Chennai Court January 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.
R.Akash Vs Arjun Kumar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jan-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-01-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH R.Akash S/o.Ramesh, Door.No.234, Thanthai Periyar Salai, Adal Nagar, Valudareddi Post, Villupuram. District ..Petitioner(s) Vs ..Contemnor(s) PRAYER: The Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the orderpassed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 1764 of 2024 dated 01.02.2024. Page1 of 3 For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Kaviveerappan, For Contemnor(s): Mr. V.J. Priyadarsan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)ORDERWhen the matter was taken up for hearing today, Mr.Arjun Kumar, Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, was present before this Court. The affidavit of the Inspector of Police has also been filed and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-9. I respectfully submit that, upon completion of a detailed and elaborate investigation, a final report has been filed before the learned Special Cou...
R.Karthik Ashwin Vs Thakre Shubham Dnyandeorao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.01.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR R.Karthik Ashwin S/o. S.Rajagopal (Formerly Assistant) Revenue Inspector (Under suspension) Commercial Taxes Department, O/o. Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax) Mettur Road Circle, Erode. ... Petitioner vs Erode Division, Erode. Respondent Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for his willful and intentional disobedience to the order of the Honble High Court in W.P.No.18106 of 2022 dated 11.12.2024 and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vignesh Raj For Respondent : Mr.Harsha Raj Special Government PleaderORDERThe learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the order of this Court dated 11.12.2024 in W.P.No.18106 of 2022 has been complied with by the respondent.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid submission made by the learned Special Go...
M/s.PKR Estates LLP, Vs R.Ranganathan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2026
1 A No. 187 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-01-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH M/s.PKR Estates LLP, Represented by its Managing Partner Mr.R.Prasannakumar, Having its Corporate office at Flat. A10, Archana Castle, 4/23, Patrick Church Road, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. Applicant(s) Vs1. R.Ranganathan, No.5/2, Kalvoykandigai, Kalvoy, Kancheepuram - 603 108 2.B Ramu Village, Kancheepuram 3.R Ambuja Village, Kancheepuram - 603 108. Respondent(s)PRAYER Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to extend the time period for completion of the Arbitral Proceedings for further period of 6 months. 2 A No. 187 of 2026 For Applicant(s): M/s.T.M.Mano For Respondent: Mr.SrihariORDERThis application has been filed under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.2. Heard b...
Shankar Reddy Vs State rep.by, The Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.01.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP Nos.34952 and 34824 of 2025 Shankar Reddy S/o.N.Muni Reddy ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.34952 of 2025/A4 Krishnamurthy S/o.Venkatagiriyappa ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.34824 of 2025/A2 Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch No.2 Police Station, Land Grabbing Wing, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.25 of 2025) ... Respondent in both petitions COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent in Crime No.25 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj in Crl.O.P.No.34952 of 2025 for Mr.A.Tamilselvan For Petitioner : Mr.John Sathyan, Senior Advocate in Crl.O.P.No.34824 of 2025 for P.M.Jayachandran For Intervenor : Mr.Sunny Sheen Akkara in both petitions For R...
M/s.Harshitha Handloom Vs The State Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-01-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN and WMP.Nos.3610 & 3613 of 2026 M/s.Harshitha Handloom Old. No. 25, New No. 5 Arumugam Street, Old Washermenpet Chennai- 600 021 Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Murthy Pedda Sridhar Babu. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Tax Officer Washermenpet Assessment Circle No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road Vepery, Chennai-600 003. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Respondent in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD330225300004B dated 28.02.2025, together with the consequential Order passed under Section 74 in GSTN :33DDJPS1116J1ZK/2020-21 dated 28.02.2025 and quash the same as it has been passed in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and not in conformity with the principles laid by the decision of the Honble Madras Page1 of 6High Court in the case of JAK Commun...
M.L. Kasthuri Vs Mr. M.L. Chandramouli and 3 others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-01-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL1. M.L. Kasthuri Old No.9, New No.24, IInd Street, South Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 086. Applicant(s) Vs1. Mr. M.L. Chandramouli and 3others Residing at No.20, 11th Street, G1, Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. 2.Mr.M.L.Gopalakrishnan 3.Mr.M.L.Arunkumar 4.Ms.M.L.Gayathri Sundari Residing at No.538K/377A, Triveni Nagar, 2nd Sitiapur Road, Lucknow, U.P. 226-020. Respondent(s)PRAYER : To grant leave to institute the present suit against the Defendants seeking partition with respect to the properties set out in Schedule B and C of the accompanying draft plaint which are outside the jurisdiction of this Honble Court. For Applicant(s): M/s.K.Sharath Chandran Gopika Nambiar Anukriti Anand Sanjay R V.S.Poosha Datta For Respondent:ORDERThis application has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking to grant leave to institute the present suit against the defendants, seeking partitio...
D.MURUGARAJ Vs The Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jan-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-01-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA D.Murugaraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs1. The Inspector of Police, (Cr.No.87 of 2023)2. N.Prakash ..Respondent(s)Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, to complete the Trial in S.C.No.191 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.G.Ramachandiran for Mr.T.Arul For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Page1 of 3ORDERWhen the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and also made an endorsement to that effect.2. In view of the submission and the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/No v...
Meenakshi vs the Inspector General of Registration
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jan-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-01-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Meenakshi S/o. Ponnusami, No.4/172, Mullai Street, Sulur, Kallapalayam, Coimbatore -641 018 ..Petitioner(s) Vs..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take action against the unlawful documents w.r.t. the Document No.2186/2006 dated Page1 of 4 19.05.2006 and Document No.(2331/2003) 3999/20025 dated 14.05.2025 of SRO-Joint II CBE., Registered before the 3rd Respondent. For Petitioner(s): Mr,K.Jagan for M/s.T.Rekha Sivakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Jayachandran, Government AdvocateORDERLearned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been instructed to withdraw the writ petition. He has made an endorsement for that purpose.2. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without any orderas to costs. Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking order...
N.Girish Kumar vs M.Thirumoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-01-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Vs CRL RC SR No. 102680 of 2026 VsTo Dispense with the production of certified copy of the Judgmentdated 05.09.2024 passed in STC.No.63 of 2019 on the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) at Thiruppur District, before this Court for the present. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.D.SugumarOrderDispense with ordered for the present. __________Page 1 of 3 2.Registry is directed to number this Criminal Revision Cases, if it is otherwise in order. TSG __________Page 2 of 3 SUNDER MOHAN J. TSG __________Page 3 of 3...
K. Veeramani Vs The Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jan-30-2026
This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 238 days in filing the above second appeal. 2.Mr.P.Gurunathan, learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondent did not raise any objection in allowing this petition. This Court is satisfied with the reasons attributed in the affidavit filed in support of this petition. Hence, this petition is ordered.3. The Registry is directed to number C.M.A.Sr.No.210525 of 2025, if it is otherwise in order, and list the same in the usual course.4. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for any interest for the default period, if in the event of this Court enhancing the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. vsn vsn...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »