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 on behalf of the contesting defendants and had argued that the suit was pre-mature, bereft of particulars and based on an assumptions. Further, it was contended that no relief could be sought against our clients owing to the fact that no relief was claimed against them in the main suit. Accepting the contentions put forth by Mr Rahul, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said application

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.

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 on behalf of the husband and successfully proved the husbands case for dissolution of marriage under the grounds of cruelty.

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 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 was engaged to appear for the Complainant and had argued that the promoter had acted in complete contravention to the RERA Act,2016. Accepting the said contention, TN-RERA was pleased to allow the complaint.

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.