Vinothpandian: Madras High court : WP no 2673 of 2026 B Gurusamy vs director general of police 11th March 2026 : Held scope for high courts to interfere in academic matters is limited , re – evaluation or scrutiny permitted only in rare or exceptional cases where material error is

by Sekar Reporter · March 17, 2026

[17/03, 11:53] Vinothpandian: Madras High court : WP no 2673 of 2026 B Gurusamy vs director general of police 11th March 2026 : Held scope for high courts to interfere in academic matters is limited , re – evaluation or scrutiny permitted only in rare or exceptional cases where material error is demonstrated , examination process cannot be derailed merely due to dissatisfaction or perceived injustice by candidates
[17/03, 11:53] Vinothpandian: Karnataka high court ( DB) : commercial appeal no 233 of 2025 dated 9th March 2026 union of India vs malu sleepers ltd : Held expression sufficient cause under section 5 of limitation act is not. a loose panacea to condone inordinate delays , in commercial matters condonation of delay should be an exception and not the rule
[17/03, 11:53] Vinothpandian: 2025 (1) CTC 1 : Dinakar trading company vs J sekar : sale transactions executed after symbolic possession taken by bank under SARFAsi act , held DRT has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between auction purchaser and third party purchasers who are strangers to mortgage
[17/03, 11:53] Vinothpandian: 2025 (3) CTC 433 : Pragati construction vs union of india ( FB ) : section 34 (3) of arbitration and coincilation act 1996 applies only to initial filing , delay in representation beyond 120 days can be condoned , in condoning such delay court must consider non – filing or nature of defect in filing statement of truth with initial filing of application and time taken to rectify defect in filing
[17/03, 11:53] Vinothpandian: 2025 (4) CTC 690 : Raju AC vs C prema raju : on reading of a plaint , if suit is devoid of merits , court duty bound to assess clever drafting has created an illusory course of action and just reject it in the budding stage ( order 7 rule 11 CPC 1908 )