B Thangaraj

On the court record

B Thangaraj appears in the reported corpus as a company and civil litigator, with insolvency, contempt, wills and civil procedure among the reported matters at the High Court and Court of Appeal. His insolvency and procedure work is visible in a matter combining a striking-out application under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 — whether a claim was plainly unsustainable in law — with a winding-up point on whether sale and purchase agreements executed after the presentation of a winding-up petition were void ab initio, engaging the avoidance of dispositions made after a petition. He was also engaged in a matter where the court applied Order 33 of the Rules of Court 2012 to determine, as a preliminary issue, whether agreements between the parties were lawful, a device used to save time and cost by resolving a dispositive question first.

His reported work reaches contempt and succession. In a Court of Appeal matter he appeared as appellant's counsel on the implied undertaking known as the Riddick principle — whether an undertaking not to use compulsorily obtained documents for a collateral purpose survives once those documents are filed, marked and read in open court — together with the appealability of a leave order to commence committal proceedings. In a probate matter he was engaged, as third party, in a suit seeking a declaration that a first will, a second will and an impugned will were null and void. Across these reported decisions his work moves between corporate insolvency and the avoidance of post-petition dispositions, the law of contempt, the validity of wills and the procedural determination of preliminary issues, marking B Thangaraj as counsel across company, probate and general civil litigation. Across these reported decisions the recurring thread is the use of procedural mechanisms to resolve or dispose of a dispute — striking out, the determination of a preliminary issue, the avoidance of post-petition dispositions and the appealability of a leave order — marking a practice attentive to the machinery of litigation as much as to its merits.