[12/26, 17:12] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1342797687054209024?s=08 [12/26, 17:12] Sekarreporter1: [12/26, 16:45] Thamaraiselvan Dmk: Mr.Wilson sir senior adv MP son reception [12/26, 17:09] Sekarreporter1: ☘️☘️

by Sekar Reporter · December 26, 2020

[12/26, 17:12] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1342797687054209024?s=08
[12/26, 17:12] Sekarreporter1: [12/26, 16:45] Thamaraiselvan Dmk: Mr.Wilson sir senior adv MP son reception
[12/26, 17:09] Sekarreporter1: ☘️☘️

You may also like...

• 

  [2/9, 08:20] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: , today law notes [2/9, 08:30] Sekarreporter1: [2/9, 08:19] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 09.02.2021: K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv – The Principles of Judicial Review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by the Government or its instrumentalities, in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. It’s decision to grant contracts/licenses to private bodies can be questioned in any one of the following grounds: (1) Bad faith; (2) Based on irrational or irrelevant consideration; (3) non compliance with prescribed procedure; (4) violation of any constitutional or statutory provisions; (5) collateral purposes; (6) ulterior motive; (7) Favouritism, Malice or Malafide Delhi Scientific Forum Vs. Union of India [AIR 1996 SC 1356] Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] Union of India Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation [(2001) 8 SCC 491] [2/9, 08:30] Sekarreporter1: ☘️☘️

  February 9, 2021

   by Sekar Reporter · Published February 9, 2021

• 

  https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1280450733310017537?s=08 today deep a filed written arguments in mhc

  July 7, 2020

   by Sekar Reporter · Published July 7, 2020

• 

  THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.O.P.No.6694 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3703 & 3705 of 2019 M/s. Vishaal Natural Food Products (I). For Petitioners        : Mr.B.Satish Sundar         For Respondent      : Mr.R.Nalliyappan. [8/3, 18:12] Satis Sunder Mhc Advocate: Judgement of sathikumar kurup.j.quasing complaint under s.138 N.I act holding that security cheque given by the accused to complainant during course of business without a contract between them is not an enforceable debt within the meaning of s.138 of the said act.Proceeding of the lower court quashed. [8/3, 18:12] Sekarreporter1: Super

  August 3, 2022

   by Sekar Reporter · Published August 3, 2022