Follow:
- Next story The Supreme Court on Monday said it was “unfortunate” that a former high court judge forcibly tried to enter the residence of retired top court judge R Banumathi in Chennai. “Whatever has happened is unfortunate. You should take all appropriate actions, including filing representation and complaint,” a bench led by Justice AM Khanwilkar told senior advocate CA Sundaram
- Previous story Madras High Court Judge Justice N. Kirubakaran on Saturday visited the archaeological site in Keeladi, near Madurai. In the afternoon, Justice S. Vaidyanathan of the Madras High Court, in a personal visit, also interacted with the officials at the site
Recent Posts
- Mmsj rskj pudukotai new court building mmsj excellent speech video
- Judge Victoria Gowri refused to quash because: prosecution has more than just co-accused statement, conscious possession is disputed fact for trial, prima facie case exists, and it doesn’t meet SC’s _Bhajan Lal_ criteria for quashing. So case must go to trial.
- Judge victoriya gowri This Court finds: (a) prosecution is not shown to rest solely on co-accused confession; (b) disputed questions of conscious possession arise; (c) prima facie materials exist requiring trial; (d) case does not fall within State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal20 categories.
- Madurai Bench* *Division Bench*: Justices N. Sathish Kumar & M. Jothiraman — *1. Specific Direction to 14 Collectors*
- Madras HC | Madurai Bench | Justice Krishnan Ramasamy* *Case*: _Kathiravan v. Commissioner of State Tax_ | W.P.(MD)No.2286 of 2026 | 16.02.2026
More
Recent Posts
- Mmsj rskj pudukotai new court building mmsj excellent speech video
- Judge Victoria Gowri refused to quash because: prosecution has more than just co-accused statement, conscious possession is disputed fact for trial, prima facie case exists, and it doesn’t meet SC’s _Bhajan Lal_ criteria for quashing. So case must go to trial.
- Judge victoriya gowri This Court finds: (a) prosecution is not shown to rest solely on co-accused confession; (b) disputed questions of conscious possession arise; (c) prima facie materials exist requiring trial; (d) case does not fall within State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal20 categories.
- Madurai Bench* *Division Bench*: Justices N. Sathish Kumar & M. Jothiraman — *1. Specific Direction to 14 Collectors*
- Madras HC | Madurai Bench | Justice Krishnan Ramasamy* *Case*: _Kathiravan v. Commissioner of State Tax_ | W.P.(MD)No.2286 of 2026 | 16.02.2026