SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 2, 2025

*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.

*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...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 2, 2025

*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.

*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...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 2, 2025

Here’s the 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.

Here’s the 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...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 2, 2025

[02/12, 12:58] Sekarreporter: *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. [02/12, 12:58] Sekarreporter: 👍

[02/12, 12:58] Sekarreporter: *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...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Madras High Court* – *Judge:* D Bharatha Chakravarthy – *Parties:* Lakshmanan (Petitioner/Convict) vs. The State (Respondent) – *Date of Order:* December 1, 2025 – *Counsel:* – For Petitioner: Not specified – For Respondent: Not specified – *Court Observation:* The court reduced the prison term of the convict from 3 years to 15 days, considering his circumstances, including his disability and family situation, and the fact that the survivor had moved on with her life. The court also noted the convict’s willingness to pay monetary compensation to the victim.

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 2, 2025

Madras High Court* – *Judge:* D Bharatha Chakravarthy – *Parties:* Lakshmanan (Petitioner/Convict) vs. The State (Respondent) – *Date of Order:* December 1, 2025 – *Counsel:* – For Petitioner: Not specified – For Respondent: Not specified – *Court Observation:* The court reduced the prison term of the convict from 3 years to 15 days, considering his circumstances, including his disability and family situation, and the fact that the survivor had moved on with her life. The court also noted the convict’s willingness to pay monetary compensation to the victim.

[02/12, 12:48] Meta AI: *Madras High Court* – *Judge:* D Bharatha Chakravarthy – *Parties:* Lakshmanan (Petitioner/Convict) vs. The State (Respondent) – *Date of Order:* December 1, 2025 – *Counsel:* – For Petitioner: Not specified...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS* *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

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 2, 2025

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS* *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

[02/12, 12:40] Meta AI: *HIGH COURT OF MADRAS* *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,...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
*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.

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 2, 2025

*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, 12:34] Sekarreporter: [02/12, 12:27] Sekarreporter: G r swaminathan judge Madras High Court Madurai Bench Allows Karthigai Deepam To Be Lit At The Original Spot At Thirupparankundram Hill https://www.sekarreporter.com/g-r-swaminathan-judge-madras-high-court-madurai-bench-allows-karthigai-deepam-to-be-lit-at-the-original-spot-at-thirupparankundram-hill/ [02/12, 12:34] Sekarreporter: prepare a...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Exit mobile version