Rajeswaran is a practicing advocate at the High court of Madras having extensive practice in civil, commercial, arbitration, company, criminal, insolvency and bankruptcy, Intellectual property rights, property laws , matrimonial laws, Legal Opinions and Legal Audit. Advocate. Rajeswaran is also a legal researcher, mediator, business advisor, accredited cooperate advisor and besides being policy advisor for a series of stalwart industries across the world.

Having awarded masters of law Rajeswaran based on academic performance and thesis on THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN IPR AND COMPETITION LAW IN RELEVENCE WITH PHARMACUTICAL SECTOR by the Madras University, Adv. Rajeswaran regularly appears before the, Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras Civil Courts and Criminal Courts at Chennai and Tribunals such as the National Company Law Tribunal (Chennai), National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone), Chennai,Family courts, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and Authority of Advance Ruling Chennai besides taking up matter before the institutional and Ad Hoc arbitral tribunals.

Having enrolled as an advocate in Bar council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Adv. Rajeswaran appeared in an land mark case regarding maintenance wherein Hon’ble High Court of Madras had held that The agony of the child and its mental condition during the period of dispute between father and mother, all to be taken note of and the interim maintenance is to be ordered by the Courts even if there is no application or otherwise. In an interesting case pertaining to employer-employee dispute represented by Advocate Rajeswaran, The Madras High Court had made a significant observation that any other leave granted by the management apart from those granted by the government would be treated only as a privilege and not as a right of a workmen.

Mr. Rajeswaran regularly appears in matters pertaining to medical negligence and medical mis-diagnosis before the Hon’ble High Court and in an interesting case, he was able to bring it to the limelight that Director of Rural Medical Health Services is the appropriate authority for taking cognizance on complaint regarding organ transplants.

In a case represented by Mr. Rajeswaran pertaining to quashing of a proceedings under Section 125 of CRPC, the Hon’ble madras High court had distinguishly observed that averments or grounds of quash that would require to be backed by evidence are to be established in a trail court and not through a quashing application. Further in an another interesting case represented by Mr. Rajeswaran, The Hon’ble High court of Madras had held that habeas corpus petition cannot be used as tool to sort the tussle between spouses for custody of minor child and remedy need to sought under the guardianship Act.