M.Balakrishnan M/S.M.B.ELAKKUMANAN, MISHELL MARY EDWARD vs The Union of India — WP/18523/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

Next hearing 10-Jun-2026

CNR: HCMA010843652026

Filing Number

WP/62396/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/18523/2026

Registration Date

06-May-2026

Judge

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Coram

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

Public Interest Litigation ( 128 )

Sub-Category

Other PIL Matters ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

WRITSECTION

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M.Balakrishnan M/S.M.B.ELAKKUMANAN, MISHELL MARY EDWARD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Union of India

  2. 2.The State of TamilNadu

  3. 3.The Under secretary

  4. 4.The Cabinet Secretary

  5. 5.The Chairman

  6. 6.The Principal Accountant General (Audit/ AE)

Case History

  1. 10-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    View PDF

    Case Summary: WP/18523/2026 The Madras High Court (Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan) adjourned the writ petition filed by M. Balakrishnan against the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu. The case was postponed to 10.06.2026 as senior counsel representing the respondents was unavailable to argue the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 02-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/18523/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/18523/2026 The Madras High Court (Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan) adjourned the writ petition filed by M. Balakrishnan against the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu. The case was postponed to 10.06.2026 as senior counsel representing the respondents was unavailable to argue the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case