Head notes cases mhc

kalaimagal saba case

The order details for WA No. 472 of 2024 are as follows:

– *Case:* WA No. 472 of 2024
– *Judges:* Honourable Mr. Justice M.S. Ramesh and Honourable Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar
– *Court:* Madras High Court
– *Date:* 01-08-2025
– *Order:* The order was made by M.S. Ramesh, J.

osr land case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS*

*WA No. 676 of 2020 AND WA NO. 3115 OF 2019*

*Date of Order:* 18-11-2025

*Coram:*
– HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
– HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

*Parties:*
– *Appellants:* R.Sudha, K.Ramasamy, A.Vimala, A.Gopalan, N.Lakshmi Bai, R.Vimala, R.Gokilammal (WA No. 676 of 2020)
– *Respondents:* K.Durairaj (died), The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Town Administrative And Water Supply Department, and others
– *Appellants:* S.Madhan, P.G.Alexander (died), R. Sateesh Kumar, and others (WA No. 3115 of 2019)
– *Respondents:* K.Durairaj (died), The Secretary To Government, Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration And Water Supply Department, and others

*Counsel:*
– *For Appellants (WA No. 676 of 2020):* Mr.S.Venkatesh S.
– *For Respondents:* Mr.S.Senthil Murugan, Special Government Pleader, and others
– *For Appellants (WA No. 3115 of 2019):* Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
– *For Respondents:* Mr.S.Senthil Murugan, Special Government Pleader, and others

*Court Observation:*
The court is considering appeals against the writ order dated 18.07.2019 passed in WP.No.34395 of 2007, challenging a Government order related to OSR (Open Space Reservation) lands in a layout developed by Peelamedu Industrial Worker’s Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd. The dispute involves allegations of irregularities in the development and sale of common areas and OSR lands by the Co-operative Society.

Thiruparan kundaram

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench*

– *Judge:* G.R. Swaminathan
– *Parties:* Rama Ravikumar and Solaikannan (Petitioners) vs. Subramaniya Swamy Temple administration and others (Respondents)
– *Date of Order:* December 1, 2025
– *Counsel:*
– For Petitioners: Niranjan S. Kumar (State Vice President, BJP Legal Cell), Senior Advocate Anandha Padmanabhan, Advocate Anandhavalli, Advocate Arun Swaminathan, Advocate Subbaiah, Advocate Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy
– For Respondents: Subramaniya Swamy Temple administration and others
– *Court Observation:* The court ruled that there is no legal impediment to lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the summit pillar of Thirupparankundram hill, the original spot, and directed that the ritual be carried out there on December 3, reviving a tradition halted during World War II.
[02/12, 12:40] Meta AI: *HIGH COURT OF MADRAS*

Thengalai case order

*THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR*

*W.A. Nos. 1381 and 1382 of 2022, W.P. No. 13027 of 2021, W.P. No. 12955 of 2022 and W.P. No. 24729 of 2018*

*Date of Order: 28.11.2025*

*Parties:*

– P.B. Rajahamsam (Appellant/Petitioner)
– S. Narayanan (Respondent/ Petitioner)
– The State of Tamil Nadu (Respondent)
– The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (Respondent)
– T.A. Ranganathan (Respondent)

*Counsel:*

– Mr. Vijaya Narayan, Senior Counsel (for Appellant/Petitioner)
– Mr. G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel (for Respondent/Petitioner)
– Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (for Respondent/State)
– Mr. R. Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel (for Respondent/Commissioner)

*Court Observations:*

The court observed that the dispute revolves around the rights of the Thengalai sect to recite Prabandham in the Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Thirukkovil, Kanchipuram. The court took note of the previous judgments in Appeal No. 175 of 1910 dated 15.01.1915 and Appeal No. 283 of 1963 dated 24.03.1969, which recognized the rights of the Thengalai sect. The court directed the respondents to ensure that the petitioner is allowed to render service of Prabandham recitation in front of the deity without any interference.

kasthuri raja case order

: *HEAD NOTE*

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS*

Crl.A.No.329 of 2015

*Date of Order:* 06.11.2025

*Coram:*
The Honourable Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

*Parties:*

– *Appellant:* S. Mukunchand Bothra (Deceased) *M. Gagan Bothra (Son of Late Shri. S. Mukunchand Bothra)
– *Respondent:* R. Krishnamurthy @ Kasthoori Raja

*Counsel:*

– *For Appellant:* Party in person
– *For Respondent:* Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi

*Court Observation:*

The trial court acquitted the respondent of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, holding that the appellant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The court noted that the appellant’s witness admitted to filling out the cheque and promissory note, and that the respondent’s defence that the cheque was given as security was plausible. The court also observed that the appellant’s failure to mention these facts in the statutory notice, complaint, or proof affidavit raised doubts about the appellant’s case.

bail cancelled 498 dowry case

head note:

*Supreme Court of India*

*Case:* [Appellant’s name not mentioned in the text, likely to be the father of the deceased] vs. [Respondent’s name not mentioned in the text, likely to be the husband/accused]

*Judges:* Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan

*Date of Order:* Not mentioned in the text (likely to be recent)

*Counsel:*
– For Appellant: Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli
– For Respondent: Advocate Gaurav AOR

*Court Observation:*
The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused husband, observing that judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of dowry-related atrocities would embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court held that the dying declarations, relatives’ testimonies, and medical evidence satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 304B IPC, triggering the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
[02/12, 13:19] Meta AI: *Madras High Court*

– *Judges:* Chief Justice M.M. Srivastava and Justice G. Arulmurugan
– *Parties:* Rangarajan Narasimhan (Petitioner) vs. The State (Respondent)
– *Date of Order:* Not specified
– *Counsel:*
– For Petitioner: Not specified
– For Respondent: Additional Government Advocate Rajtilak
– *Court Observation:* The court directed the police to respond to the petition within three weeks regarding the alleged attempt to steal gold and silver sculptures from the Kanchipuram Varadaraja Perumal Temple. The petitioner alleged that temple officials and priests were involved in the attempted theft, and a special investigation team should be formed to probe the matter. The police had initially closed the complaint, stating no theft was found to have occurred

quashed

*Madras High Court*

– *Judge:* Jagadish Chandira
– *Parties:* Murugesan (Petitioner/MLA, DMK) vs. The State (Respondent)
– *Date of Order:* Not specified
– *Counsel:*
– For Petitioner: Not specified
– For Respondent: Not specified
– *Court Observation:* The court quashed the case against DMK MLA Murugesan, who was accused of distributing money to voters during the 2021 assembly elections. The court held that there was no evidence to link the petitioner to the alleged offence and that his name had been misused.

Kattalai Thambiran. order

*Madras High Court*

– *Judges:* R. Suresh Kumar and Hemant Chandangoudar
– *Parties:* V. Singaravelan (Appellant) vs. The Kattalai Thambiran & Ors. (Respondents)
– *Date of Order:* November 11, 2025
– *Counsel:*
– For Appellant: Mr. M. Baskar for Mr. K.B. Vivekanandhan
– For Respondents: Mr. Kandhan Duraisami (for R1), Mr. S. Ravee Kumar, Government Pleader (Puducherry) (for R3 and R4)
– *Court Observation:* The court directed that only one assistant, instead of two, can assist the Kattalai Thambiran in the internal administration of the temple, considering his advanced age and physical inability to manage the affairs. The court also clarified that this arrangement will continue until further orders or till the final disposal of the writ appeal.

tender case

Madras High Court*

– *Judges:* N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman
– *Parties:* S.M. Vetrivel (Petitioner) vs. The Secretary, Bar Council of India & Ors. (Respondents)
– *Date of Order:* November 25, 2025
– *Counsel:*
– For Petitioner: Mr. T. Gowthaman, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Deepika
– For Respondents: Dr. G. Balu, Senior Panel Counsel for R2, R5, and R6; Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar for R4
– *Court Observation:* The court disposed of the petition, directing the Bar Council to take a decision as per law regarding reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in future elections. The court clarified that this direction should not come in the way of conducting the ongoing election. The petitioner was given liberty to approach the High Powered Committee appointed by the Supreme Court for exemption from payment of nomination fee.