![Sekarreporter1: ஜூனில் 11ஆம் தேதிவரை மிக முக்கிய வழக்குகள் மட்டுமே விசாரணை – ஐகோர்ட் அறிவித்துள ்ளது் [5/28, 17:03] Sekarreporter1: NOTIFICATION No. 115/2021 Considering the present pandemic situation, it has become imperative to restrict the functioning of the High Court only to extremely urgent matters, and hence the following Sitting Arrangements in the Principal Seat at Madras and](http://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Taskmac put hit a thalaimurai TV news Cj question
- Previous story N.KIRUBAKARAN, J and R.PONGIAPPAN, J order regarding Advocates and bar council read full order advt Jothimani argued for TN bar council
Recent Posts
- Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan of #MadrasHighCourt reserves orders on former DMK Minister K. Ponmudy’s plea to set aside a private complaint lodged against him by Greater Chennai Corporation BJP councillor Uma Anandan for his 2025 offensive speech against Vaishnavites, Saivites, and women in general. @THChennai Backgrounder👇 thehindu.com/news/national/…
- In this case too, a subsequent mention is made by the petitioners’ counsel, post lunch, that he intends to withdraw the petitions seeking transfer of the case. Judge accepts the plea and permits the petitioners to withdraw their petitions. Advocate Richardson Wilson said, the Supreme Court had stayed the trial and therefore, his clients do not wish to proceed further with the transfer plea.
- Implead minister Nirmal kumar in Thirumaran kumaran deepam contempt case Sub application filed [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Sub appl 207/2026 [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Madurai [25/06, 15:31] sekarreporter1: 15:31 27.04G KB/S < 30 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH (Contempt Original Jurisdiction) Sub.Appln (MD)No. of 2026 in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 3657 of 2025 S. Paramasivam, S/o. Subramanian, Flat No.2787, TNHB Mela Anuppanadi, Madurai 625 009. ... Petitioner/ Petitioner -Vs- 1. Mr. K.J. Praveen Kumar, The District Collector, Madurai. 2. Mr. J. Loganathan The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 3. Mr. Yagnanarayanan, The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai. ... Respondents/Contemnors 4. Mr. R.Nirmal Kumar, S/o. Raja, Minister for Law & Electricity, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. Respondent/Proposed Contemnor the us AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER 1. S. Paramasivam, S/o. Subramanian, Hindu, aged 54 years, residing at Flat No. 2787, TNHB Colony, Mela Anuppanadi, Madurai-625 009 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows: 1. I am the petitioner herein and the petitioner in A Edit Annotate Fill & Sign Convert All [25/06, 15:31] sekarreporter1: 15:31 30949.88% KB/S < 30 Bench would not have started or happeneu Thus, the proposed respondent has knowledge about the details of the implement the orders of this Hon'ble Court. The act of the proposed respondent is not only willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, but an ill-intended attack on the judicial system of our country. His statement has clearly established that he has no respect to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and he is above the law of the country. His statement also intended to mislead the general public that the government machinery is higher than the Judiciary and they are not obliged to follow the orders of the Courts. If this type of persons are allowed to make this type of statements, then the general public will lose confidence on the Courts which will result in serious damage to rule of law and peaceful life of the ordinary people. Hence the intentional act of the proposed respondent warranting action under sections 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. Thus, it is just and necessary to implead the 4th respondent herein as 4th respondent/4th contemnor in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 3657 of 2025 in order to bring home the truth and to punish him. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to implead the 4th respondent herein as 4th respondent/4th contemnor in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 3657 of 2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice. Solemnly affirmed at Madurai this The 9th day of June 2026 and the contents of this affidavit were read out and explained to the deponent in Tamil deponent who understood the same put his/her signature in my presence. BEFORE ME ADVOCATE: MADURAI A Edit Annotate Fill & Sign Convert All [25/06, 15:29] sekarreporter1: [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Implead minister Nirmal kumar in Thirumaran kumaran deepam contempt case Sub application filed [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Sub appl 207/2026 [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Madurai [25/06, 15:31] sekarreporter1: 15:31 27.04G KB/S < 30 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH (Contempt Original Jurisdiction) Sub.Appln (MD)No. of 2026 in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 3657 of 2025 S. Paramasivam, S/o. Subramanian, Flat No.2787, TNHB Mela Anuppanadi, Madurai 625 009. ... Petitioner/ Petitioner -Vs- 1. Mr. K.J. Praveen Kumar, The District Collector, Madurai. 2. Mr. J. Loganathan The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 3. Mr. Yagnanarayanan, The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai. ... Respondents/Contemnors 4. Mr. R.Nirmal Kumar, S/o. Raja, Minister for Law & Electricity, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
- Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan of #MadrasHighCourt refuses to transfer a disproportionate assets case pending against DMK former Minister Duraimurugan and his wife D. Shanthakumari from a special court for MP/MLA cases in Chennai to a special court in Vellore. The DVAC had booked the case in 2011 for the charge of having amassed ₹1.15 crore disproportionate to their known sources of income between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2009 when the prime accused had served as Minister for Public Works Department, Prisons and Law @THChennai Backgrounder👇 thehindu.com/news/national/…
- Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan of #MadrasHighCourt refuses to condone a delay of 839 days in preferring a third party criminal revision petition against the acquittal of former DMK Minister P. Geetha Jeevan and her family members from a 2002 disproportionate assets case. The case was primarily booked against her father N. Periasamy for having allegedly amassed ₹2.31 crore disproportionate to his known sources of income between 1996 and 2001 when he was the Thoothukudi MLA. @THChennai Backgrounder👇 thehindu.com/news/national/…
More
Recent Posts
- Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan of #MadrasHighCourt reserves orders on former DMK Minister K. Ponmudy’s plea to set aside a private complaint lodged against him by Greater Chennai Corporation BJP councillor Uma Anandan for his 2025 offensive speech against Vaishnavites, Saivites, and women in general. @THChennai Backgrounder👇 thehindu.com/news/national/…
- In this case too, a subsequent mention is made by the petitioners’ counsel, post lunch, that he intends to withdraw the petitions seeking transfer of the case. Judge accepts the plea and permits the petitioners to withdraw their petitions. Advocate Richardson Wilson said, the Supreme Court had stayed the trial and therefore, his clients do not wish to proceed further with the transfer plea.
- Implead minister Nirmal kumar in Thirumaran kumaran deepam contempt case Sub application filed [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Sub appl 207/2026 [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Madurai [25/06, 15:31] sekarreporter1: 15:31 27.04G KB/S < 30 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH (Contempt Original Jurisdiction) Sub.Appln (MD)No. of 2026 in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 3657 of 2025 S. Paramasivam, S/o. Subramanian, Flat No.2787, TNHB Mela Anuppanadi, Madurai 625 009. ... Petitioner/ Petitioner -Vs- 1. Mr. K.J. Praveen Kumar, The District Collector, Madurai. 2. Mr. J. Loganathan The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 3. Mr. Yagnanarayanan, The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai. ... Respondents/Contemnors 4. Mr. R.Nirmal Kumar, S/o. Raja, Minister for Law & Electricity, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. Respondent/Proposed Contemnor the us AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER 1. S. Paramasivam, S/o. Subramanian, Hindu, aged 54 years, residing at Flat No. 2787, TNHB Colony, Mela Anuppanadi, Madurai-625 009 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows: 1. I am the petitioner herein and the petitioner in A Edit Annotate Fill & Sign Convert All [25/06, 15:31] sekarreporter1: 15:31 30949.88% KB/S < 30 Bench would not have started or happeneu Thus, the proposed respondent has knowledge about the details of the implement the orders of this Hon'ble Court. The act of the proposed respondent is not only willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, but an ill-intended attack on the judicial system of our country. His statement has clearly established that he has no respect to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and he is above the law of the country. His statement also intended to mislead the general public that the government machinery is higher than the Judiciary and they are not obliged to follow the orders of the Courts. If this type of persons are allowed to make this type of statements, then the general public will lose confidence on the Courts which will result in serious damage to rule of law and peaceful life of the ordinary people. Hence the intentional act of the proposed respondent warranting action under sections 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. Thus, it is just and necessary to implead the 4th respondent herein as 4th respondent/4th contemnor in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 3657 of 2025 in order to bring home the truth and to punish him. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to implead the 4th respondent herein as 4th respondent/4th contemnor in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 3657 of 2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice. Solemnly affirmed at Madurai this The 9th day of June 2026 and the contents of this affidavit were read out and explained to the deponent in Tamil deponent who understood the same put his/her signature in my presence. BEFORE ME ADVOCATE: MADURAI A Edit Annotate Fill & Sign Convert All [25/06, 15:29] sekarreporter1: [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Implead minister Nirmal kumar in Thirumaran kumaran deepam contempt case Sub application filed [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Sub appl 207/2026 [25/06, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Madurai [25/06, 15:31] sekarreporter1: 15:31 27.04G KB/S < 30 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH (Contempt Original Jurisdiction) Sub.Appln (MD)No. of 2026 in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 3657 of 2025 S. Paramasivam, S/o. Subramanian, Flat No.2787, TNHB Mela Anuppanadi, Madurai 625 009. ... Petitioner/ Petitioner -Vs- 1. Mr. K.J. Praveen Kumar, The District Collector, Madurai. 2. Mr. J. Loganathan The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 3. Mr. Yagnanarayanan, The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai. ... Respondents/Contemnors 4. Mr. R.Nirmal Kumar, S/o. Raja, Minister for Law & Electricity, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
- Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan of #MadrasHighCourt refuses to transfer a disproportionate assets case pending against DMK former Minister Duraimurugan and his wife D. Shanthakumari from a special court for MP/MLA cases in Chennai to a special court in Vellore. The DVAC had booked the case in 2011 for the charge of having amassed ₹1.15 crore disproportionate to their known sources of income between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2009 when the prime accused had served as Minister for Public Works Department, Prisons and Law @THChennai Backgrounder👇 thehindu.com/news/national/…
- Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan of #MadrasHighCourt refuses to condone a delay of 839 days in preferring a third party criminal revision petition against the acquittal of former DMK Minister P. Geetha Jeevan and her family members from a 2002 disproportionate assets case. The case was primarily booked against her father N. Periasamy for having allegedly amassed ₹2.31 crore disproportionate to his known sources of income between 1996 and 2001 when he was the Thoothukudi MLA. @THChennai Backgrounder👇 thehindu.com/news/national/…