Chennai Court June 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.
Dhanabalan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, City Crim ...
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-29-2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29-06-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR in CRL OP(MD)No.211 of 2026 Dhanabalan Petitioner(s) Vs The State, Represented through the Inspector, (Crime No.71/2025) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.K. Samy For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Vetrivel Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Prayer: To relax the conditional order passed in Crl.OP(MD).No.211 of 2026 dated 20.04.2026 and allow to waive appearance before the Respondent Police Sation, daily at 10.30 a.m.ORDERThis Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to relax the condition imposed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.211 of 2026 dated 20.04.2026 that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the petitioner has been regularly complying with the conditions imposed by this Court.3. Considering the ...
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Musiri Vs Maruthambal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2026
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.10393 of 2026 in CRL.A(MD)SR.No.28515 of 2026A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.andR.POORNIMA, J.This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 182 days in filing the appeal in CRL.A(MD).SR.No.28515 of 2026. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent strongly opposed for condoning the delay.3. Heard both sides.4. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this petition is allowed and delay is condoned.5. Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 29.06.2026 Indu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis...
C.Baskar Vs The State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-29-2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29-06-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA C.Baskar Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Tirunelveli. Respondents For Petitioner: Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) Prayer: H2-GO.To call for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in H.S.(M) Confdl No.55/2025 dated 30-06-2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein andquash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e. Satheesh Mathavan @ Satheesh, aged about 26 years, S/o.Baskar, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble A.d.jagadish Chandira J.) The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permis...
Muthuramu, Vs State of Tamilnadu,
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-29-2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29.06.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI in Muthuramu,, ... Petitioner Vs.1. State of Tamilnadu,, Represented by the District Collector,5. Pandi ... Respondents PRAYER :- To Condone the delay of 547 days in representing the above Second Appeal and render justice. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai Advocate. For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Sivaram, Counsel For Government of Tamilnadu (Civil side) for R1to R4,ORDERThis Petition is filed to Condone the delay of 547 days in representing the above Second Appeal.2. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, are satisfactory. Hence, this Petition is allowed and the delay of 547 days is hereby condoned.3. Registry is directed to number the second appeal, if it is otherwise in other and list the appeal for admission. LS TO1. The District Collector,T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.LS in...
Kanakavalli Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-29-2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.06.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Kanakavalli ... Petitioner Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep., By, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No. 5 of 2026). ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to direct the respondent to file the Final Report in Crime No. 5 of 2026 on the file of the respondent within the time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.T Vadivelan For Respondent : Mr.B.Arun Counsel for State of TN(Crl.Side)ORDERThe present petition has been filed seeking a direction as against the respondent to expedite the investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.5 of 2026.2. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) appearing for therespondent submits that, in this case, the investigation has already been completed and the final report has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District, and the same has been tak...
M/s.Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Regional Provident Fun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.06.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.(MD).No.12877 of 2022 M/s.Patil Rail Infrastructure Private Limited, Railwa Yard, Thirumangalam, Madurai District-625706, Tamilnadu, Through its Deputy General Manger, Prince Arumai Raj ...Petitioner Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625002. ...Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the file of the CGIT cum Labour Court, Chennai herein in EPFA No.344/2017 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pandiarajan For Respondent : Mr.A.John XavierORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent in EPFA No.344/2017 dated 25.09.2014.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted...
Sridhar Vs The State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR1. Sridhar, S/o.Anandhan, No.81/7, Thagoor Street, Thiruvanaikovil, Srirangam Taluka, Tiruchirappalli District..2. Karunakaran,S/o.Arumugam, 24, Kumaran Street, Keelakondayampettai, Thiruvanaikovil, Srirangam Taluka, Tiruchirappalli District.. ... Petitioners/A3 and A6 Vs The State of Tamilnadu,Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. Cr.No.149/2026.. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathiyazhagan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-3B. For Bail in Cr.No.149 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :-The petitioners/A3 and A6, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2026 and 17.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Section ...
G.Suraj Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Batlagundu
Court: Chennai Orders
Decided on: Jun-29-2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR G.Suraj ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul District. (Crime No.213 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Ms.R.Sangeetha Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.Vetrivel Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PRAYER :- Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023, to modify the condition 6(b) imposed on the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9476 of 2026, dated 02.06.2026 by directing the petitioner to sign before the jurisdictional police station at Chennai, namely T16, Nazarethpet Police Station instead of the respondent police station.ORDER : The Court made the following order :-This petition has been filed by the petitioners to modify the condition 6(b) imposed on the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9476 of 2026, dated 02.06.2026 by directing the petitioner to sign befor...
Rajeshwari Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Sub Inspector Of Police, A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29/06/2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Rajeshwari ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keeranur, Pudukkottai District. Crime No. 02/2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 02 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner : S.Adhithan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side)ORDERThe petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 5(1), 5(m), 6(1), 16, 17, 19, 21(1) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Crime No.2 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner hereinis the mother of the victim girl, and she allowed A1 to have aggravated penetrative sexual intercourse with the victim girl, who is aged about 11 years, kn...
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Sivagangai Vs Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2026
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.11048 of 2026 in Crl.A.(MD)S.R.No.29900 of 2026 The State has preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Sivagangai District, in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2019, dated 22.10.2024. The State has filed the present application to condone the delay of 433 days in filing the appeal.2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent / sole accused seeks time to file a counter. However, the learned counsel has not clarified the reasons for which he seeks to file a counter.3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Statesubmits that the offence is against a five-year-old child. Since the child was not examined, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused. He further submits that the learned Trial Judge has failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.13, the other children who were playing with the victim child at the time of occurrence. He has also narrated the reasons for the delay in the affid...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »