaining the impugned order for rejection of the legal heirship certificate vide Ref. No. TN- 7202412271692 dated 27.12.2024 issued by the respondent and quash the same. Consequently direct the respondent to issue the legal heir ship certificate to the petitioner.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajesh Kannan For Respondent : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General VIII, assisted by Mr.S.Balamurugan Government AdvocateORDERThis writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.12.2024 rejecting the application for the issue of a legal heirship certificate.2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned theAdditional ...


Mar 28 2025

Pugazhendhi vs Mahalakshmi

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-28-2025

C.M.P.No.3725 of 2025 in C.M.A(Sr).No.22037 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.Notice to 1st respondent is already dispensed with by order dated 21.02.2025.2. Though notice served on 2nd respondent and his name appear in the list, there is no representation.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.4. Having satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the delay of 437 days in filing the above CMA is condoned. nr 28.03.2025 Note:Registry is directed to number the CMA and list it for admission, if it is otherwise in order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...


Mar 28 2025

P.M.Moideen vs Coimbatore Gunny Merchants Association

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-28-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 28.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA 1.P.M.Moideen 2.S.Noor Mohammed 3.T.S.Rahamathulla 4.P.Thangavel 5.P.M.Sulaiman 6.M.A.Kamlautheen 7.K.A.Abdul Rahman 8.M.A.Ismail 9.E.N.Sivakumar 10.K.A.Abdul Hakkim 11.A.M.Habibur Rahman 12.P.M.Abuthahir 13.S.A.Abdul Kathar 14.V.A.Kabir 15.A.Mohammed Rafiq 16.A.M.Jakkariya 17.M.K.Aadham 18.T.A.Abbas 19.P.M.Asaraf Ali 20.A.Abuthahir ... Petitioners Vs. 1.M/s.Coimbatore Gunny Merchants Association Rep by its President V.M.Ubidur Rahman 2.V.M.Ubidur Rahman 3.R.Mathiyazhagan Secretary 4.V.A.Abuthahir, Treasurer 5.P.A.Mohammed Hussain 6.B.H.M.Ismail 7.A.S.Abdul Hakkim 8.Liyakath Ali 9.P.A.Akbar Ali 10.The Revenue Divisional Officer (South) Coimbatore South. ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow this civil revision petition thereby directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.285/2024 on the file o...


Mar 28 2025

The Manager vs Minor Kanishka

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-28-2025

C.M.P.No.4816 of 2025 in C.M.A.SR.No.21760 of 2024R.SURESH KUMAR, J.ANDDr. A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.This petition is filed to condone the delay of 292 days in filing the appeal. Heard Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite notice having been served, none appears for the respondents. The delay is only 292 days. Having been satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the delay of 292 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the petition stands ordered. (R.S.K., J) (A.D.M.C., J) 28.03.2025 drm https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...


Mar 28 2025

K.Ariyarasan and Another Vs Dr.P.Senthil Kumar, I.A.S., and Another

Court: Chennai Orders

Decided on: Mar-28-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 28.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR1. K.Ariyarasan2. s.Pandiyan ... Petitioners Vs1. Dr.P.Senthil Kumar, I.A.S., Additional Chief Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. Dr.Sdhanshu Gupta, I.F.S., Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, [Head of Forest Force], Velachery Main Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ... Respondents Prayer:- Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience in not complying withtheOrder dated 31.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25516 of 2023For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajesh Government AdvocateN.SATHISH KUMAR, J.vrcORDERHeard Mr.S.Mani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.2. When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learn...


Mar 28 2025

Balakrishnan vs Vimala

Court: Chennai Orders

Decided on: Mar-28-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.03.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE C.M.A.Nos.999 of 2024 & 4802 of 2019 Balakrishnan .. Petitioner in both CMPs Vs. Vimala .. Respondent in both CMPs Prayer in C.M.P.No.4838 of 2025: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the petition to restore to file the C.M.A.No.999 of 2024, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.12.2024; andPrayer in C.M.P.No.4842 of 2025: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the petition to restore to file the C.M.A.No.4802 of 2019, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.12.2024. For the Petitioner in both CMPs : Mr.Suyesh Palande For the Respondent in both CMPs : Mr.R.MuralidharanCOMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) C.M.A.Nos.999 of 2024 and 4802 of 2019 were posted for he...


Mar 28 2025

Mahalakshmi C.K Vs Deepak .S

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-28-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 28.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA and CMP.No.3903 of 2025 Mahalakshmi C.K. ... Petitioner Vs. Deepak.S. ... Respondent Prayer : Transfer Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code praying to withdraw and transfer the H.M.O.P.No.495 of 2024 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puducherry and transfer the same to the IV Additional Family Court at Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.Ajay Francis Inigo Loyola For Respondent : No appearanceORDERThe petitioner-wife has filed the above transfer petition seeking to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.495 of 2024 filed by the respondent-husband pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puducherry and transfer the same to IV Additional Family Court at Chennai.2. The brief facts are that the respondent had married the petitioner on08.06.2016. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born to them, who is now seven years old. Later, they had fallen apart due to various reasons....


Mar 28 2025

VARALAKSHMI Vs M/s. Avigna Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-28-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 28.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and CMP.No.7475 of 2025 1.Varalakshmi 2.Nithya 3.Saritha ... AppellantsVersusM/s.Avigna Private Limited Rep by its Managing Director Mr.S.Rajasekaran Having Office at No.1822, I Block 13th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Chennai 600 040 ... Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside theorder and decretal order dated 18.10.2024 made in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.256of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur. For Appellants : M/s.J.JyothiJUDGMENTChallenging the order and decretal order rejecting the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. Page 1 / 82. The plaint has been proceeded seeking for partition of dividing the suitproperties into twelve equal shares and allot one such separated share to the plaintiffs, deliver possession also for declaration declaring th...


Mar 28 2025

Kannan vs Sannasi (Died)

Court: Chennai Orders

Decided on: Mar-28-2025

These petitions are filed (i) to condone the delay of 572 days infiling the petition to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent (ii) to set-aside the order of abatement caused due to the death of the sole respondent and (iii) to bring on record the respondents 1 to 9 herein as the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent herein and rank them as respondents 2 to 10 in S.A. No.367 of 2018, respectively.2. Though notices were served on the respondents and their names were also printed in the cause list, there is no representation on their behalf.3. This Court is satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of these petitions. Hence, these petitions are allowed. 4.The Registry is directed to carryout necessary amendments in the Second Appeal No.367 of 2018 and list the matter for final hearing after four weeks. mtl mtl...


Mar 28 2025

G.Perumal vs N.Udhayakumar

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-28-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 28.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA1.G.Perumal 2.B.Loganathan ... Petitioners / Defendants Vs. 1.N.Udhayakumar 2.Logambigai ... Respondents / Plaintiffs Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow the above CRP, directing the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur, to dispose of the I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.24 of 2024, pending on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur, within a stipulated period.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi GanesanORDERThe above civil revision petition is filed seeking a direction to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur, to dispose of I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.24/2024 pending on its file, within a stipulated time.2. The defendants in O.S.No.23 of 2024 are the revision petitionersherein. The plaintiffs/respondent has filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. Pending the suit, the d...


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial