Uncategorized

HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI O.S.A.Nos.93, 95 and 96 of 2026 and C.M.P.Nos. 13800, 13802, 13834, 13836, 13837 and 13838 of 2026 and O.S.A.Nos.94, 97 and 98 of 2026 and C.M.P.Nos.13835, 13839, 13841, 13842, 13846 and 13850 of 2026 and O.S.A.Nos. 88, 89 and 90 of 2026 and C.M.P.Nos. 13075, 13078 and 13079 of 2026 O.S.A.Nos.93, 95 and 96 of 2026 C.Chockalingam … Appellant in all O.S.As Vs. 1. M.A.M.R Muthiah 2. Geetha Muthiah 3. V.Palaniappan 4. V.Chandramoleeswaran 5. S.Hariharan 6. V.Valliammai 7. TR.Meyyappan 8. Kumara Rajah Muthiah School of Traditional Arts and Crafts Represented by its erstwhile Secretary Mrs.Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah, Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. 9. Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah 10.AR.Ramaswamy 11.Vijay Reddy

by Sekar Reporter · Published June 16, 2026 · Updated June 16, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08 / 06 / 2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
O.S.A.Nos.93, 95 and 96 of 2026 and
C.M.P.Nos. 13800, 13802, 13834, 13836, 13837 and 13838 of 2026 and
O.S.A.Nos.94, 97 and 98 of 2026 and
C.M.P.Nos.13835, 13839, 13841, 13842, 13846 and 13850 of 2026 and
O.S.A.Nos. 88, 89 and 90 of 2026 and
C.M.P.Nos. 13075, 13078 and 13079 of 2026
O.S.A.Nos.93, 95 and 96 of 2026
C.Chockalingam … Appellant
in all O.S.As
Vs.
1. M.A.M.R Muthiah
2. Geetha Muthiah
3. V.Palaniappan
4. V.Chandramoleeswaran
5. S.Hariharan
6. V.Valliammai
7. TR.Meyyappan
8. Kumara Rajah Muthiah School of Traditional
Arts and Crafts
Represented by its erstwhile Secretary
Mrs.Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah,
Chettinad House,
Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.
9. Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah
10.AR.Ramaswamy
11.Vijay Reddy
12.Preetha Vijay Reddy
13.M.A.M.M.Annamalai
14.V.Jayaraman
15.P.V.Madhavi
16.KTR Raja Karuppan Chetty
17.Meenakshi Annamalai
18.V.Ravi Kumar
19.Manimekalai
20.Selvi
21. V.Ramoo
22. M.Meyyappan
23.NK.Raman
24.S.V.N.Natarajan
25. M.Thenappan
26. S.Chockalingam
27.AN.Chidambaram
28.ARL Arunachalam
29.A.Sathappan
30.Muthu Manickam
31.V.Manickam
32.Lakshmanan
33. T.Kanagasabai
34. M.Vellayan
35.Praveen
36.Ramanathan
37.Ravi Shankar
38.Raja
39.Vaithiya Nathan
40. S.Krishnan
41. V.Josephine Jothi
42.R.K.Karuppiah
43.N.Ramakrishnan
44.Alagappan
45.L.Lakshmanan
46.Chidambaram
47.Narayanan
48.R.M.Ramanathan
49.S.Ganesan
50.The District Registrar of Societies Chennai Central, Chennai 14.
… Respondents
in all O.S.As

Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the common order dated 14.05.2026 passed in O.A.No.455 of 2026, A.No.2130 of 2026 and O.A.No.456 of 2026 in C.S.No.54 of 2024.
For Appellant(s):
in all O.S.As Mr. M.Sricharan Rangarajan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan
For Respondent(s):
in O.S.A.No.93 of 2026 Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr. T. Balaji for R1
Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Praveen Kumar for R2 and R3
Mr. A.K. Sriram, Senior Counsel for Mr. R.I. Ramesh for R4 Mr. Nithyaesh Natraj
for Mr. Vaibhav R. Venkatesh for R5
Mr. K.V. Babu for
Mr. K.T. Shankar Subramanian for R6 and R7
Mr. J. Ravindran, Senior Counsel for R11 and R12
Mr. R. Srinivas, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Adaikkappan for R42
For Respondent(s): in O.S.A.Nos.95 and
96 of 2026 Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr. T. Balaji for R1
Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Praveen Kumar for R2 and R3
Mr. A.K. Sriram, Senior Counsel for Mr. R.I. Ramesh for R4 Mr. Nithyaesh Natraj
for Mr. Vaibhav R. Venkatesh for R5
Mr. K.V. Babu for
Mr. K.T. Shankar Subramanian for R6 and R7
Mr. R. Srinivas, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Adaikkappan for R42
O.S.A.Nos.94, 97 and 98 of 2026:
KTR Raja Karuppan Chetty … Appellant
in all O.S.As
Vs.
1. M.A.M.R Muthiah
2. Geetha Muthiah
3. V.Palaniappan
4. V.Chandramoleeswaran
5. S.Hariharan
6. V.Valliammai
7. TR.Meyyappan
8. Kumara Rajah Muthiah School of Traditional
Arts and Crafts
Represented by its erstwhile Secretary
Mrs.Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah,
Chettinad House,
Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.
9. Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah
10.AR.Ramaswamy
11.Vijay Reddy
12.Preetha Vijay Reddy
13.M.A.M.M.Annamalai
14.V.Jayaraman
15.P.V.Madhavi
16.Meenakshi Annamalai
17.V.Ravi Kumar
18.Manimekalai
19.Selvi
20. V.Ramoo
21. M.Meyyappan
22.NK.Raman
23.S.V.N.Natarajan
24. M.Thenappan
25. S.Chockalingam
26.AN.Chidambaram
27. C.Chokalingam
28.ARL Arunachalam
29.A.Sathappan
30.Muthu Manickam
31.V.Manickam
32.Lakshmanan
33. T.Kanagasabai
34. M.Vellayan
35.Praveen
36.Ramanathan
37.Ravi Shankar
38.Raja
39.Vaithiya Nathan
40. S.Krishnan
41. V.Josephine Jothi
42.R.K.Karuppiah
43.N.Ramakrishnan
44.Alagappan
45.L.Lakshmanan
46.Chidambaram
47.Narayanan
48.R.M.Ramanathan
49.S.Ganesan
50.The District Registrar of Societies Chennai Central, Chennai 14.
… Respondents
in all O.S.As

Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the common order dated 14.05.2026 passed in O.A.No.455 of 2026, A.No.2130 of 2026 and O.A.No.456 of 2026 in C.S.No.54 of 2024.
For Appellant(s):
in all O.S.As Mr.R.Srinivas
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Adaikkappan @ Sithiraianandam
For Respondent(s):
in all O.S.As Mr. M.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr. T. Balaji for R1 and R3
Ms.S.P.Arthi for R11 and R12
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel for
Ms.S.Meenakshi for R13
*****
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
These intra-Court Appeals are directed against the common order dated
14.05.2026 rendered by the learned Single Judge in O.A.Nos.455 and 456 of 2026 and A.No.2130 of 2026 in C.S.No.54 of 2024. Under the impugned common order, the learned Single Judge restrained defendants 9 to 43 from convening the proposed Managing Committee Meeting scheduled to be held on
15.05.2026; restrained defendants 9 and 21 from interfering with the management, administration and financial affairs of the Society and School; and appointed Mr.P.Vijaykumar Reddy as interim Administrator of the Society, until further orders.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in C.S.No.54 of 2024.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
3.1. The first defendant Society is registered under the provisions of
Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and administers and runs the School – Kumararani Meena Muthiah’s Chettinad Vidyashram. The said School was established in the year 1986 with the object of imparting quality education and promoting holistic development of its students. Over the years, the said institution has earned considerable goodwill. The management, affairs, and administration of the School are vested in the first defendant Society, which is governed in accordance with its registered Bye-laws through a duly constituted Managing Committee. The Bye-laws prescribe the following provisions for the effective functioning of the Society and its Managing Committee :
a) As per Bye Law 10, the power is vested with the Managing Committee to admit any person to be a member of the Society.
b) As per Bye Law 11, the Managing Committee shall have power to remove any member of the Society as it thinks fit, and no appeal shall lie against such removal.
c) As per Bye Law 14, the Managing Committee shall have at least 5 members and not more than 10 members.
d) As per Bye Law 15, the members of the Managing Committee shall be elected by the General Body and they shall hold office for a period of 3 years from the date of election.
e) As per Bye Law 16, irrespective of any vacancy, the Managing Committee shall function as a full committee.
f) As per Bye Law 17, the funds of the Society shall be vested with the Managing Committee, who shall have absolute power to administer the funds for promoting the objectives of the Society.
g) As per Bye Law 22, a Managing Committee meeting can be convened as and when necessary and in any case upon requisition by 2 members.
h) As per Bye Law 24, the accounts of the Society shall be administered by the Secretary and Treasurer who shall be responsible for maintenance and administration of the transactions and disbursements.
3.2. It is submitted that certain disputes had arisen within the first defendant Society concerning the removal of the plaintiffs from their membership in the Society and the induction of defendants 9 to 43. Consequently, Form VII was filed by the Managing Committee in accordance with the provisions governing the registration of societies under the Act. Aggrieved by their purported removal and the inclusion of new members, the plaintiffs preferred a complaint dated 17.12.2018 before the Registrar of Societies. The said complaint was adjudicated in detail by the fourth defendant, wherein three core issues arose for consideration in Proceedings
No.1838/D2/2018. Firstly, whether the alleged removal of the plaintiffs from the Society was legally valid; secondly, whether the allegations concerning financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds by the Secretary, Mrs.Meena Muthiah, were sustainable; and thirdly, whether the induction and inclusion of defendants 9 to 43 as members of the Society were valid and lawful. The District Registrar of Societies, upon hearing the respective parties and considering the materials on record, granted relief solely with respect to the issue concerning the alleged removal of the plaintiffs, thereby restoring their membership in the Society. Insofar as the allegations regarding financial irregularities and the challenge to the induction of defendants 9 to 43 were concerned, the District Registrar specifically relegated the parties to seek remedy before a competent Civil Court. Aggrieved by the said order restoring the plaintiffs’ membership, the first defendant Society preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.19742 of 2019, which was subsequently dismissed by this Court on 28.10.2021. Challenging the order of dismissal, a writ appeal in W.A.No.3142 of 2021 was filed by the first defendant Society. During the pendency of the said writ appeal, the plaintiffs instituted the present civil suit in C.S.No.54 of 2024, seeking the reliefs as detailed below :
a) Declaring the meetings of the managing committee alleged to have been held on 09.01.2014, 12.12.2014, 26.09.2017 and 23.10.2017 allegedly admitting the defendants 9 to 43 as members of the first defendant society as illegal, invalid and null and void.
b) For declaring the alleged admission of defendants 9 to 43 on 09.01.2014, 12.12.2014, 26.09.2017 and 23.10.2017 as illegal, invalid and null and void.
c) For a permanent injunction restraining defendants 9 to 43 from acting as the members of the 1st defendant Society.
d) Declaring the Annual General Body Meetings (AGM) alleged to have
been held from the year 2014 till date of this plaint as illegal, invalid, null and void.
e) For a mandatory injunction directing the 44th defendant to strike off all the filings of the 1st defendant Society through the 2nd defendant pursuant to the alleged Managing Committee Meetings as well as the Annual General Body Meetings from the year 2014 till the date of this plaint except the filing made by the third plaintiff with regard to the General Body meeting held on 23.01.2019 at the instance of the plaintiffs.
d) Declaration declaring the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the first defendant Society and election held on 23.01.2019 as valid and binding on defendants 1 to 8.
3.3. However, the plaintiffs did not seek any substantive declaratory relief in the said suit concerning their own membership or challenging their alleged removal. During the pendency of the suit, several interlocutory applications were preferred in O.A.Nos.183 to 185 of 2024. The only substantive ad-interim protection granted therein was an order dated 08.03.2024, which merely restrained the Society from inducting any new members pending disposal of the suit. No restraint whatsoever was operating against defendants 9 to 43 from discharging their functions as members, nor was there any order restraining the functioning of the Managing Committee. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19.07.2024 in W.A.No.3142 of 2021, held that all inter-se disputes, including those relating to the removal of the plaintiffs were matters to be worked out before the competent Civil forum. Consequently, the relief previously granted to the plaintiffs by the forty-fourth defendant stood virtually set aside, and the plaintiffs were expressly directed to agitate the issue of their removal before a competent Civil Court. Despite the aforesaid position, till date, the plaintiffs have not sought any declaratory relief concerning their membership before this Court or any other competent Court. In the interregnum, the Managing Committee of the Society was duly reconstituted on 04.08.2023, wherein the fourth defendant (Vijay Reddy) was re-elected as the President, the ninth defendant (KTR.Raja Karuppan Chetty) was elected as one of the Vice Presidents, the fifth defendant (Preetha Vijay Reddy) was elected as the second Vice President, the second defendant (Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah) was elected as the Secretary, the eight defendant (P.V.Madhavi) was elected as the
Treasurer and the twenty first defendant (C.Chockalingam) was elected as a
Committee Member. Further, the thirty sixth defendant (R.K.Karuppiah) was also inducted as a member of the Managing Committee. In terms of Bye-law 15, the tenure of the said Managing Committee is valid and subsisting till 03.08.2026.
3.4. While the matters stood thus, the Secretary of the Society, Dr.Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah, unfortunately passed away on 02.05.2026. Even prior thereto, the Treasurer, P.V.Madhavi had tendered her resignation on 03.04.2026, which has not yet been formally placed before or acted upon by the Managing Committee. Consequent to these developments, five members continue to comprise the validly constituted Managing Committee, namely the fourth defendant (Vijaykumar Reddy), the fifth defendant (Preetha Vijaykumar Reddy), the ninth defendant (KTR Raja Karuppan Chetty), the twenty-first defendant (C.Chockalingam), and the thirty sixth defendant (R.K.Karuppiah), all of whom continue to lawfully hold office until 03.08.2026 . In terms of Byelaws 14 and 16, the existing Managing Committee, notwithstanding any interim vacancies arising in office, remains a legally competent body empowered to administer the affairs of the Society and its institutions, including the power to convene meetings and fill vacancies or elect office bearers from amongst themselves.
3.5. It is further submitted that by way of convening a Managing Committee meeting on 04.08.2020, the Committee had unanimously decided to authorize the ninth defendant to operate the bank accounts of the School in his capacity as Vice President. Following the demise of the Secretary and the resignation of the Treasurer, immediate administrative measures became imperative to guarantee continuity of governance, seamless administration, and the uninterrupted functioning of the institution. At this juncture, the Managing
Committee comprised five members, namely Mr.P.Vijaykumar Reddy,
Mrs.Preetha Vijaykumar Reddy, KTR Raja Karuppan Chetty, Mr.RK.Karuppaiah and Mr.C.Chokkalingam satisfying the minimum composition requirement under Clause 14 of the Bye-laws, which explicitly mandates that the remaining members shall continue to function as a full
Managing Committee notwithstanding any vacancies. Consequently, the Managing Committee remained validly constituted and operational, with its tenure legally subsisting until August 2026.
