Chennai Court April 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.
Singaram Chettiar vs Sornamani
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.04.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL ---- Singaram Chettiar S/o.Veerappa Chettiar Lakshmana Industry Avanashi, Coimbatore-37. ...Appellant/ Appellant/DefendantVersusSornamani W/o.Sankaralingam 645, Avanashi Road P.N.Palayam, Coimbatore-641 037. ...Respondent/ Respondent/Plaintiff Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated March 19, 2003 made in A.S.No. 128 of 2002 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated April 26, 2002 made in O.S.No.1801 of 1998 (Counter Claim) on the file of Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore. For Appellant : Mr.L.S.Vaseekaran For Mr.T.R.Rajaraman For Respondent : Mr.D.Venkatesh Senior Counsel --- Page Nos.1/4JUDGMENTThis Second Appeal has been filed praying to set aside the Judgmentand Decree dated March 19, 2003 made in A.S.No. 128 of 2002 on the file o...
Tata International Limited vs the Asst Comissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASReserved on :20.04.2026Pronounced on :30.04.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED T.C.(A)No.1455 of 2008 Tata International Limited A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 7th Floor, Trent House, G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Beside Citi Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra-E, Mumbai 400 051. ..Appellant (Appellant name substituted as Tata International Limited vide Court order dated 20.04.2026 made in C.M.P.no.22138 of 2018 in T.C.A.No.1455 of 2008(GJJ & SSAJ)/versus/The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building, 2nd Floor, Behind Karpagam Super Market, Officers Line, Vellore 632 001. .. Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in ITA No.643/Mds/2007 for Asses...
Narayanasamy Naidu vs Mogalinga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
2026:MHC:1709IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN SA No.612 of 2010 Narayanasamy Naidu S/o.Irusappa Naidu, ...Appellant/Appellant/ Plaintiff Vs1. Mogalinga Mudaliar S/o. Subramaniya Mudaliar,2. Dhanalakshmi Ammal W/o. Sambasiva Chetiyar,3. Kandasamy S/o. Sambasiva Chettiar,4. Gowri W/o. Egambaram, Mangalampettai Village, Page1 of 45. Bala W/o. Magalingam Gudiyatham Nagar, Vellore District.6. Chitra W/o. Sambasivam Cuddalore.7. VasanthiW/o. Rajendran, No 12 Mettu Street, Vijayalakshmi Nagar, Villupuram. ...Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants For Appellant: No appearance For Respondents: M/s.N.P.Kumar for R1 No appearance for R2 and R3 R4 To R7 - Dismissed Vide Court Order Date 16/02/2024JUDGMENTThere was no representation for the appellant when the matter was called on 30.03.2026. Even today, there is no representation for the appellant. Page2 of 42. In view of the above, this second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecuti...
L.Muthusamy vs Jayaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
2026:MHC:1710IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN SA No.889 of 2010 L.Muthusamy S/o Laxmana Gounder, ...Appellant Vs1. Jayaraj, S/o. Appavoo Gounder, A.Rathinam died S/o.Appavoo Gounder, residing at Murungapatty Village and Post,2. Perumayee S/o Appavoo Gounder,3. Nagarani W/o Late Rathinam,4. Jothi5. Vijayan6. NirmalS/o Late Rathinam, Page1 of 3 Sl.No.2 to 6 all residing at ...Respondents For Appellant: M/S.S.Kalyanaraman For Respondents: No appearance for R1 to R5 R6 - Dismissed Vide Court Order Date 16/02/2024JUDGMENTMr. S. Kalyanaraman, the learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the appellant is no more; and that he has no instructions from the legal heirs of the deceased appellant.2. In view of the above, this second appeal is dismissed as abated. There shall be no order as to costs. Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/No dk Page2 of 3SUNDER MOHAN, J.dk Page3 of 3...
Mohan Ramasamy vs the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.04.2026CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Mohan Ramasamy S/o. Ramasamy Aged about 36 years Middle Street, Ezhusempon Kanjanur(PO), Vikravandi Taluka Villupuram District Petitioner(s) Vs1. The District Collector Villupuram Collector Office Moovendar Nagar, Villupuram Tamil Nadu - 605602.2. The Tahsildar, Near Police Station Street Vikravandi, Villupuram Tamil Nadu - 605 652.3. Block Development Officer Kanai Panchayat Union Office Villupuram District Tamil Nadu - 605 602.4. Murugadas S/o Jaganadhan5. Iyyappan S/o Jeganadhan6. Rajamanikkam S/o Jaganadhan7. Arumugam S/o Dharmalingam8. Pooniyamoorthy S/o Kaliyaperumal9. Vijaya KumarS/o Dhanapal 10.Ilayaraja S/o Jeganathan 11.Srinivasan, S/o Dhanapal 12.Veerappan S/o Munusamy 13.Ganapathy S/o Munusamy 14.Elumalai S/o Narayanasamy 15.Murugan S/o Ramasamy 16.Arumagam S/o Govindasamy 17.Rajendiran S/o Ayothi 18.Dha...
Miss.N.Soundaravalli vs Mr.N.Ramamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE in Miss.N.Soundaravalli D/o.K.Narasimhalu, New No.17, (old No.30a), Vijaya Nagar, First Cross Street, Velacherry, ..Applicant(s) Vs1. Mr.N.Ramamurthy S/o.Late.K.Narasimmalu Naicker, New No.17, Old No.30a, First Cross Street, Velacherry,2. M/s.M.M.Homes (P) Ltd Rep. By Its M.D., Mr.M.Manickam, And 8 Others No.10/25, 5th Street, Dr.Subbaroyan Nagar, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.3. Mr.S.Karthikeyan S/o.R.Subramanian, No.2, Dhandeeswaran Main Road, Velacherry, Chennai-42.4. Mr.Umesh A Mehta S/o.Amritlal B.Mehta, No.21, Kandappa Mudali Street, Sowkarpet, Ch-79.5. Mrs.Bharathi U Mehta W/o.Umesh A.Mehta, No.21, Kandappa Mudali6. Mrs.Rita Ramesh Shah W/o.Mr.Ramesh Shah, No.21, Kandappa7. Mrs.Bhavana Bharath Shah W/o.Mr.Bharath Shah, No.21, Kandappa8. Mrs.Anitha Sunil Shah W/o.Sunil Shah, No.21, Kandappa Mudali9. Mr.M.K.Thamilarasu S/o.Sri.M.Karunanidhi, No.7/5, Second Cross Street, Trustpuram,...
Kannammal (Died) Vs Somala Naicker (Died)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 929 days in filing the second appeal.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was stated by thepetitioners that though the first appeal was disposed of on 30.08.2019, they acquired knowledge about the same only in the month of October 2021, when the petitioners met their counsel, during Covid pandemic. After verification from the court, it was found that due to inadvertent error, the advocate clerk did not file copy application. Immediately on instruction given by the petitioners, copy application was filed on 15.12.2021 and the copies were made ready on 04.01.2022. When the petitioners made preparation for filing the second appeal, it came to their knowledge that copy application for judgment and decree of the trial court was not applied. Again it was applied on 13.05.2022 and the same was made ready on 13.05.2022 itself. Thereafter, the second appeal has been filed on 15.06.2022.3. Having satisfied with the reasons ...
Ummul Fareedha vs the Appellate Tribunal for
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
WP 21633/2011Mr.Abdul Azeez and Muthu Beevi are husband and wife. The said Abdul Azeez was detained under COFEPOSAand subsequently died. Being the wife of the deceased detenu, certain properties held by Muthu Beevi was believed to be acquired through illegal sources. Hence notice u/s 6(1) of the SAFEMA dated 21/05/1979 was issued to Muthu Beevi and called for explanation about the source for purchase of those properties. Mrs. Muthu Beevi participated in the enquiry and gave her explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation, order of forfeiting the following properties was passed on 29/10/2002:-...................... a ................ from the counter....................The order of forfeiture passed by the Competent Authority was challenged by Muthu Beevi before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi in FPA No 93/MDS/02 on the ground that no reason was disclosed linking the properties to the detenues illegal money and that no allegation of nexus has been esta...
Devika Vs R.Vijayakumar
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE Devika W/o.R.Vijayakumar, C/o.Pasupathi, No.1/45, Road Street, VTC, Valavanur Post, Jagirvalavanur, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs R.Vijayakumar S/o.T.Rajaraman, Durairaj Nagar, Rantham Village, Vempakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Original Petition has been filed under Section 3, 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act VIII of 1890 read with Clause XVII of Letter Patent Act and Order XXI Rule 2 and 3 of Original Side Rules to a) Grant custody of minor to the petitioner herein, b) Appoint the petitioner as guardian of the person of the minor viz., V.Vetrimaran. For Petitioner(s): M/s.A.GOUTHAMAN For Respondent(s): Sole Respondent. -set Ex-parte On Dt: Page1 of 3ORDERWhen the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the applicant sought permission of this Court to withdraw this Original Petition and she has also made...
V. Paneerselvam Vs V. Palaniappan
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
C.M.P.No.2872 of 2024 in C.M.A.SR.No.13367 of 2024R.KALAIMATHI, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2.Despite the receipt of notice and the details of the 2nd respondent having been printed in the cause list, none represents the 2nd respondent. 3.Despite the receipt of notice, the 3rd respondent, neither appeared nor entered appearance through his counsel. 4.The petitioner would aver that on account of the accident, he suffered grievous injuries and thereafter fell ill, thereby 248 days has occurred in preferring the above appeal. 5.In light of the above, this condone delay petition is ordered. The petitioner is hereby waived from paying the interest for the delay period of 248 days. 30.04.2026 kas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »