Daily Archive: October 28, 2025

Justice N. Sathish Kumar clarified that at the stage of execution, what is required is only a “minimum enquiry” — namely, to verify whether the Will is prima facie valid and can be admitted in evidence. The Court emphasized that “not a roving enquiry” is needed at this juncture; a full-fledged proof may follow during the proceedings.

[28/10, 19:48] Sekarreporter: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxcyYEneFwHyRCDvS2jbongyLKoC_K39kV?si=Ye02gV3bDq5oOXXc [28/10, 19:48] Sekarreporter: Kamalammal (died) & E. Rajendran v. Venu Reddy (died) & Ors. Madras High Court — N. Sathish Kumar, J. CRP [NPD] No. 17 of 2019 & CMP...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE BUILDING COMMISSION  (JOINTLY Established by UN SECURITY COUNCIL  as well as UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY)   INDIA STATEMENT  In   Peacebuilding Commission’s Ambassadorial-level Meeting on   Women, Peace and Security held at United Nations Headquarters, New York, USA   (10:00 am-1:00pm, 27 October 2025, ECOSOC Chamber)  Delivered by P.Wilson, Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Senior Advocate, India.  Excellency Mr. Chair,  Vanakkam

THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE BUILDING COMMISSION (JOINTLY Established by UN SECURITY COUNCIL as well as UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY) INDIA STATEMENT In Peacebuilding Commission’s Ambassadorial-level Meeting on Women, Peace and Security held at United Nations Headquarters, New York, USA (10:00 am-1:00pm, 27 October 2025, ECOSOC Chamber) Delivered by P.Wilson, Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Senior Advocate, India. Excellency Mr. Chair, Vanakkam

THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE BUILDING COMMISSION (JOINTLY Established by UN SECURITY COUNCIL as well as UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY) INDIA STATEMENT In Peacebuilding Commission’s Ambassadorial-level Meeting on Women, Peace and Security held at United...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

M. Govindarajan v. Soodamani & Ors. Madras High Court, per P.B. Balaji, J. CRP No. 2730 of 2022 & CMP No. 14241 of 2022, decided on 14.08.2025 Facts The petitioner, M. Govindarajan, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his one-fifth share in ancestral property. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application under Order VI Rule

[28/10, 19:15] Sekarreporter: M. Govindarajan v. Soodamani & Ors. Madras High Court, per P.B. Balaji, J. CRP No. 2730 of 2022 & CMP No. 14241 of 2022, decided on 14.08.2025 Facts The petitioner, M....

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