சித்த மருத்துவர் தணிகாசலம் சார்பாக மூத்து வக்கீல் பிரபாகரன் இன்று எழும்பூர் கோர்ட்டில் ஆஜராகி அவரை காவல் நீடிக்கக் கூடாது என்று எதிர்ப்பு வாதாடுகிறார் மேலும்அவருக்கு ஜாமீன் வழங்க வேண்டும் என்று கோரி ஐகோர்ட்டில் மனுத்தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளார் இந்த மனு இன்று விசாரணைக்கு வருகிறது

You may also like...

• 

  K. Chandru Former Judge Of Highcourt: Patty,during British rule many natiolists were arrested for treason.That was why Tilag said that freedom is our birth right! You will be pleased to know in the Alipore case Aurobindo was acquitted.Whether he took spritual ideas are not material in this issue.The speacial counsel brought from Madras (Mr.Norton),&the role played by him in 1906 in the prosecution matters.Why he was brought from Chennai when there were so many barristers raises many eye brows.You may be fascinated by him.Bur what kind of person he was?I will believe shri.Aurubindo who made arecord rather than lawyers here who eulogised him!! Patty Norton rule is only for passing IPC exams.Not for learning the Patriots who were punished by the British.!Be a patriot patty.Not an admirer of a crook!! [6/15, 07:53] Sekarreporter 1: 🙏🏾

  June 15, 2020

   by Sekar Reporter · Published June 15, 2020

• 

  A Full Bench (comprising three judges) of Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Sunder Mohan of #MadrasHighCourt will begin hearing from today the arguments on two important questions of law: 1. Whether the Governor is bound by the advise given by the Council of Ministers in matters relating to remission and premature release of convicts. 2. If he/she is so bound, under what circumstances does the Governor have the discretion to take a view different from the one taken by the Council of Ministers? A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh (since retired) and V. Lakshminarayanan had referred the issues to the Full Bench in September 2025 @THChennai

  March 25, 2026

   by Sekar Reporter · Published March 25, 2026

• 

  C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1633 and 2035 of 2020 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.25 of 2009 is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.1633 of 2020 and the plaintiff in the suit is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2035 of 2020. I am not in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Brother Justice Mr.R.Subramanian in the above cited decision as I find that the same is not inconsonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 689 [cited supra], hence, taking note of the fact that important procedure that has to be followed as to whether in a partition suit, before passing of the final decree where an Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed to note down the physical features and to make assessment so as to enable the Court to pass the final decree or the matter has to be referred before the District Collector as per the wordings mentioned in Section 54 of CPC has to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court to settle the law as to the procedure to be followed in the partition suit by the subordinate Courts in this State.

  February 13, 2021

   by Sekar Reporter · Published February 13, 2021