Chennai Court February 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.
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs Poonam Enterprise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.02.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Larsen & Toubro Limited represented by Power of Attorney Holder, Mr.Badrusamy Anand Head Quarters at: Mount Poonamalee Road, Manapakkam, P.B.No.979, Chennai 600 089. Registered office at L&T House, NM Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001. Project office at: Water & Effluent Treatment Project, No.50, 1/1, Jetewana Road, Colombao 01400, Sri Lanka. .... Applicant Vs. Poonam Enterprise represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Ravindra Poonamchand Angara, No.17/A, Kanti Bhavan, C.P.Tank Road, 1st Parsiwala Lane, Mumbai 400 004. Current office at: UG-17, Sukh Sagar Premises Co-op Soc. Ltd. NS Patkar Marg, Mumbai 400 007. .... Respondent Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Section 29 A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.gm praying to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a period of three (3) mont...
E.Thanigachalam vs the Sub Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY E.Thanigachalam S/o Ettiappan, Door No 137, ECR, Perunthuravu, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District ..Petitioner(s) Vs ..Respondent(s)PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the refusal check slip dated 02.02.2026 issued by the respondent herein in Refusal Number RFL / Cheyyur / 17 / 2026, quash the same and consequently issue direction directing the respondent herein to register forthwith the Sale deed dated 09.12.2025 presented by the petitioner in application No. S01LANDVV202512096152344.For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Mageshkumar Page1 of 4 For Respondent(s): Mr.Stalin Abimanyu, Additional Government PleaderORDERTracing title from sale deed dated 03.07.1967 bearing Document No.703 of 1963, the petitioner asserts that the purchaser under the above ment...
Commissioner of Income Tax-11 vs M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Feb-27-2026
2026:MHC:843IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.02.2026CORAM :THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Commissioner of Income Tax - II Tiruchirapalli - 620 001 .. Appellant vs M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (In respect of the income of M/s. Wagner Biro, Austria) Royalty Section, BHEL Trichy - 620 014 .. Respondent Prayer in TCA No. 378 of 2011: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the 185/Mds/2005. Prayer in TCA No. 379 of 2011: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the 186/Mds/2005. (In Both) For Appellant : Mr.V.Mahalingam Senior Standing Counsel For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar PadmanabhanDR. ANITA SUMANTH, J.andC.KUMARAPPAN, J.COMMON JUDGMENT(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH,J) Mr.V.Mahalingam, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellant / Department would submit that the Income-Tax Department does not wish to pursue these appeals qua assessment years 1991-92 (in TCA No.378 of 2011) a...
K.V.Shankaran Vs K.M.Raju(Deceased), 1. Mohini
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Feb-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND K.V.Shankaran S/o.Late K.B.Vasudevan, No.1/96, Kodamalai Village, Spring Field Post, Coonoor Taluk, The Nilgiris District ..Appellant(s) Vs K.M.Raju S/o.Mathan, Kodamalai Village, Spring Field Post, Coonoor Taluk, The Nilgiris District ..Respondent(s) For Appellant(s): MR.A.Bobblie For Respondent(s):ORDERI) In C.M.P.No.4200 of 2025: This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 931 days in filing the petition to bring the legal representatives on record in S.A. No.108 of 2025. Page1 of 42. There is no serious objections from the side of the respondents to allow respondents in this regard, the petition in C.M.P. No.4200 of 2025 stands(II) In C.M.P. No.4202 of 2025:This petition has been filed to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of Thiru. K.M. Raju/the respondent in S.A. No.108 of 2025. respondents in this regard, the petition in C.M.P. No.4202 of 2025 sta...
M.Narashimman vs M.Jothi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27-02-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL AND AS NO. 56 OF 2016 1.M.Narashimman 2.Mandal Revathi Petitioners/Appellants Vs1. M.Jothi 2.M.Santha 3.M.Amudha 4.M.Jayanthi 5.M.Dhanasekar 6.M.Selvam Respondents/RespondentPRAYER in CMP No. 6468 of 2020: Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1117 days in filing the restoration petition in AS.No.56/2016 on the file of this Court dated 01/12/2016. PRAYER in AS No. 56 of 2016: Appeal Suit filed under 96 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet (Vellore Principal District Court in O.S.No.27 of 2012) dated 21.07.2015. For Appellant(s): Mr.K.AnbarasanORDER(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 1117 days in filing the...
