Chennai Court April 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.
Ramalingam vs Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate : 30.04.2025CORAM:THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN C.M.P No.7043 of 2020 in S.A No.350 of 2020 Ramalingam ...Petitioner Vs. Krishnan ...Respondent Prayer: This civil miscellaneous petition is filed to suspend the operation of the judgment and decree in A.S No.22 of 2019 dated 12.02.2020, on the file of the Special Sub Judge-I, Jayankondam confirming the judgment and decree in O.S No.320/2012 dated 29.01.2019, on the file of District Munsif, Jayankondam, pending disposal of the above appeal. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kamadevan For Respondent : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran A.A.NAKKIRAN,J umaORDERThis miscellaneous petition was filed in the year 2020. Thereafter, the matter has been kept pending without any interim order, till this date. In the said circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending at this length of time and hence, the same is closed. 30.04.2025 uma (1/2) Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInterne...
Rajesh Kannan vs State Rep by
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.M.P.No.4736 of 2022 1.Rajesh Kannan 2.Nagavalli 3.Uma ...Petitioners/Accused Vs. State rep by 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-I, Team II, Vepery, Chennai - 600 001. (Crime No.13 of 2022) ... Respondent2.Sanket Kumar Agarwal. D-301, Clover Majestic Towers, Behind Kali Mata Temple, Beach Road, Vishakhapatnam - 530 003. PRAYER: This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, pleased to call for the records and to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.13/2022 on the file of the respondent and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in thePage No.1 of 12facts and circumstances of the case.For Petitioners: Mr.Om Prakash (Senior Advocate) for Mr.M.Suresh For R2 :M/s.Sampath Kumar & Association Mr.S.SenthilkumarORDERThe instant petition has been filed seeking to quash the First In...
V.MAHESWARI Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN V.Maheswari ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamilnadu, Inspector of Police, Cuddalore NT Police Station, Cuddalore 2.N.Vinothkumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for records relating to CC.No.450 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II at Cuddalore and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Kumar For Respondents For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.450 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II at Cuddalore, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 149, 147, 294(b), 323 & 506(2) of IPC.2. Pending this petition, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.3...
Murugesan vs the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH MURUGESAN S/o.Sonnapa, Mig No.560 Phase 10, Rayakottai Road, Tamilnadu Housing Board (TNHB) Hosur, Petitioner Vs Respondent(s)Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to make corrections in the UDR and in the land survey Nos.722/A2 and 743/B, Mrigiripalli, Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and issue Patta to the petitioner and the Legal Heirs of (Late) Balan by considering the petitioners representation dated 17.2.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.R.K.Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader *****ORDERThis writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to deal with the representation made by the petitioner on 17.02.2025, wherein the petitioner is seeking for correction in the UDR patta pertaining to the subj...
SELVAM KARUPPUDEVAR Vs State Rep.by, Union Of India Through Intelligen ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-04-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Selvam Karuppudevar Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep By, Narcotics Control Bureau, Respondent NCB F.No.48/1/06/2021 NCB/MDS For Petitioner(s) : Mr.C.Deepakkumar For Respondent : Mr.N.P.Kumar, Special Public ProsecutorORDERThe learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Criminal Original Petition. The learned counsel has made an endorsement and hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. drl 30-04-2025 To1. The Inspector Of Police, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2.The Special Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. SUNDER MOHAN J. drl 30.04.2025...
The Managing Director vs Dhanalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2025
CMP No.6549 of 2025 in CMA SR No.35779 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.Notice to the 5th respondent already dispensed with. Though notice was served to the 6th respondent and its her name appear in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the 6th respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 4. Being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed along with the petition the delay of 248 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Registry is directed to number the civilmiscellaneous appeal, if it is otherwise in orderand list the same for admission. Registry is directed to print the name of Mr.S.N.Subramani, counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 at the time of admission. 30.04.2025 mst https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Dr.Babu M Vs The Secretary to Government,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.04.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA and W.M.P. No. 24508 of 2018 Dr.Babu.M Petitioner -vs-1. The Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.2. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, DMS Complex 359, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai-600006.3. The SecretaryTamil Nadu Public Service Commission VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600003. [R3-impleaded as per Order dated 30.01.2025 in W. M. P. No. 3772 of 2025 in W.P. No. 20876 of 2018] ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 15.12.2015 Ref.R.No.81356/E5/A2/2012 issued by the second respondent insofar as the granting regularization of the service to the petitioner with effect from140.02.2013 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second r...
Schaeffler India Ltd vs Deputy Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2025
C.M.P.No.8801 of 2025 in C.M.A.SR.No.22145 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR,J.This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal.2. The 2nd respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal. Hence, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.3. Mr.G.Bharadhwaj, learned counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent.4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.5. Having satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, delay is condoned. C.M.P.No.8801 of 2025 is allowed.6. The Registry is directed to number the civil miscellaneous appeal and list the matter for admission, if it is otherwise in order.7. The Registry is further directed to print the name of Mr.G.Bharadhwaj, as counsel for the 1st respondent in the cause-list at the time of admission. 30.04.2025 dm https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Chitra Devi vs R.Akkumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2025
C.M.P.No.8590 of 2025 in C.M.A.SR.No.37641 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR,J.This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 13 days in filing the above CMA.2. Notice to the 1st respondent already dispensed with.3. M/s.R.Sree Vidhya, learned counsel takes notice for the 2nd respondent.4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.5. Having satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, delay is condoned. C.M.P.No.8590 of 2025 is allowed.6. The Registry is directed to number the civil miscellaneous appeal and list the matter for admission, if it is otherwise in order.7. The Registry is further directed to print the name of M/s.R.Sree Vidhya, as counsel for the 2nd respondent in the cause-list at the time of admission. 30.04.2025 dm https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
Pranav Prakash Vs M.A.Anjena AND ANOTHER
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASRESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON26.04.2025 30.04.2025CORAM :THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU A.Nos.1525 of 2025 in O.P.No.191 of 2024 Pranav Prakash Applicant/Petitioner vs. 1.M.A.Anjena 2.A.Manjula Respondents For Applicant : Ms.R.Sumithra Chakkaravarthi For Respondent : Ms.S.R.SumathyORDERThis application had been filed to grant the interim custody of the minor child Jaishiv Pranav born on 13.01.2021 now aged about 4 years to the applicant/petitioner herein during the summer vacation from 01.04.2025 to 30.05.2025 in the absence of the 1st respondent/mother. 2) Heard Ms.R.Sumithra Chakkaravarthi, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms.S.R.Sumathy learned counsel appearing for the respondens.3) The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the minor child is now under the care of the maternal grandmother, who is the second respondent. The first respondent/mother had abandoned the child with her...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »