MADRAS MEDICAL MISSION vs SAJAN VARGHESE

Court
Madras High Court

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On
Delivered on
14-10-2026
16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
& CMP.Nos.8121 & 9576 OF 2025
CNR:{HCMA010723322025}
CNR:{HCMA010821302025}
CRP.No.1370 of 2025:
1. Madras Medical Mission
No.4-A, Dr.J.Jayalalitha Nagar,
Mogappair East, Chennai-600 037,
Rep. by its Hon, Secretary
Dr.K.Jacob
2. The Honorary Secretary
The Madras Medical Mission,
No.4A, Dr.J.Jayalalitha Nagar,
Mogappair East, Chennai-600037
...Petitioners
Vs
Sajan Varghese
1.
No.9, Saj House,
Kariyad-Mattoor Road,
__________
Page 1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
Nedumbassery,
Vapalassery PO,
Kochi-683572. Kerala.
2. K.Jacob
6/1, 15th Avenue,
Harrington Road,
Chetput, Chennai-600031.
...Respondents
CRP.No.1656 of 2025:
Sajan Varghese
No.9, Saj House,
Kariyad-Mattoor Road,
Nedumbassery,
Vapalassery PO,
Kochi-683 572,
Kerala.
...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Madras Medical Mission
No.4-A, Dr.J.Jayalalitha Nagar,
Mogappair East, Chennai-600 037,
Rep. by its Hon.Secretary
Dr.K.Jacob
2. The Honorary Secretary
The Madras Medical Mission,
No.4-A, Dr.J.Jayalalitha Nagar,
Mogappair East,
Chennai-600 037
3. K.Jacob
6/1, 15th Avenue,
Harrington, Road,
Chetput,
Chennai-600 031.
...Respondents
__________
Page 2 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
PETITIONS under Article 227 of The Constitution of India
against the fair and decretal order dated 27.3.2025 in I.A.No.2 of
2025 in O.S.No.51 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Ambattur.
For Petitioners in
CRP.No.1370 of 2025
&
R1 & R2 in
CRP.No.1656 of 2025: Mr.N.L.Rajah, SC for
Mr.D.Ferdinand
M/s.BFS Legal
For R1 in CRP.No.1370
of 2025 &
Petitioner in CRP.No.
1656 of 2025 :
Mr.Thomas T Jacob
For R2 in CRP.No.1370
of 2025 &
R3 in CRP.No.1656 of
2025:
Mr.P.Siddharth
COMMON ORDER
CRP.No.1370 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners/
defendants 1 and 2 aggrieved by the fair and decretal order dated
27.3.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.51 of 2025 on the file of
the District Munsif Court, Ambttur.
__________
Page 3 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
2. CRP.No.1656 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner/
plaintiff aggrieved by the same order insofar as not restraining the
defendants conducting the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) in
case the requisite quorum is present.
3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. The parties will be identified in this common order in line
with their status in O.S.No.51 of 2025.
5. The plaintiff filed the said suit on the cause of action that
(i) The plaintiff and 30 other members submitted a requisition
dated 06.2.2025 to the Governing Board of the Madras Medical
Mission (for short, the society) seeking to conduct an EGM with a
proposed resolution to place forensic report and enquiry report
before the General Board and to hold the four members accountable
on the allegation that they involved in gross financial irregularities
whereas the Governing Board of the society held a meeting on
14.2.2025 and manipulated the voter baseline by inflating the
__________
Page 4 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
General Board membership from 147 to 171 by suspending the 5
requisitionists for the EGM and adding 36 new members and
readmitting 15 out of 23 members, who are already in the society
and removing eight members;
nd
(ii) that the 2 defendant issued a notice dated 04.3.2025
calling for the EGM to be held virtually from 27.3.2025 to
29.3.2025;
(iii) that had this EGM been conducted, the very requisition
dated 06.2.2025 by the 31 members would become defective for
th
falling below the statutory threshold of 1/5 members;
(iv) that therefore, in the said suit, the plaintiff sought for the
nd
declaration to declare the notice dated 04.3.2025 issued by the 2
defendant as illegal and null and void and for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from giving effect to the notice dated
04.3.2025 calling for the EGM and also restraining the defendants
from taking any major decisions until the EGM requisitioned by
notice dated 06.2.2025 was duly held and completed.
