Video Conferencing Court Guidelines
Video Conferencing Court Guidelines
AND
THE HON'BLE [Link] [Link]
FOR ADMISSION
1 CMA/1128/2025 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [Link]
TAX ------------------
VS CHENNAI
P RADHA AND ANOTHER.
AND Stay
CMP 9299/2025 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX [Link]
VS ------------------
P RADHA AND ANOTHER. Chennai
AND Dispensed with (d.w)
CMP 9302/2025 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX [Link]
VS ------------------
P RADHA AND ANOTHER. Chennai
2 WA/1306/2025 [Link] M/S. [Link]
(General) VS U. JANARTHAN
[Link] AND 3 OTHERS. MASRATH JAHAN
------------------
CHENNAI
AND Stay
CMP 9899/2025 [Link]
VS M/S. [Link]
[Link] AND 3 OTHERS. U. JANARTHAN
MASRATH JAHAN
------------------
Chennai
3 WA/1331/2025 M/S MULTIVISTA GLOBAL PRIVATE M/[Link]
(Income Tax) LIMITED SARANYA PRIYA
VS [Link]
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [Link]
TAX AND ANOTHER. ------------------
MS S. PREMALATHA
LEAREND JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR
RESPDT / DEPT [ VIDE COURT ORDER
DATE 16/04/2025 ] IN SR STAGE
AND Interim stay
CMP 10132/2025 M/S MULTIVISTA GLOBAL PRIVATE
LIMITED [Link]
VS SARANYA PRIYA
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [Link]
TAX AND ANOTHER. [Link]
------------------
Chennai
AND Stay
CMP 10136/2025 M/S MULTIVISTA GLOBAL PRIVATE
LIMITED [Link]
VS SARANYA PRIYA
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [Link]
TAX AND ANOTHER. [Link]
------------------
Chennai
FOR BEING MENTIONED
4 OSA/80/2025 TITUS SAMUEL M/[Link]
VS [Link]
SOPHIA SAMUEL [Link]
[Link] MONISHA
[Link] JOE NIRMALA
[Link]
[Link] SHRI FOR APPELLANT
------------------
M/S [Link]
[Link]
[Link] FOR SOLE RESPONDENT
(VAKALAT FILED)
AND Stay
CMP 4027/2025 TITUS SAMUEL
VS M/[Link]
SOPHIA SAMUEL ------------------
AND Stay
CMP 5207/2025 TITUS SAMUEL
VS M/[Link]
MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS
To condone the delay of 250 days in filing the Writ Appeal. SR 1756 /202
Condone delay
6 CMP/2952/2025 MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER PALANIAPPAN M/S. SAITANYA KESAN
VS [Link]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [Link]
TAX ------------------
CHENNAI
AND
WA 1756/2025 (Filing No.)
MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER PALANIAPPAN M/S. SAITANYA KESAN
VS ------------------
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 3 CHENNAI
To fix an early date for the disposal of the above [Link]. 239 of 2024
Fix an early date
7 CMP/9526/2025 [Link] [Link]
VS R. KAMARAJ
[Link] AND ANOTHER. ------------------
CHENNAI
AND Injunction
CMP 28308/2024 [Link] AND ANOTHER.
VS [Link]
[Link] [Link]
[Link]
[Link]
------------------
[Link]
[Link] COUNSEL FOR CAVEATOR
AND
OSA 239/2024
(O.S.A.) [Link] AND ANOTHER. [Link]
VS [Link]
[Link] [Link]
[Link]
------------------
[Link]
[Link] FOR SOLE RESPONDENT
To file the Original Side Appeal as Indigent Person against the Judgment
and Decree made in C.S.D. No. 99888 of 2021 dated 31.07.2024 IN OSA SR
9
NO.31424/2025
Order
CMP/9742/2025 VADLAMANNATI JAYA POORNACHANDRA M/S. [Link] KUMAR
RAO KISHORE KUMAR
VS IBRAHIM AHAMED J
SHANTHI KAWARBAI AND 92 OTHERS. ------------------
CHENNAI
AND
OSA 31424/2025 (Filing
No.) VADLAMANNANTI JAYA M/S. [Link] KUMAR
VS ------------------
SHANTHI KAWARBAI
To condone the delay of 129 days in filing the above appeal SR.154280/20
against the preliminary Judgement and Decree dated 07.06.2024 and passed
10
CS No.56 of 2015 on the file of this Honble High Court in Madras.
TO CONDONE THE DELAY
CMP/9750/2025 [Link] [Link]
VS J VINOTH
V. KESAVAMOORTHY AND 3 OTHERS. R GOPINATH
------------------
CHENNAI
AND
OSA 154280/2024 (Filing
No.) [Link] [Link]
VS ------------------
[Link]
To condone the delay of 206 days in re-presentation of above OSA SR
NO.12823/2024 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Cour
11
Condone Delay
CMP/9821/2025 D. JAYARANI AND 4 OTHERS. M/S. [Link]
VS ------------------
N. JAYACHANDRAN AND 2 OTHERS. CHENNAI
AND
OSA 112823/2024 (Filing
No.) D. JAYARANI M/S. [Link]
VS ------------------
N. JAYACHANDRAN
To condone the delay of 247 days in filing the present appeal against th
impugned order made in WP No.28856 of 2022 dated 20.06.2024 and thus ren
12
justice.
TO CONDONE THE DELAY
FOR ADMISSION
1 SA/308/2025 [Link] SHARMA M/S. [Link]
(Suits) VS [Link]
[Link] [Link]
[Link]
[Link]
------------------
Vellore
AND Interim injunction
CMP 9145/2025 [Link] SHARMA
VS M/S. [Link]
[Link] [Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
------------------
Vellore
2 SA/314/2025 RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER. M/S. [Link]
(Suits) VS VASUDHA THIAGARAJAN
KANNAN ADDITIONAL TYPED SET FILED BY THE
M/S [Link]
------------------
[Link] FOR CAVEATOR
P. MAGESWARI
L. KRISHNANMOORTHY
AND Stay
CMP 9218/2025 RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER.
VS M/S. [Link]
KANNAN VASUDHA THIAGARAJAN
------------------
[Link] FOR CAVEATOR
P. MAGESWARI
L. KRISHNANMOORTHY
AND To suspend
CMP 9221/2025 RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER.
VS M/S. [Link]
KANNAN VASUDHA THIAGARAJAN
------------------
[Link] FOR CAVEATOR
P. MAGESWARI
L. KRISHNANMOORTHY
3 SA/317/2025 MURUGAIYAN M/S. [Link]
(Suits) VS [Link]
MARIYAPPAN AND 3 OTHERS. M. PREMKUMAR
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
J. SRI HARI
------------------
Nagapattinam
4 SA/318/2025 RAMANATHAN (DIED) 1. INDHIRA AND M/S. [Link]
(Suits) 4 OTHERS. [Link] THENDRAL ARASU
VS ------------------
MAGESWARI AND 12 OTHERS. Tiruvannamalai
AND Interim injunction
CMP 9408/2025 RAMANATHAN (DIED) 1. INDHIRA AND
4 OTHERS. M/S. [Link]
VS [Link] THENDRAL ARASU
MAGESWARI AND 12 OTHERS. ------------------
Tiruvannamalai
5 SA/319/2025 [Link] AND 3 OTHERS. A. SUNDARAVADHANAN
(Suits) VS [Link]
PALANI @ PALANISAMY AND ANOTHER. [Link]
------------------
Erode
AND Receaving additional document
CMP 9415/2025 [Link] AND 3 OTHERS.
VS M/S. A. SUNDARA VADHANAN
PALANI @ PALANISAMY AND ANOTHER. [Link]
[Link]
------------------
Erode
AND Interim injunction
CMP 9413/2025 [Link] AND 3 OTHERS.
VS M/S. A. SUNDARA VADHANAN
PALANI @ PALANISAMY AND ANOTHER. [Link]
MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS
TO RESTORE MP. 2/2009
TO RESTORE
14 CMP/14354/2023 ARULMIGU MUPPILLAIMAMMAN DEITY C/V. FILED BY
VS M/S. V. SRIKANTH-MS/795/1991
[Link] AND 9 OTHERS. P. VARSHINI
S. ABHIJEET KRISHNA
R. DWARAKESH
VIDE C/O DT:05.12.2024
------------------
M/[Link] KUMAR-MS/131/1990
[Link] BAIG-MS/45/2004
FOR R4
R1 - NO MORE
RR2, 5 , 6, 8 TO 10 - VACATED
R3 - NO SUCH PERSON
R7 - LEFT
PVT NOTICE
R1 - DECEASED
RR2,3,5 , 6, 8 TO 10 - NO SUCH
PERSON
R7 - DOOR LOCKED
To set aside
AND Setting aside an abatement
CMP 8508/2025 ARULMIGU MUPPILLAIMAMMAN DEITY
VS M/S. V. SRIKANTH
[Link] (DECEASED) AND [Link]
9 OTHERS. [Link] KRISHNA
[Link]
------------------
Private notices are crucial when respondents are untraceable, ensuring that all parties are duly informed before proceeding. For instance, cases like R. Vasanthy vs M. Sasikala and the case involving Ramya @ Lalitha @ Yogambal show that private notices serve to notify respondents and allow courts to issue orders in absentia when recipients are confirmed unreachable through conventional means .
The principle of timely justice is central to deciding motions to condone delays, balancing the need to respect procedural timelines and ensuring equity. Breaching this principle can undermine trust in the justice system, potentially disadvantaging compliant parties. Judicial consideration, as in the case of Anusuya Devi vs S. Nirmala Devi, weighs delays against the fair opportunity for an appeal, underlining a necessity to enforce accountability without hastily dismissing meritorious claims .
The common challenges in condoning delays in filing appeals are determining the justifiable reasons for delays and the length of the delay. Cases like Anusuya Devi vs S. Nirmala Devi and G. Sampathkumar vs Mahendra Singh Dhoni highlight the difficulty in reconciling significant delays (such as 742 and 938 days, respectively) with the need for timely justice. Courts often have to assess whether the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances or negligence .
Justice in condoning delays is ensured through thorough examination of the reasons for the delay, ensuring that all parties have had adequate opportunity to present their cases. For example, in Anusuya Devi vs S. Nirmala Devi, the court must determine whether a delay of 742 days was due to negligence or valid reasons, like awaiting the resolution of related proceedings or circumstances beyond control. This involves balancing the principles of judicial efficiency and the right to a fair trial .
Courts require service of private notice to adhere to due process, ensuring that all parties are aware and have the chance to participate in or contest proceedings. This requirement protects against decisions made without the knowledge of affected parties, thus ensuring fairness and transparency. The necessity for private notice, as observed in cases such as the Inspector General of Registration vs Ravichandran Rajagopal, underscores its importance in maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings .
Delays in filing writ appeals pose complications such as potential prejudice to respondents, challenges in retrieving timely records, and risk of dismissing otherwise meritorious claims. Courts address these by assessing the justification for the delay, considering broader implications on justice delivery, and applying a balance between expediency and comprehensive examination of claims. The case of Ramya @ Lalitha @ Yogambal vs K. Senthil Kumar illustrates the typical review process for justifying a 334-day delay, emphasizing examinations of procedural adherence and reasonable explanations .
Justifications for delay condonation include unavoidable circumstances, awaiting related case outcomes, incorrect legal advice, and inadvertent errors in procedural compliance. Such justifications demonstrate judicial flexibility by accommodating unforeseen obstacles and maintaining access to justice. As seen in R. Vasanthy vs M. Sasikala, where a 1912-day delay necessitated evaluating these comprehensive grounds, demonstrating a tailored approach to each case's circumstances .
Challenges arise from serving notices when parties are untraceable, complicating the ability of courts to proceed fairly. This may lead to extended delays as efforts to locate the parties continue or to ex-parte decisions if parties remain unreachable. For instance, R. Vasanthy vs M. Sasikala faced these hurdles, as the court had to ascertain whether due diligence was exercised in notice service before proceeding without the absent parties .
Impleading parties can significantly affect case outcomes as it includes additional perspectives and possibly alters the legal standing. Courts consider whether the new parties have a substantial interest or are indispensable to ensuring all related matters are settled equitably. The case of Viswapriya Investors Welfare Association vs Analog Financial Services Pvt Ltd. illustrates the court's thorough consideration of whether new parties should be involved to address all claims comprehensively .
When a court grants a stay in civil proceedings, it typically involves filing a petition for stay, providing notice to all involved parties, and the court then assessing the grounds for the stay. In cases like R. Subramanian vs Analog Financial Services Pvt Ltd., the court evaluates the necessity of pausing proceedings to prevent injustice or irreparable harm, notifying all parties involved, and scheduling further hearings to reassess if the stay should be extended or vacated .