You may also like...
-
Judge Baratha chakraverthy Court Observation:* The review application seeking to review the order dated 12.06.2024 in W.P.No.15468 of 2024 was dismissed. The court had earlier allowed the writ petition, quashing the recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner, based on the principles established by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. The review petitioners argued that the petitioner was a Group-I officer and a Self Drawing Officer, and had given an undertaking to refund excess payments, but the court ultimately dismissed the review application.
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 6, 2025
-
தயாரிப்பாளர் சங்கம் தேர்தல். Case today 2.15 order judge danabal advt thiyageswaran
by Sekar Reporter · Published January 30, 2026
-
justices M Sathyanarayanan and P Rajamanickam stated that the litigant has not submitted any materials to support his claim that only a Kallar community member should have been appointed in the above post. They also pointed out that it is a service portfolio case and not a PIL and the litigant, despite being a practising advocate and a registered political party member, had not paid attention to the fact. Criticising the litigant for wasting the court’s time, the judge dismissed the PIL and directed the litigant to pay Rs 10,000 as cost to any one Kallar Reclamation school of his choice within two weeks.
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 1, 2020