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.
A. Krishnan and another Vs Malini
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-28-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI1. A.Krishnan2. A.Venkatesan ...PetitionersVs. Malini ...Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 17.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.27626 of 2022. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Selvarajan For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran, SGPORDERThis Contempt Petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27626 of 2022..2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that, Page No.1 of 2M.DHANDAPANI, J.rap pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the District Collecotr, Tiruvallur vide proceedings dated 05.01.2017 has issued a direction to the official respondents to implement the same, subsequently, the gate...
C.Leelavathi vs the District Collector
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-28-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI W.P.No.10849 of 2025 C. Leelavathi Petitioner vs. Thiruvannamalai 606 601 Vengikkal Thiruvannamalai District 606 101 Page Nos.1/47. Kasthuri (Councillor)Thiruvannamalai District Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 especially the fifth respondent, to act on the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2024 by implementing the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16227 of 2023 in pursuance of the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the first respondent under his proceedings dated 02.08.2023 vide Na.Ka.No.A2/1028567/2023 and thereby, forthwith removal of encroachments / illegal structures as constructed in the form of kitchen/cooking room in the water body (odai poramboke) which is comprised in S.F. No.67/2 of Samuthiram, Nall...
M/s.Superfil Products Ltd Vs The Deputy Tahsildar- cum- Executive Magi ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-28-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.03.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.No.3420 of 2019 M/s.Superfil Products Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.S.Narayan, R.S. No.28-8/12, Mangalam Road, Puducherry 605 110. ... Petitioner Vs. 3.Superfil Products Workers Union, Represented by its President, R.S. No.28-8/12, Mangalam Road, Page No.1 of 4 Puducherry 605 110. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash Distraint Order dated 27.12.2017 issued by the Respondent No.1 Deputy Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Villianur, Puducherry. For Petitioner : M/s.Uma Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Vasanthakumar Additional Government Pleader [R1 & R2] Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan [R3] *****ORDERThough the present writ petition is filed challenging the distraintorder dated 27.12.2017 issued by the 1st respondent, which was ...
Parimala vs Panneer Selvam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2025
C.M.P.No.3758 of 2025 in C.M.A(Sr).No.13584 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 appears 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 782 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...
Thirugnanasambandam vs Jeyaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2025
C.M.P.Nos.3391 of 2025 in C.M.A(Sr).No.13622 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.Notice to 1st respondent is already dispensed with by order dated 21.02.2025. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.3. Having satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the delay of 611 days in filing the above CMA is condoned.4. Registry is directed to print thename of Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent at the time of admission. 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...
Dr.E.Subbarayan, vs the State of Tamil Nadu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASORDERS RESERVED ON : 27.01.2025 ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 28.03.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARDr.E.Subbarayan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3.The Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Represented by its Director, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Ceriorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the issuance of the impugned order of dismissal passed by the 1strespondent under G.O.(D)No.1233 Health and Family Welfare (D2) Department, dated 04.10.2007, and the consequential order of confirmation of the dismissal order passed by the first respondent under appeal/review filed by the pe...
D. Sukumar Vs Dr. D. Karthikeyan, 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. ANAND VENKATESH D.Sukumar .. Petitioner vs. Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003. .. Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for their willful and wanton disobedience of the directions/orders, dated 30.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.32621 of 2024. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.S.Gopinathan Standing Counsel for R2N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.KPORDERThis Contempt Petition was filed on the ground that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32621 of 2024 dated 30.10. 2024, was not complied with. 2.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, it was reported by either side that the order passed by his Court has been complied with. 3.Recording the same, this contempt petiti...
K.M.Tamilselvan, Vs The District Collector cum
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-28-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P No.3150 of 2018 and WMP.Nos.3865 & 3866 of 2018 K.M.Tamilselvan, Panchayat Secretary, Madhapur Village Panchayat, Tirupur District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Tirupur District, Tirupur. 2.The personal Assistant (Development) to the Collector, Tirupur District, Tirupur. 3.Madhapur Village Panchayat, rep. by its Special Officer, Tirupur District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order of punishment issued by him in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6445/2014/V.6 dated 21.09.2016 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Ms.Pavithra for M/S.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government Advocate.ORDERThe w...
Arumugam Rajagopal Vs The Assistant Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 28.03.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY & W.M.P.Nos.5164 & 5165 of 2025 Arumugam Rajagopal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner, O/o.Deputy Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Tirupur Division, Tirupur 641 603 2.The Branch Manager, Axis Bank Limited, Prithvi Comples, Veerapandi, Tiruppur 640 605 ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the issuance of cancellation order bearing Ref.No.14/2023-AC-TPR (GST-Adj) dated 30.06.2023 by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and further, direct the 1 strespondent herein to lift the bank attachment made in 2 nd respondent's bank. For Petitioner : Ms.Sri Harini S.P. For Respondent : Ms.Revathi Manivannan, Senior Standing counsel for R1ORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned or...
S. latha, Vs Thiru. Pugazhendhi,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Mar-28-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH S.Latha W/o.T.Marichamy P.G.Assistant (Economics) K.C.Sankaralinga Nadar Higher Secondary School Old Washermenpet Chennai 600 021. .. Petitioner vs. Egmore, Chennai 600 008. .. Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for her willful and wanton disobedience of the directions/orders, dated 08.08.2024 passed by this Court For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondent : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government PleaderN. ANAND VENKATESH, J.KPORDERThis Contempt Petition was filed on the ground that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1847 of 2023 dated 08.08.2024, was not complied with. 3.Pursuant to the earlier order, the respondent/contemnor was present. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the order passed by this Court has been complied with subj...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »