You may also like...
Follow:
- Next story உயர்நீதிமன்ற வழக்கறிஞர் ச.காசிராஜன் அவர்களின் திருமணம் அக்கா கனிமொழி அவர்கள் இல்லத்தில் விழிப்புணர்வோடு நடைபெற்றது
- Previous story Sir Senior advocate mukhul rohtagi has donated seven buses with full facilities to accommodate patients
Recent Posts
- 45.For the aforesaid reasons, the request of the appellants are taken on record and the Writ Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.46.Even though we have found that the impleading petitioner has a locus standi to be represented in these Intra Court Appeals in view of the withdrawal of these Intra Court Appeals, it would be a futile exercise to order the impleading petitions, hence the Application for impleading are closed as unnecessary. However, there shall be no order as to costs.(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)28.03.2024Index: YesSpeaking Order Neutral Citation:YespbnR.SURESH KUMAR., J. and K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.pbnWrit Appeal Nos.847 & 850 of 2019& CMP. No.17216 & 17220 of 202328.03.2024
- [28/03, 14:22] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1773271895485317200?t=MsfEAHmgmHmp4lev5b-VaA&s=08[28/03, 14:23] sekarreporter1: Crl.M.P.No.1322 of 2024 inCrl.O.P.No.7699 of 2023A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.The present petition has been filed by a victimized complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted by this court in Crl.O.P.No.7699 of 2023 to the second respondent herein in respect of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 448, 420, 506(2) IPC in Crime No.426 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent herein, contending that the second respondent herein had misrepresented this court for getting the bail and he had not fulfilled the condition imposed by this court while granting the bail.
- Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira said, crimes of such nature were on the increase in and around Chennai due to lack of awareness among the people and therefore, it was incumbent upon the State to warn them by publicising the modus operandi adopted by the fradusters.
- Today, the Writ Appeals filed by the State challenging an order of the High Court quashing G.O. 721 which was issued by the AIADMK government to hand over files of the Regupathy Commission of Inquiry to the DVAC were permitted to be withdrawn by a Hon’ble Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kumaresh Babu.
- 28/03, 10:15] Vinothpandian: AIR 1971 SC 803 : surla vs state of haryana : supreme court will not interfere with sentence of punishment unless it is established that the sentence is harsh or unjust in the facts and circumstances of the case[28/03, 10:15] Vinothpandian: 2004 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 855 SC : maulavi hussain haji abraham.umarji vs state of gujarat : while interpreting a provision the court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it
More
Recent Posts
- 45.For the aforesaid reasons, the request of the appellants are taken on record and the Writ Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.46.Even though we have found that the impleading petitioner has a locus standi to be represented in these Intra Court Appeals in view of the withdrawal of these Intra Court Appeals, it would be a futile exercise to order the impleading petitions, hence the Application for impleading are closed as unnecessary. However, there shall be no order as to costs.(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)28.03.2024Index: YesSpeaking Order Neutral Citation:YespbnR.SURESH KUMAR., J. and K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.pbnWrit Appeal Nos.847 & 850 of 2019& CMP. No.17216 & 17220 of 202328.03.2024
- [28/03, 14:22] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1773271895485317200?t=MsfEAHmgmHmp4lev5b-VaA&s=08[28/03, 14:23] sekarreporter1: Crl.M.P.No.1322 of 2024 inCrl.O.P.No.7699 of 2023A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.The present petition has been filed by a victimized complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted by this court in Crl.O.P.No.7699 of 2023 to the second respondent herein in respect of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 448, 420, 506(2) IPC in Crime No.426 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent herein, contending that the second respondent herein had misrepresented this court for getting the bail and he had not fulfilled the condition imposed by this court while granting the bail.
- Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira said, crimes of such nature were on the increase in and around Chennai due to lack of awareness among the people and therefore, it was incumbent upon the State to warn them by publicising the modus operandi adopted by the fradusters.
- Today, the Writ Appeals filed by the State challenging an order of the High Court quashing G.O. 721 which was issued by the AIADMK government to hand over files of the Regupathy Commission of Inquiry to the DVAC were permitted to be withdrawn by a Hon’ble Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kumaresh Babu.
- 28/03, 10:15] Vinothpandian: AIR 1971 SC 803 : surla vs state of haryana : supreme court will not interfere with sentence of punishment unless it is established that the sentence is harsh or unjust in the facts and circumstances of the case[28/03, 10:15] Vinothpandian: 2004 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 855 SC : maulavi hussain haji abraham.umarji vs state of gujarat : while interpreting a provision the court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it