In Re: Varisai Rowther And Anr. vs Unknown-22/12/1922

Direct authorities against this view are Mitarjit Singh v. The King Emperor (1921) 6 Pat. L.J. 644 : 63 I.C. 825 in which it was held that examination under Section 342 means examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination, and In re Maruda Muthu Vannian (1922) 43 M.L.J. 402 to the same effect, but with neither of these for the reasons given above,

Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules, 2017 

"Not less than four members to be nominated by the Chief Justice out of whom, two shall be designated Senior Advocates and both of the other remaining two shall either be experts in the fi elds of Arbitration or Advocate having expertise in the said fi eld. Of this, one member can be an Advocate having expertise in the fi eld of Arbitration and the other Non-Advocate shall also be an expert. They shall continue for a term not exceeding three years from the date of their nomination and may be renominated by the Chief Justice for a further term not exceeding three years;

Letters Patent — High Court of Madras-1865

And whereas by the said recited Act it is declared lawful of Her Majesty, at any time within three years after the establishment of the said High Court, by Her Letters Patent, to revoke all or such parts or provisions as Her Majesty might think fit of the Letters Patent by which such Court was established, and to grant and make such other powers and provisions as Her Majesty might think fit, and as might have been granted or made by such first letters patent:

Practice Note for Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division in Madras High Court

NOTIFICATION No.48/2018 In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 18 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016), the Hon'ble The Chief Justice is pleased to issue the…