3.6. It is further submitted that Clause 22 of the Bye-laws, explicitly provides for the meetings of the Managing Committee to be convened as often as necessary and, in any event, upon a requisition in writing by at least two members. In view of the emergent circumstances and the vacancy in the office of the Secretary, the ninth and twenty-first defendants invoked the said Clause and issued a Requisition-cum-Notice dated 07.05.2026 to all the members of the Committee, convening a Managing Committee meeting on 15.05.2026 to
address the existing vacancies and ensure corporate continuity in administration. The said communication did not elicit any response from the members of the Committee. Neither was any objection raised to the convening of the said meeting, nor was the request acceded to by the concerned members. At this juncture, the plaintiffs, despite admittedly not being the members of the
Managing Committee and thus lacking locus standi preferred O.A.Nos.455 and 456 of 2026 and A.No.2130 of 2026 in C.S.No.54 of 2024, challenging the proposed meeting. The principal objection raised by the plaintiffs was that seven clear days’ notice had allegedly not been provided. It is pertinent to note that any such objection regarding notice could only have been raised by the actual members of the Managing Committee, and certainly not by the plaintiffs, who are strangers to the Committee’s internal administration. However, without the completion of pleadings, without permitting the defendants to file their counteraffidavits, and without affording an adequate opportunity to place the Society’s statutory records, internal correspondence, proof of service, past resolutions, and other vital documents on record, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned common order dated 14.05.2026, issuing the following directions were passed:
“Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim injunction in O.A.No. 455 of 2026, restraining the respondents 9 to 43 from conducting the Managing Committee Meeting scheduled to be held on 15/05/2026, pending disposal of the suit.
In O.A.No.456 of2026, there shall be an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 9 and 21 from interfering with the day to day affairs, control, management and financial transactions of the 1st respondent Society and of the Chettinad Vidhyasharam School, pending disposal of the suit.
Insofar as A.No.2130 of 2026 is concerned, in view of the facts and circumstances, as this being an educational institution, which needs day-to-day monitoring and administration, as the President of the Society having sufficient experience and knowledge in running the institution, will be a competent person to administer the Society. Therefore, the President viz., Mr.P.Vijaykumar Reddy, is hereby appointed as interim Administrator of the Society, until further orders.”
3.7. It is further submitted that the appointment of the fourth defendant, Mr.P.Vijaykumar Reddy, to preside over the administration of the Society was never prayed for by the plaintiffs, neither in the substantive prayers of the main suit, nor in the interlocutory applications filed during the time of filing the suit or at the present stage in the ordered applications. The relief originally sought by the plaintiffs was restricted to statutory intervention through the Registrar of Societies. It is further submitted that the impugned common order, though passed at an ad-interim stage, ironically grants reliefs that are final in nature, effectively disposing of the core controversies within the interlocutory stage itself and rendering the pending applications largely academic.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the impugned common order as being wholly without jurisdiction, contrary to the pleadings, the Bye-laws of the Society and the settled principles governing the grant of interim relief. Admittedly, the suit is confined to challenge relating to the induction of defendants 9 to 43 as members of the Society and allegations of financial irregularities. The applications giving rise to the impugned order, however, arose out of subsequent events, namely the demise of the Secretary and the resignation of the Treasurer, and sought to challenge the Requisitioncum-Notice dated 07.05.2026 and the proposed Managing Committee Meeting scheduled on 15.05.2026. It is further contended that these events constituted a distinct and independent cause of action, wholly outside the scope of the suit and incapable of being introduced through interlocutory proceedings in the absence of appropriate pleadings or amendment.
5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to maintain the applications, as the proposed meeting was a
Managing Committee Meeting concerning the internal administration of the Society and the plaintiffs were not members of the Managing Committee. The plaintiffs had no enforceable right either to question the convening of the meeting or to complain of any alleged defect in notice. It is also contended that the plaintiffs’ own membership status remains disputed and pending adjudication before the competent civil forum and, in the absence of any declaratory relief regarding their alleged membership or removal, they were not entitled to seek governance related interim orders.
