BLOG

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the lead petitioners in the case and had taken the court through the family court act, 1984, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and various judgements of the Supreme Court and had contended that the procedure adopted by the family court was contrary to the law and procedure as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Accepting the said contention, the Hon’ble High Court had allowed the revision petitions and had framed guidelines to be followed by the Hon’ble Family Courts in Tamilnadu.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the bonafide purchaser/owner of the property and had argued that the writ petition would not be maintainable and the appropriate remedy would be to file a civil suit. Accepting the said contention, the Hon’ble High Court Dismissed the Write Petition.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan had argued that the husband/accused had provided false information in his affidavit of assets/liabilities statement and persuaded the Hon’ble family court to refer the complaint filed by the wife to a criminal court of competent jurisdiction. Accepting the arguments advanced by Mr Rahul Jagannathan, the Hon’ble family court had allowed the complaint and has directed that the husband was to face a criminal trial for having committed perjury.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear on behalf of the wife and had argued that video conferencing can be adopted under section 11 of the family court act,1984 to grant a decree of divorce.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan appeared for the respondent/wife and contended that an application for cancellation of interim maintenance/maintenance cannot be allowed without a fully fledged trial when there are disputed facts and evidence on record. Accepting the said contention, the Hon’ble high court upheld the impugned order of the trial court and dismissed the appeals filed by the husband.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan had argued before TN-RERA that the promoter had acted in complete contravention to the RERA Act,2016 which caused undue hardship to the client.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan had appeared on behalf of the petitioner/wife and had argued that the solemnisation of marriage was not in accordance with section 5(1) of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955. It was contended that the first marriage solemnised was not dissolved by a court of competent jurisdiction. After much deliberation, the Hon’ble court had declared the marriage as “null & void”

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear before TN-RERA and had argued that the sanction of loan against the allottees property by REPCO bank in favour of the promoter was ex-facie illegal and without any legal backing.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan had represented the husband before the trial court to conduct the trial & advance oral arguments.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for a local resident from besant nagar, chennai, Tamilnadu and had argued that the street food vendors were illegally conducting their business without any approval or permit and in complete contravention with the local laws.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the victim child X represented by her natural guardian and mother before the hon’ble madras high court.

After much persuasion from Mr Rahul; The hon’ble court has held that the accused has no locus standi/right to file or seek for further investigation in a criminal case and has reversed the judgement of the Hon’ble POCSO court.