(v) Along with the said suit, I.A.No.2 of 2025 was filed by the
plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure
Code (for short, CPC), seeking for an order of interim injunction
__________
Page 5 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
restraining the defendants from giving effect to the said notice
nd
dated 04.3.2025 issued by the 2 defendant calling for the EGM to
be held between 27.3.2025 to 29.3.2025 pending disposal of the
said suit.
(vi) Ultimately, the District Munsif Court, Ambattur, after
hearing both sides, passed the impugned order on 27.3.2025 in the
following terms:
“ 33. Hence, in light of the above
discussions, this court concludes that there shall
an interim injunction in restraining the
Defendants and all persons claiming under the
Defendants, from acting upon, or giving any
effect to, in any manner whatsoever, the Notice
dated 04.03.2025 issued by the 2nd Defendant
calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting
(EGM) and opening the remote e-voting system
on 27.03.2025 at 10.00 AM till 29.03.2025 at
04.59 PM, pending disposal of the above suit.
The Petitioner shall communicate the interim
orders to the Respondents and the CDSL which
is to conduct the e-voting through postal notice
and also through email immediately.
34. Further, it is clarified the interim
injunction does not in any manner restrain the
Defendants and all persons claiming under the
__________
Page 6 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
Defendants conducting the EGM on 29.03.2025
at 05.00 PM as prescribed in case the requisite
quorum is present. The remote e-voting system
shall be opened after the Chair Person declares
the quorum and commences the meeting. The
orders being pronounced today at 10.03 PM, any
vote cast before this time shall be invalid and
the scrutiniser shall intimate the said voting
member to appear on 29.03.2025 at 05.00
either in person or remotely and then cast
his/her vote. Accordingly, the IA No.2 of 2025 is
disposed.
………
37. I.A.No.2 of 2025: In the result, this
Petition is partly allowed without costs and an
order of interim injunction is granted in favour of
the Petitioner subject to the conditions
mentioned in Paragraph No.33 and 34
hereinabove, restraining the Defendants and all
persons claiming under the Defendants, from
acting upon, or giving any effect to remote e-
voting system, more particularly opening the
remote e-voting system on 27.03.2025 at 10.00
AM till 29.03.2025 at 04.59 PM regarding the
Notice dated 04.03.2025 issued by the 2nd
Defendant calling for an Extraordinary General
Meeting (EGM) pending disposal of the above
suit. ”
__________
Page 7 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
6. When CRP.No.1370 of 2025 filed by defendants 1 and 2
was entertained by this court, an interim order was passed by this
court on 28.3.2025 in the following terms:
“5.A perusal of the paragraph number 25
of the order would clearly show that the learned
Judge was conscious of the fact that the e-
voting would be active from 27.03.2025 at
10.a.m and would be disabled only after the
EGM on 29.03.2025. After being fully conscious
about the voting having commenced, the
learned Judge has passed an interim order
restraining the petitioners herein and persons
claiming under them, notice dated 04.03.2025.
But it does not restrain the petitioners from
conducting the EGM on 29.03.2025 after the
Chair Person declares the quorum and
commences the meeting as invalid. The
petitioners would submit that the e-voting had
commenced at 10.a.m on 27.03.2025 and the
interim order was passed at 3.35 p.m on
27.03.2025. By which time, large number of
persons had started the voting and this e-voting
is done throughout the world where there were
different time zones. The voting was also
handed over to Central Depository Services
(India) Limited (CDSIL). Therefore, considering
the fact that voting had started even prior to
__________
Page 8 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
the interim orders, there shall be an interim
suspension of that portion of the order in
I.A.No.2 of 2025, wherein the learned Judge
has declared the votes hold on 27.03.2028 and
28.03.2028 as invalid which practically grants
the prayer in the suit, the interim order is
suspended to the above and the voting shall go
on. However, the results shall kept in abeyance
until further orders of this Court.”
7. After the said order dated 28.3.2025 was passed by this
Court, the plaintiff filed CRP.No.1656 of 2025 on 08.4.2025
aggrieved by the direction given by the Court below not restraining
the defendants conducting the EGM on 29.3.2025 if the requisite
quorum was present.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
defendants 1 and 2 made the following submissions:
a. The EGM was convened based on the requisition made by the
plaintiff and 30 others and after the process commenced from
27.3.2025 10 AM and after substantial members already
exercised their voting rights, the Court below ought not to
__________
Page 9 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
have passed the impugned interim order at about 3.45 PM and
thereby invalidating or disturbing the votes already cast,
retrospectively and such an order is vitiated since it has been
passed in excess of jurisdiction by the Court below.
b. The alternate remedy of appeal provided under Order XLIII of
the CPC is not a bar since the defendants are questioning the
manner, in which, the Court below exercised its jurisdiction by
travelling beyond the limits of interlocutory intervention, which
has to be corrected by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 227 of The Constitution of India.
c. The relief sought for in the said suit is premature on the
apprehension that the General Board may ultimately vote in a
particular manner and thereby the plaintiff pre-empted the
functioning of the General Board before his grievance actually
crystallized.
d. The allegation made by the plaintiff on the alleged removal
and addition of members and suspension of certain members
is an independent issue and is distinct and it can be
challenged separately by the aggrieved persons. The plaintiff
instituted the said suit in his individual capacity and not in a
__________
Page 10 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
representative capacity and therefore he cannot speak on
behalf of others, who have not approached the Court. The
plaintiff cannot collaterally raise issues, which do not have any
connection with the relief sought for in the said suit, which
itself has been instituted at a premature stage.
e. The interim order, as sought for by the plaintiff, is virtually a
final relief in the said suit and granting the interim order
results in granting the final relief.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff
made the following submissions:
a. The plaintiff can ventilate his grievance only before this Court
and cannot file an appeal in view of the interim order passed
by this Court on 28.3.2025 and if an appeal is filed, two
Courts would be dealing with the same issue, which might
lead to contrary opinions and outcomes.
b. Even though the plaintiff and 30 others made a requisition to
conduct the EGM on 06.2.2025, the Governing Board
manipulated the entire list of members by adding, removing
__________
Page 11 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
and suspending members and thereby the membership of the
General Board, which was 147 as on date of requisition on
06.2.2025, was increased to 171 on the date of notice issued
nd
by 2 Defendant on 04.3.2025 and this act on the part of the
Governing Board virtually defeats the requisition for
conducting the EGM since it was requisitioned only by 31
members and if the strength was taken as 171, it would be
th
defective for falling short below the statutory threshold of 1/5
members.
c. Three out of four (3 out of 4) members, against whom the
proposed resolutions were requisitioned for gross financial
fraud, were the sitting Governing Board members, who
approved the manipulation of voter baseline from 147 to 171
and thus, they acted unfairly only with a view to defeat the
object of calling for the EGM.
d. If the Governing Board changed its structure of the
membership after the requisition was made, it would amount
to abuse of power and it would affect the democratic design of
the society.
e. By-law 89 provides for voting by the members, who are
__________
Page 12 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
present and voting and the e-voting mechanism does not
provide for confirmation of the actual presence of voting
members and an EGM, without discussion, debate and
thereafter voting, cannot be called as such.
10. When these civil revision petitions came up for hearing on
07.10.2026, the following order was passed by this Court:
“After the written submissions were filed
by both sides during the previous hearing, the
matter was listed for hearing today for
clarification.
2. The entire issue in the present case
boils down to those happenings that took place
between 06.2.2025 and 04.3.2025. On
06.2.2025, when the requisition was made to
call for EGM, admittedly, the general body
membership was 147. By 04.3.2025 when the
nd
notice was issued by the 2 defendant calling for
EGM, the number had been altered to 171.
3. The grievance of the plaintiff is that if
the number is increased to 171, the very
requisition made for EGM would be defective
since it will be falling below the statutory
threshold of 1/5th members. The other
grievance is that out of 31 requisitionists, 5
__________
Page 13 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
requisitionists were suspended and certain new
members were added/re-admitted/removed and
as a result, the numbers increased to 171.
4. In the present case, this Court will not
go into the legality or otherwise of the
suspension/removal/addition of members ect. It
is a separate cause of action which has to be
agitated independently for the simple reason
that the present suit is not a representative suit
filed on behalf of all the aggrieved persons.
5. The learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 in CRP.No.1370
of 2025 shall get the following clarifications:
a) Whether the Society is intending to
defeat the requisition made calling for EGM on
the ground that it falls short below the statutory
threshold of 1/5th members and ;
b) Whether the original status as it
prevailed on 06.2.2025 can be taken into
consideration and the votes can be counted
accordingly with respect to the resolutions
moved in the EGM.
6. Post these Civil Revision Petitions under
the same caption on 14.10.2026 at 2.15 p.m.”
11. When the matters were taken up for hearing on
14.10.2026, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
__________
Page 14 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
defendants 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that the society does
not have any intention to defeat the requisition made calling for the
EGM on the ground that it falls short below the statutory threshold
of 1/5th members and that the notice dated 06.2.2025 issued by
the plaintiff and 30 others calling for conducting the EGM to pass the
proposed resolution will be acted upon; that the votes cast by the
new members, who were admitted on 14.2.2025, will not be taken
into consideration; and that the votes cast by the existing members
as it prevailed on 06.2.2025 alone will be taken into consideration
with respect to the resolutions moved in the EGM.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff
submitted that even if the society does not intend to defeat the EGM
called by the plaintiff and 30 others on the ground that it is falling
short below the statutory threshold, the fact remains that 5 of the
requisitionists were suspended and were not allowed to vote and
that, by itself, will vitiate the entire process. It was further
submitted that an advocate commissioner must be appointed to
conduct a fair EGM by restoring the original position of members as
it existed on 06.2.2025; and that as against the suspension of 5 of
__________
Page 15 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
the requisitionists, separate proceedings have already been
initiated.
13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made
on either side and perused the material available on record and
more particularly the impugned order.
14. The Court below, while passing the impugned order, took
into consideration the fact that there was some urgency in taking up
the interlocutory applications for hearing since the EGM was
proposed to be conducted on 29.3.2025 and for that purpose, the e-
voting would be open on 27.3.2025, on which date, the Court below
was dealing with the interlocutory applications. In view of the same,
the Court below rendered a finding that if the issue was not taken
up immediately, there was every chance that the EGM would be
conducted; that the grievance expressed by the plaintiff might not
be addressed leading to a fresh cause of action; and that the
plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.
15. In view of the same, the Court below took the pain to hear
__________
Page 16 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
the lengthy arguments made on both sides and passed the interim
order on 27.3.2025 at about 3.45 PM. The Court below also took
into consideration the fact that the said suit was confined to the
EGM notice and that no relief was sought for regarding the inclusion/
suspension of the members. Therefore, the Court below did not go
into that issue.
16. The Court below also rendered a finding that the issue as
to whether the requisite quorum was available could be decided only
on 29.3.2025 5 PM and that the e-voting itself should have
commenced only after the quorum was established on 29.3.2025
whereas the e-voting commenced from 27.3.2025 itself. In view of
the same, the Court below passed an order of interim injunction
restraining the defendants from, in any manner, acting upon or
giving effect to the notice dated 04.3.2025 issued by the second
defendant and opening the remote e-voting system from 27.3.2025
10 AM till 29.3.2025 4.59 PM. It was further made clear that the
order of interim injunction granted would not restrain the
defendants from conducting the EGM on 29.3.2025 in case the
requisite quorum was present.
__________
Page 17 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
17. This Court normally does not entertain the civil revision
petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against
an interim order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
CPC since a statutory remedy of appeal is available under Order
XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC. However, CRP.No.1370 of 2025 was
entertained by this Court and an interim order was also granted on
28.3.2025 permitting the voting to go on and directing the
resolutions to be kept in abeyance until further orders were passed
in this revision.
18. In view of the same, no useful purpose will be served in
closing these revisions and once again sending the parties in these
revisions to approach the concerned forum and file an appeal. In
view of the clarification given by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of defendants 1 and 2, it will be appropriate to
pass final orders in these revisions so as to avoid any further
complication.
19. The main grievance expressed on the side of the plaintiff
is that after the requisition notice for conducting the EGM was given
__________
Page 18 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
on 06.2.2025, five of the requisitionists were suspended and the
Governing Board manipulated the list of members and increased the
membership from 147 to 171 thereby the notice dated 04.3.2025
issued by the second defective calling for the EGM is vitiated.
20. Considering the grievance expressed by the plaintiff, this
Court sought for clarification from defendants 1 and 2 when the
earlier order was passed by this Court on 07.10.2026 and it was
now clarified that the requisition made on 06.2.2025 to call for the
EGM would not be defeated by taking into consideration the
subsequent addition of members and thereby rendering the
requisition itself as invalid on the ground that it fell short below the
statutory threshold of 1/5th members. Hence, the requisition for the
EGM and the resolutions, which were the subject matter in the EGM,
will not be defeated on this ground as apprehended by the plaintiff.
21. It has been further clarified on the side of defendants 1
and 2 that the votes cast by the members, who were included after
06.2.2025, would not be counted and that the votes of the members
as on 06.2.2025 alone would be taken into consideration with
__________
Page 19 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
respect to the resolutions moved in the EGM. Hence, the
apprehension that the newly added members would tilt the votes
against the requisitionists has also been taken care since their votes
are not going to be counted.
22. The action taken by the society regarding the suspension/
removal/addition of members is not a subject matter of the said
suit. Therefore, this Court will not go into the legality or otherwise of
those actions taken by the society.
23. The issue regarding the validity of the resolutions passed
in the EGM on the ground of want of quorum is a matter, which has
to be considered only by letting in evidence as and when those
resolutions are put to challenge. In other words, the legality of the
EGM conducted and the resolutions passed cannot be decided at the
stage of interlocutory applications since it requires letting in
evidence and appreciation of facts.
24. If, in spite of the clarifications given on the side of the
defendants 1 and 2, the society is prevented from acting upon the
__________
Page 20 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
e-votes and taking a decision on the resolutions moved in the EGM,
the society will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. This is more
so since the plaintiff has been suspended and he has not cast his
vote and he filed the said suit in his individual capacity and not in a
representative capacity representing all those, who were suspended
on 14.2.2025. The plaintiff and others will have to necessarily work
out their remedy independently in so far as their suspension/
removal is concerned.
25. The e-voting has taken place across the world for three
days and the voters have cast their votes. They have exercised their
valuable right. In view of the same, restraining the further process
after the voting has taken place will infringe upon the right of each
voter, who has cast his vote. What will come out of the voting, as on
today, is in the realm of assumption and no one knows as to
whether the resolutions will get through or will stand defeated.
Hence, if the entire process is stalled, the society will be put to
hardship and it will not be able to function effectively. Therefore, the
balance of convenience is certainly on the side of the defendants.
__________
Page 21 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
26. Even in so far as testing the prima facie case is concerned,
the clarifications given by defendants 1 and 2 will sufficiently take
care of the major grievance expressed by the plaintiff except the
grievance of suspension/removal of some of the requisitionists and it
has to be agitated independently.
27. In the light of the above discussions, CRP.No.1370 of 2025
is allowed in the above terms and defendants 1 and 2 are permitted
to act upon the e-voting cast by the members in the light of the
clarifications given by them and announce the result of the EGM
called for by the second defendant through the notice dated
04.3.2025. If the plaintiff and others have any grievance even
thereafter, it is left open to them to work out their remedy in a
manner known to law. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed.
As a consequence, CRP.No.1656 of 2025 stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. No costs.
16-10-2026
__________
Page 22 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
To
The District Munsif Court,
Ambattur.
RS
__________
Page 23 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

2026:MHC:4256
CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS

CRP.Nos.1370 & 1656 of 2025
& CMP.Nos.8121 & 9576 of 2025
16-10-2026
__________
Page 24 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )