Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear on behalf of both parties and had contended that the marriage can be dissolved even if registration has been conducted under Chapter III of the Special Marraige Act.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the respondent and had argued that the petitioner/husband had suppressed his true income of Rs 6,50,000/- per month and had admitted the same in his cross examination. Hence, considering the arguments advanced; the Hon’ble court had reached the conclusion that there were no grounds to interfere with the Impugned Order of the Family Court, Chennai and dismissed the appeal by the husband.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear on behalf of the sole accused and had argued that the averments in the complaint and in the first information report do not prima facie make out a case of rape as alleged by the prosecution. Accepting the said contention, the Hon’ble court was pleased to grant bail to the accused in accordance with law.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the wife and had extracted the truth from the husband during cross examination in order to prove the allegations made by the wife. Accepting the arguments & contentions of Mr Rahul Jagannathan; the Hon’ble family court dissolve the marrige and had held that the wife’s allegations are true.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan had appeared on behalf of the Bar and had advanced arguments with regards to the practical difficulties such as applicability of video conferencing and other procedural aspects to ensure that the functioning of the courts are streamlined and more litigant friendly.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the plaintiff towards recovery of money which was paid by our client to the defendant/promoter towards lease of a property.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan had appeared before the family court on behalf of the wife and had contended that the husbands defence would have to be struck off as he has deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Hon’ble court, despite multiple applications seeking recovery of the arrears being filed at the instance of the wife. It was further contended by Mr Rahul Jagannathan that the family court has powers to strike off the defence of the husband in divorce proceedings in the event he fails to pay the arrears of maintenance which was ordered under the code of criminal procedure, 1973. Accepting; the said contention the family court struck off the defence of the husband in the divorce proceedings. Upholding the impugned order of the family court, the madras high court dismissed the appeal filed by the husband and directed that the arrears of maintenance be cleared within one month or the defence of the husband would stand as struck off.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the petitioner/husband in December 2022 and had successfully obtained a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the allottees/complainant in the successful complaint before TN-RERA

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear on behalf of the contesting respondent who had succeeded in the civil suit and had argued in length with regards to the scope and ambit of a review petition.