Skip to content

Primary Menu

Home
Gallery
Contact Us

Search for:

Home
Uncategorized
Toll collecting mhc advt interview

Uncategorized

Toll collecting mhc advt interview

By Sekar Reporter 1 year ago

Continue Reading

Previous Sures Mba Advt: Great order upholding the principles of law defined in 113B evidence act.THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.A.No.424 of 2012 section 498a

Next The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed 18 review petitions which were filed against the November 9 judgment in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case.The bench held that the review petitions were lacking in merits. As regards the review sought by 40 activists, the bench held those who were not parties to the suit cannot be permitted to file review.The petitions were considered in the chamber by a five judges bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna (who came in place of former CJI Gogoi).

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Search for:

Recent Posts

Justice V Parthiban said a writ court is not a proper forum to settle a dispute of this nature involving interpretation of contractual terms and agreement and adjudication of the rival claims. MKU had in 2014 entered into an agreement with Coimbatore-based Set Infotect Pvt Ltd for creation of an e-learning portal and development of digital content for the directorate of distance education. On completion of the project stage-wise, the company forwarded the bills from time to time which were settled by the university.
Sekarreporter1: ☘️ [4/18, 21:50] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *19.04.’21, LAW NOTES:* *7)* *Favouritism, Malice or
Sekarreporter1: ☘️ [4/18, 21:50] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *19.04.’21, LAW NOTES:* *7)* *Favouritism, Malice or Malafide*
Justices T S Sivagnanam and S Ananthi said they do not agree with the submissions of petitioner Muthukaruppan’s counsel that the petition was filed by his client in his private capacity and he has every right to withdraw it.
Justice Anitha Sumanth said that the tabulation of payments, in this case, is joint, the petitioner offering a sum of Rupees Seven Crores (since retracted) and the Officer to ascertain the balance. This exercise has not been carried out and, with this, the requirement of ‘ascertainment’ under Section 74(5), fails

Recent Posts

Justice V Parthiban said a writ court is not a proper forum to settle a dispute of this nature involving interpretation of contractual terms and agreement and adjudication of the rival claims. MKU had in 2014 entered into an agreement with Coimbatore-based Set Infotect Pvt Ltd for creation of an e-learning portal and development of digital content for the directorate of distance education. On completion of the project stage-wise, the company forwarded the bills from time to time which were settled by the university.
Sekarreporter1: ☘️ [4/18, 21:50] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *19.04.’21, LAW NOTES:* *7)* *Favouritism, Malice or
Sekarreporter1: ☘️ [4/18, 21:50] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *19.04.’21, LAW NOTES:* *7)* *Favouritism, Malice or Malafide*
Justices T S Sivagnanam and S Ananthi said they do not agree with the submissions of petitioner Muthukaruppan’s counsel that the petition was filed by his client in his private capacity and he has every right to withdraw it.
Justice Anitha Sumanth said that the tabulation of payments, in this case, is joint, the petitioner offering a sum of Rupees Seven Crores (since retracted) and the Officer to ascertain the balance. This exercise has not been carried out and, with this, the requirement of ‘ascertainment’ under Section 74(5), fails

Copyright © All rights reserved. | Magazine 7 by AF themes.

CALL ME