6. The learned Senior Counsel mainly contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without affording the appellants adequate opportunity to file counter affidavits and place relevant records before the Court. While considering ad-interim relief, the Court ought only to preserve the subject matter pending adjudication, however, the learned Single Judge granted substantially final reliefs by restraining the functioning of the Managing Committee and appointing an Interim Administrator. It is further contended that the appointment of an Interim Administrator was wholly beyond the scope of the reliefs sought in the applications, unsupported by pleadings, and made without identifying any statutory or legal source of power. The consequential restraint imposed upon defendants 9 and 21 from participating in the management, administration and financial affairs of the Society was also assailed as lacking any independent legal basis.
7. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Bye-laws expressly provide for continuity of the Managing Committee notwithstanding vacancies and prescribe a minimum strength for its functioning. Having accepted the existence of such continuity provisions, the learned Single Judge erred in concluding that the Managing Committee was incapable of functioning and in appointing an Interim Administrator. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the impugned reasoning is self-contradictory and effectively rewrites the Bye-laws. It was further submitted that defendants 9, 21 and 36 were inducted into the Managing Committee pursuant to independent resolutions and proceedings, which were never challenged in the suit. In the absence of any specific challenge to such resolutions or any substantive relief seeking their removal from office, no interim order could have been passed having the effect of disabling them from discharging their functions as Managing Committee members. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the relief sought in the later applications substantially overlapped with the issues already forming the subject matter of earlier pending interlocutory applications and the plaintiffs could not be permitted to secure piecemeal reliefs through successive applications framed in narrower terms. It is contended that the impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction, absence of maintainability and locus standi, violation of natural justice, grant of relief beyond the pleadings and prayers, misinterpretation of the Bye-laws, failure to apply the settled principles governing interim injunctions, and premature adjudication of disputed issues. The learned Senior Counsel therefore prayed that the impugned common order is to be set aside.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9. On a perusal of the records and on considering the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned common order in the
interlocutory applications without affording adequate opportunity to the parties to file their counter-affidavits and place the relevant records before the Court. The issues raised in the applications involve disputed questions relating to the administration of the Society, the validity of the impugned notice, the status and authority of the persons concerned, and the interpretation of the Bye-laws, all of which require consideration on the basis of complete pleadings and relevant materials. This Court is of the prima facie view that, in the absence of such opportunity, the learned Single Judge proceeded to grant impugned reliefs which have the effect of substantially determining the rights of the parties at the interlocutory stage. Hence, the impugned common order dated 14.05.2026 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
10. Since the principal object of the interlocutory applications was to challenge the Managing Committee meeting proposed to be held on 15.05.2026, and the said date has already elapsed, the challenge relating thereto has become infructuous. However, having regard to the paramount interest and smooth administration of the educational institution, this Court is of the view that the convening of the said meeting alone shall remain deferred pending disposal of the interlocutory applications. Consequently, all other observations and directions contained in the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby set aside, and the interlocutory applications are remitted back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. The learned Single Judge is requested to afford adequate opportunity to all parties to file their respective counter-affidavits and produce the relevant records, and thereafter dispose of the applications expeditiously on merits and in accordance with law.
11. With the above directions, these intra-Court appeals are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(P.V.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 08 / 06 / 2026
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ms
P.VELMURUGAN, J., and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,
ms
O.S.A.Nos.93, 95 and 96 of 2026 and
O.S.A.Nos.94, 97 and 98 of 2026 and O.S.A.Nos. 88, 89 and 90 of 2026
08 / 06 / 2026

Share this post:

X (Twitter) Facebook Pinterest LinkedIn Email

Share this post:

You may also like...

Recent Posts

Recent Posts