![வருமான வரித்துறை சார்பாக வக்கீல. A p srinivasan argued [10/10, 12:09] Sekarreporter: வருமானவரித்துறை நடிகர் விஜய்க்கு ஒரு கோடி 50 லட்சம் அபராதம் எதிர்த்து நடிகர் விஜய் தாக்கல் செய்த வழக்கை நீதிபதி சரவணன் விசாரித்தார் அப்போது விஜய் தரப்பில் ஆஜரான வக்கீல் இந்த வழக்கில் அவகாசம் வேண்டும் என்று கோரிக்கை வைத்தார் இதனால் வழக்கு விசாரணை ஒரு கிலோ 28 ஆம் தேதிக்கு ஒத்தி வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது [10/10, 12:09] Sekarreporter: வருமான வரித்துறை சார்பாக வக்கீல. A p srinivasan argued](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
Recent Posts
- Supreme Court has reiterated that the mere non-registration of a will cannot be treated as a circumstance casting suspicion on its genuineness, emphasizing that Indian law does not mandate registration of wills
- Pmla case anitha radakrishnan
- Justice Pugalendhi noted that both the high court and the Supreme Court, in similar petitions, have recognised the labour inspector’s right to confer permanent status on eligible employees.
- The Supreme Court on Friday modified its March 11 order that had directed the Centre, states and others to disassociate from three academics, following a row over an NCERT book chapter containing “offending” contents on corruption in the judiciary.
- Ipr case Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, by an order dated April 29, 2026, said the organiser would not be permitted to proceed with the events unless it either paid the amount claimed by IPRS or created a fixed deposit in favour of the registrar general of the high court.
More
Recent Posts
- Supreme Court has reiterated that the mere non-registration of a will cannot be treated as a circumstance casting suspicion on its genuineness, emphasizing that Indian law does not mandate registration of wills
- Pmla case anitha radakrishnan
- Justice Pugalendhi noted that both the high court and the Supreme Court, in similar petitions, have recognised the labour inspector’s right to confer permanent status on eligible employees.
- The Supreme Court on Friday modified its March 11 order that had directed the Centre, states and others to disassociate from three academics, following a row over an NCERT book chapter containing “offending” contents on corruption in the judiciary.
- Ipr case Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, by an order dated April 29, 2026, said the organiser would not be permitted to proceed with the events unless it either paid the amount claimed by IPRS or created a fixed deposit in favour of the registrar general of the high court.