The State Tax Officer Vs Rosvar Steels Pvt. Ltd,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Feb-27-2026
CMP.No.3848 of 2026 and W.A.SR.No.17882 of 2026Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.andC.KUMARAPPAN, J.(Order of the Court was made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.) For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Miscellaneous Petition, the delay of 96 days in representing the Writ Appeal is condoned and this Miscellaneous Petition is ordered.2. Registry is directed to number the Writ Appeal, if it is otherwise in order, and list the same for admission. [A.S.M, J.] [C.K, J.] 27.02.2026 sl https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
M.Sumalatha vs the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.02.2026CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and W.M.P.No.6872 of 2026 M.Sumalatha W/o.Arunprasad, No.3/300, Perumal Kovil Street, N.S. Nagar, Nemalur Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District -601 202 Petitioner Vs 1.The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai2.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 3.The Managing Director TASMAC CMDA Tower-II, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 4.The District Collector Thiruvallur District. 5.The Inspector of Police Pathirivedu Police Station, Thiruvallur. RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus thereby by considering petitioner representation dated 08.01.2026 and direct the 1st to 5th respondents to close and remove TASMAC Shop No.9129 situated in N.S.N...
Senthil Kumar Gopinath vs the Deputy State Tax Officer-2
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN and WMP.Nos. 7425 & 7427 of 2026 Senthil Kumar Gopinath Proprietor Of Akshiya Veg Restarunt, 192, Purasaiwakkam High Roadkilpauk, Chennai 600 010 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-2 Ayanavaram Assessment Circle Commercial Tax Building No.1, Papjm Annex Building 3rd Floor, Greams Road Chennai-600 006 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari call for the records culminating Order No. ZD331225044477G dated 03.12.2025 passed by the respondent and quash the same as per se illegal and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rakesh P For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Harsharaj Special Government PleaderPage1 of 6ORDERMr.C.Harsharaj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice...
M/s Pradeep Industrial Packers private Limited Vs The Chief Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE M/s Pradeep Industrial Packers private Limited Represented by its Director, Mr. Murali Manohar Saraf, A-16, 2nd stage, Peenya Industrial Estate Bangalore 560 058 ..Petitioner(s) Vs1. The Chief Commissioner of Customs (Refunds Ch- II) Chennai 600 001. ..Respondent(s)Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to decide the refund claims filed by them against Bill of Entry No 573223 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner(s): Ms.KTK.Priyadarsini for Mr.S.Murugappan For Respondent(s): Ms.Anu Ganesan, JSC Page1 of 4ORDERThis writ petition has been filed seeking for refund of the customs duty. According to the petitioner, the petitioner became entitled to the claim of refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) for the import made under the Bill of Entry morefully describ...
M/S.Kamdhenu Polymers Private Limited vs the Chief Commissioner of Cus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27-02-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE M/s.KAMDHENU POLYMERS Private Limited Rep by its Director, Mr.Vijay Shankar Saraf, 37/12-1, Archana Complex, 4th Cross, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore- 560 027. Petitioner(s) Vs1. The Chief Commissioner of Customs(Refunds Ch- II) Respondent(s) PRAYER Directing the Respondents to decide the refund claims filed by them against Bill of Entry No 652753 dated 08.10.2010 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court For Petitioner(s): M/s.KTK.Priyadarsini for Mr.S.Murugappan For Respondent(s): M/s.Anu Ganesan,JSC For RespondentsORDERThis writ petition has been filed seeking for refund of the customs duty. According to the petitioner, the petitioner became entitled to the claim of refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) for the import made under the Bill of Entry morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Customs, dated 14.09.2007. The petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »