SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Daily Archive: December 6, 2025

Uncategorized

Sekarreporter: 09/NSKJ/29 WP/13915/2024 (Gen. Misc.) SHRI DURAI MURUGAN KATHIR ANAND VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER. M/S. R.SIVARAMAN P.RAMESHKUMAR RAGHAV RAJEEV MENON VEERABATHRAN PRASANTH M S. GAUTHAM VENKATA NARAYANAN —————— M/S. M.SHEELA, SPL. P.P FOR R1, R2 MEMO DT 03/06/2024 [05/12, 12:03] Sekarreporter: What happen [05/12, 12:03] Sekarreporter: please Update

[05/12, 10:44] Sekarreporter: 09/NSKJ/29 WP/13915/2024 (Gen. Misc.) SHRI DURAI MURUGAN KATHIR ANAND VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER. M/S. R.SIVARAMAN P.RAMESHKUMAR RAGHAV RAJEEV MENON VEERABATHRAN PRASANTH M S. GAUTHAM VENKATA NARAYANAN...

[06/12, 11:03] Sekarreporter: AFTER DIVISION BENCH 06/PVJ/1 TO REJECT THE PETITION OA/900/2025 IN ELP 1/2025 T.R.BAALU VS R. SRIDHAR M/S. P.WILSON ASSOCIATES —————— M/S. PAUL KANAGARAJ S.S.RAJESH P.K.DEEPA DIVYAVARTHINI COUNTER NOT FILED [06/12, 11:03] Sekarreporter: Update

Uncategorized

[06/12, 11:03] Sekarreporter: AFTER DIVISION BENCH 06/PVJ/1 TO REJECT THE PETITION OA/900/2025 IN ELP 1/2025 T.R.BAALU VS R. SRIDHAR M/S. P.WILSON ASSOCIATES —————— M/S. PAUL KANAGARAJ S.S.RAJESH P.K.DEEPA DIVYAVARTHINI COUNTER NOT FILED [06/12, 11:03] Sekarreporter: Update

[06/12, 11:03] Sekarreporter: AFTER DIVISION BENCH 06/PVJ/1 TO REJECT THE PETITION OA/900/2025 IN ELP 1/2025 T.R.BAALU VS R. SRIDHAR M/S. P.WILSON ASSOCIATES —————— M/S. PAUL KANAGARAJ S.S.RAJESH P.K.DEEPA DIVYAVARTHINI COUNTER NOT FILED [06/12, 11:03]...

Uncategorized

Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi analysed the nature of the Power of Attorney and the application of Sections 201, 202, and 206 of the Indian Contract Act.

[06/12, 10:57] Sekarreporter: https://lawtrend.in/power-of-attorney-coupled-with-interest-does-not-lapse-on-death-of-one-principal-madras-high-court/ [06/12, 10:57] Sekarreporter: [06/12, 10:56] Sekarreporter: ” VIP MEMBER LOGIN HomeJudgements JUDGEMENTS Power of Attorney ‘Coupled With Interest’ Does Not Lapse on Death of One Principal: Madras High Court ₹...

Uncategorized

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN. *Court Observation:* The court is considering appeals against an order dated 30.10.2025, where a learned Single Judge dismissed applications under Section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief. The Single Judge held that Section 9 applications are not maintainable during the pendency of Execution Proceedings before a competent Civil Court. The appellants argue that Section 9 applications are maintainable even after an arbitral award is passed and before its enforcement under Section 36 of the Act.

[06/12, 09:34] Meta AI: The Madras High Court judgment you’re referring to involves appeals against an order dated 30.10.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in Original Application Nos. 997 and 998 of 2025...

Uncategorized

Setaside HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN OSA(CAD) Nos.118, 119, 135 & 136 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 27672, 27666, 27675, 27678, 29773, 29775, 29780 & 29782 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN OSA(CAD) Nos.118, 119, 135 & 136 of 2025 AND CMP NO....

Uncategorized

Judge Baratha chakraverthy Court Observation:* The review application seeking to review the order dated 12.06.2024 in W.P.No.15468 of 2024 was dismissed. The court had earlier allowed the writ petition, quashing the recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner, based on the principles established by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. The review petitioners argued that the petitioner was a Group-I officer and a Self Drawing Officer, and had given an undertaking to refund excess payments, but the court ultimately dismissed the review application.

[06/12, 09:23] Meta AI: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy’s review application (No. 226 of 2025) and (link unavailable) 37241 of 2025 have been dismissed. The case involved a suo motu writ petition (W.P.(Crl.) No. 618...

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com