SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Daily Archive: November 13, 2022

Ganeshprabhu Adv Madurai: The demand notice has been sent after the mandatory time period of thirty days as prescribed u/s.138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, while so, the cognizance of the impugned complaint is illegal and bad in law.

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 13, 2022

Ganeshprabhu Adv Madurai: The demand notice has been sent after the mandatory time period of thirty days as prescribed u/s.138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, while so, the cognizance of the impugned complaint is illegal and bad in law.

[11/13, 12:43] Ganeshprabhu Adv Madurai: The demand notice has been sent after the mandatory time period of thirty days as prescribed u/s.138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, while so, the cognizance of...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.14336 of 2019 and Crl.MP(MD)No.8654 of 2019 M.P.Srinivasan                 : Petitioner/Accused Vs. K.Baskaran                     : Respondent/Complainant. For Petitioner        : Mr.s.Vanchinathan      For Respondent        : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan O R D E R 138 case. 13.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in STC No.29 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court Level), Theni is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.                                                    12.09.2022

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 13, 2022

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.14336 of 2019 and Crl.MP(MD)No.8654 of 2019 M.P.Srinivasan                 : Petitioner/Accused Vs. K.Baskaran                     : Respondent/Complainant. For Petitioner        : Mr.s.Vanchinathan      For Respondent        : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan O R D E R 138 case. 13.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in STC No.29 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court Level), Theni is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.                                                    12.09.2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on   : 07/04/2022 Pronounced on : 12/09/2022 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.14336 of 2019 and Crl.MP(MD)No.8654 of 2019 M.P.Srinivasan                 : Petitioner/Accused Vs. K.Baskaran                    ...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN S.A.No.821 of 2021 and CMP.No.15880 of 2021 Suresh Kumar   … Appellant ..vs.. Sivagami Sundar Rajan Hemalatha Vanitha … Respondents. For Appellant                           :     Mr.S.Kingston Jerold                                  For Respondents                           : Mr.A.Prabhakaran     JUDGMENT this Court confirms the judgment and decree of first Appellate Court in A.S.No.7 of 2019 dated 09.11.2020 confirming the judgment and decree of trial Court in O.S.No.233 of 2010 dated 27.10.2017 and dismisses the Second Appeal with the costs of the respondents throughout. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 13, 2022

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN S.A.No.821 of 2021 and CMP.No.15880 of 2021 Suresh Kumar   … Appellant ..vs.. Sivagami Sundar Rajan Hemalatha Vanitha … Respondents. For Appellant                           :     Mr.S.Kingston Jerold                                  For Respondents                           : Mr.A.Prabhakaran     JUDGMENT this Court confirms the judgment and decree of first Appellate Court in A.S.No.7 of 2019 dated 09.11.2020 confirming the judgment and decree of trial Court in O.S.No.233 of 2010 dated 27.10.2017 and dismisses the Second Appeal with the costs of the respondents throughout. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Judgment Reserved on 20.12.2021 Judgment Pronounced on 01.02.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN S.A.No.821 of 2021 and CMP.No.15880 of 2021 Suresh Kumar   … Appellant ..vs.....

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
In fine, this Court sets aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Judge/II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram, in A.S.No.10 of 2015 dated 03.09.2018 and restores the judgment and decree of trial Judge/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. in O.S.No.27 of 2008 dated 06.01.2015 in decreeing the suit in favour of appellants and allows the Second Appeal with the costs of appellants throughout. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, is closed. Mra    31.01.2022         Internet: Yes Index   : Yes Speaking/Non speaking order To The II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram. The Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J., mra Judgment in S.A.No.733 of 2019    31.01.2022

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 13, 2022

In fine, this Court sets aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Judge/II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram, in A.S.No.10 of 2015 dated 03.09.2018 and restores the judgment and decree of trial Judge/Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. in O.S.No.27 of 2008 dated 06.01.2015 in decreeing the suit in favour of appellants and allows the Second Appeal with the costs of appellants throughout. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, is closed. Mra    31.01.2022         Internet: Yes Index   : Yes Speaking/Non speaking order To The II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram. The Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J., mra Judgment in S.A.No.733 of 2019    31.01.2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Judgment Reserved on 07.12.2021 Judgment Pronounced on 31.01.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN S.A.No.733 of 2019 Ragina Beevi Sajithabegum Atham Ameer Ali Hakkim Meera …...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Madras high court 10 orders nov 12

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 13, 2022

Madras high court 10 orders nov 12

[11/12, 15:12] Sekarreporter 1: தேசிய மனித உரிமை ஆணையத்தின் பரிந்துரைகளை ஏற்றுக்கொள்ள முடியாது என மாநில அரசு மறுக்க முடியாது சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் தெரிவித்துள்ளது. வழக்கறிஞர் எஸ் கே சாமி என்பவர் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் தொடர்ந்திருந்த வழக்கில் கடந்த 2008 ஆம் ஆண்டு சென்னை சட்டக்...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu being the sole respondent is required to take a call on the compliance with the orders of the 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J. National Human Rights Commission, in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Full Bench in Abdul Sathar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and report by 15.11.2022. Post on 15.11.2022

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 13, 2022

The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu being the sole respondent is required to take a call on the compliance with the orders of the 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J. National Human Rights Commission, in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Full Bench in Abdul Sathar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and report by 15.11.2022. Post on 15.11.2022

  W.P.No.32041 of 2014 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J. The prayer in the Writ Petition reads as follows:- “directing the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- as awarded by the National Human Rights...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Exit mobile version