![ekarreporter1: [1/10, 14:17] Adhilashmi Logomoorthy: Legal Eagle Elites is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: A Date With Doctrines](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story தமிழ்நாடு பெண் வழக்கறிஞர்கள் சங்கம் சார்பில் உச்ச நீதிமன்ற நீதிபதி எம்.எம்.சுந்தரேஷூக்கு பாராட்டு விழா
- Previous story மேற்கு தொடர்ச்சி மலையில் அன்னிய மரங்களை அகற்ற, மகாத்மா காந்தி தேசிய ஊரக வேலை உறுதித் திட்ட நிதியை பயன்படுத்துவது தொடர்பாக விளக்கமளிக்க மத்திய அரசுக்கு சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.
Recent Posts
- HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2470 of 2026 P.Sundaravadivel … Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3. The Joint Commissioner
- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 7504 of 2026 Saju Alex ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Zonal Officer Greater Chennai corporation, Zone 9 (Teynampet), No 40, KB Dasan Road, Teynampet, Chennai 18 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police – Traffic (south) Joint Commissioner office campus, Police Office Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai 16 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police E-3 Teynampet Police station, No. 494 Anna Salai, Teynampet
- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.P.No.16245 of 2026 Shayee Nisha ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai. 2.The Principal District Judge Villupuram District, Villupuram. 3.The Additional Sub Court Tindivanam, Villupuram District. 4.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tindivanam, Villupuram District. ..Respondent(s)
- *Tamil Nadu Government Order – 4.5 Litre Personal Use Exemption Not Applicable to Liquor from Puducherry and Other States: Madras High Court Accepts Submissions of State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah* Petitioners Tamilarasan and Rajesh Kumar from Minjur filed a plea before the Madras High Court stating that a case had been registered against them by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing at the Elavur check post, alleging that they transported 3.4 litres of liquor from Andhra Pradesh for sale. They contended that, as per the Tamil Nadu Government Order, possession of up to 4.5 litres of liquor is permitted for personal consumption, and since the liquor they carried was for their own use, the FIR against them should be quashed. When the matter was initially heard, the High Court had granted an interim stay on further investigation. Subsequently, upon mention by the State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, the case was taken up for final hearing before Justice Nirmal Kumar. Counsel for the petitioners argued that only 3.4 litres of liquor had been brought, which falls within the permissible limit under the Government Order, and relied on earlier judgments and the 4.5-litre personal consumption exemption to seek quashing of the FIR. Opposing this, the State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah submitted that the 4.5-litre exemption applies only to liquor lawfully sold within Tamil Nadu. He argued that this exemption does not extend to liquor brought from other States such as Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, or Karnataka. He further pointed out that clarifications to this effect had already been issued by the Home Secretary. He also submitted that earlier judgments had not considered this crucial aspect and therefore would not apply to the present case. Additionally, he brought to the Court’s attention the misinformation circulating on social media claiming that the High Court had permitted transportation of up to 4.5 litres of liquor from Puducherry into Tamil Nadu. After hearing both sides, Justice Nirmal Kumar held that the 4.5-litre personal consumption exemption under the Government Order applies only to liquor lawfully sold within Tamil Nadu, dismissed the petition, and upheld the case against the petitioners. *This judgment effectively puts an end to the misinformation circulating on social media that up to 4.5 litres of liquor can be brought from Puducherry or other States into Tamil Nadu. It also reaffirms that transporting liquor from other States into Tamil Nadu is an offence under law.*
- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CS No. 114 of 2022 R.Srinivasan S/o.Late G.Ravanappan, Permanently residing at No.20, Andal Srinivasan Layout, Udumalpet, Thiruppur District 642 126 and presently residing at No.5A, KGEYES Le Imperial Apartments, No.122, Greenways Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028. ..Plaintiff(s) Vs T.Baburaj S/o.Thangaraj, No.15 and 16, Narayanasamy 1st
More
Recent Posts
- HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2470 of 2026 P.Sundaravadivel … Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3. The Joint Commissioner
- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 7504 of 2026 Saju Alex ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Zonal Officer Greater Chennai corporation, Zone 9 (Teynampet), No 40, KB Dasan Road, Teynampet, Chennai 18 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police – Traffic (south) Joint Commissioner office campus, Police Office Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai 16 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police E-3 Teynampet Police station, No. 494 Anna Salai, Teynampet
- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.P.No.16245 of 2026 Shayee Nisha ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai. 2.The Principal District Judge Villupuram District, Villupuram. 3.The Additional Sub Court Tindivanam, Villupuram District. 4.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tindivanam, Villupuram District. ..Respondent(s)
- *Tamil Nadu Government Order – 4.5 Litre Personal Use Exemption Not Applicable to Liquor from Puducherry and Other States: Madras High Court Accepts Submissions of State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah* Petitioners Tamilarasan and Rajesh Kumar from Minjur filed a plea before the Madras High Court stating that a case had been registered against them by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing at the Elavur check post, alleging that they transported 3.4 litres of liquor from Andhra Pradesh for sale. They contended that, as per the Tamil Nadu Government Order, possession of up to 4.5 litres of liquor is permitted for personal consumption, and since the liquor they carried was for their own use, the FIR against them should be quashed. When the matter was initially heard, the High Court had granted an interim stay on further investigation. Subsequently, upon mention by the State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, the case was taken up for final hearing before Justice Nirmal Kumar. Counsel for the petitioners argued that only 3.4 litres of liquor had been brought, which falls within the permissible limit under the Government Order, and relied on earlier judgments and the 4.5-litre personal consumption exemption to seek quashing of the FIR. Opposing this, the State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah submitted that the 4.5-litre exemption applies only to liquor lawfully sold within Tamil Nadu. He argued that this exemption does not extend to liquor brought from other States such as Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, or Karnataka. He further pointed out that clarifications to this effect had already been issued by the Home Secretary. He also submitted that earlier judgments had not considered this crucial aspect and therefore would not apply to the present case. Additionally, he brought to the Court’s attention the misinformation circulating on social media claiming that the High Court had permitted transportation of up to 4.5 litres of liquor from Puducherry into Tamil Nadu. After hearing both sides, Justice Nirmal Kumar held that the 4.5-litre personal consumption exemption under the Government Order applies only to liquor lawfully sold within Tamil Nadu, dismissed the petition, and upheld the case against the petitioners. *This judgment effectively puts an end to the misinformation circulating on social media that up to 4.5 litres of liquor can be brought from Puducherry or other States into Tamil Nadu. It also reaffirms that transporting liquor from other States into Tamil Nadu is an offence under law.*
- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CS No. 114 of 2022 R.Srinivasan S/o.Late G.Ravanappan, Permanently residing at No.20, Andal Srinivasan Layout, Udumalpet, Thiruppur District 642 126 and presently residing at No.5A, KGEYES Le Imperial Apartments, No.122, Greenways Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028. ..Plaintiff(s) Vs T.Baburaj S/o.Thangaraj, No.15 and 16, Narayanasamy 1st