நீட் சூப்பர் ஸ்பெஷாலிட்டி தேர்வு தேதியை மாற்ற கோரும் மனு தள்ளுபடி – உச்சநீதிமன்றம்
நீட் சூப்பர் ஸ்பெஷாலிட்டி தேர்வு தேதியை மாற்ற கோரும் மனு தள்ளுபடி – உச்சநீதிமன்றம்
![[5/25, 19:14] Sekarreporter1: https://www.taxscan.in/priority-of-debts-due-to-secured-creditors-over-government-dues-madras-hc-grants-relief-to-sbi/115846/ [5/25, 19:14] Sekarreporter1: The division bench of Justices T.S.Sivanganam and S.Ananthi while allowing the petition directed the Sub Registrar to necessarily delete the property attachment reflected in the encumbrance certificate at the instance of the commercial tax department.](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story CJI shoe-throwing incident: Supreme Court moots preventive guidelines; refuses action against Rakesh Kishore for now Read more: barandbench.com/news/cji-shoe-…
- Previous story Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea alleging discrepancies NEET-PG results. Court: We don’t approve this practice of students just coming into Supreme Court (with) Article 32 (petitions, saying) “declare this and that, this is discrepancy, this is error.” Sorry sir.
Recent Posts
- 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
- [29/04, 16:42] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxQhTFOFXhKpw-he83WL3i13ZNBIYaFAaM?si=H87ZuXFsqF59zIhJ [29/04, 16:43] sekarreporter1: As the defendant, exploiting the absence of any written agreement ,had misappropriated the amounts remitted to his account by the plaintiff for purchase of lands& purchased lands for himself & his sister& declined to repay the huge amount of Rs . Two Crores& 79 Lakhs, the Suit for recovery of money was filed. Upon hearing the arguments of M. Ravi & Priya Ravi, for the plaintiff and the learned counsels for the defendants,His Lordship Justice P. Dhanabal was pleased to allow the Suit . The Suit has been decreed with costs& interest, in favour of the Plaintiff .
- As the defendant, exploiting the absence of any written agreement ,had misappropriated the amounts remitted to his account by the plaintiff for purchase of lands& purchased lands for himself & his sister& declined to repay the huge amount of Rs . Two Crores& 79 Lakhs, the Suit for recovery of money was filed. Upon hearing the arguments of M. Ravi & Priya Ravi, for the plaintiff and the learned counsels for the defendants,His Lordship Justice P. Dhanabal was pleased to allow the Suit . The Suit has been decreed with costs& interest, in favour of the Plaintiff .
More
Recent Posts
- 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
- [29/04, 16:42] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxQhTFOFXhKpw-he83WL3i13ZNBIYaFAaM?si=H87ZuXFsqF59zIhJ [29/04, 16:43] sekarreporter1: As the defendant, exploiting the absence of any written agreement ,had misappropriated the amounts remitted to his account by the plaintiff for purchase of lands& purchased lands for himself & his sister& declined to repay the huge amount of Rs . Two Crores& 79 Lakhs, the Suit for recovery of money was filed. Upon hearing the arguments of M. Ravi & Priya Ravi, for the plaintiff and the learned counsels for the defendants,His Lordship Justice P. Dhanabal was pleased to allow the Suit . The Suit has been decreed with costs& interest, in favour of the Plaintiff .
- As the defendant, exploiting the absence of any written agreement ,had misappropriated the amounts remitted to his account by the plaintiff for purchase of lands& purchased lands for himself & his sister& declined to repay the huge amount of Rs . Two Crores& 79 Lakhs, the Suit for recovery of money was filed. Upon hearing the arguments of M. Ravi & Priya Ravi, for the plaintiff and the learned counsels for the defendants,His Lordship Justice P. Dhanabal was pleased to allow the Suit . The Suit has been decreed with costs& interest, in favour of the Plaintiff .