SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Daily Archive: November 25, 2025

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 25, 2025

COURT NO. 38 The Honourable Mr. Justion N.SENTHILUMAR TO BE HEARD TO VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHISTICAL MODEHIDATO ME ON TUESDAY THE 20TH DA OF NOV 2023 AT 10.30 A.M. (Degular List FOR PRONKKUNCING ORDERS OA 904/2025 MADHAMPATTY M/S.ViJAyAN SUBRAMANiAN M.V. BHASKAR THANGAVELI N.C.MARINDRAADITHYAN HOSFOTALITY MURALI FRIVATE LIMITED Vs DHANUSH M JOY CRIETLDAA AZERS BI ALBERT PAUL R C.S(COMM DIV) M/S VEJATAN 231/2025 THANGAVELU HOSPOTALITY PRIVATE LIMITED SURAAHANTARM.V.BHASKAR,N.C.NARINDRAADITHYAN, A. MURALI DHANUSH M/S.R. SUDHA (449/2000) M. MATHAN JOY CRIEILDAA AIRES BI ALBERT FAUL A, ЛАЈ (2070/2018), M. MAHESWARAN (2631/2024) M. NAVEEN (4394/2018).Α.P. SACHITHANAΝΤΗΑΜ (3734/2024), NO.6. CHENNAI HOUSE ANNEX BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, ESPLANADE, BROADWAY, CH-104, MOB-8122371081, VAK FOR DI-D.NO-36206/2025-FILED ON-15/09/2025, A 4489/2025 MADHAMPATTY THANGAVELU HOSTOTALITY PRIVATE LIMITED M/S.VIJATAN SUBRAMANIANM. V. BHASKAR,N.C. NARINDRAADITHYAN, A. MURALI, DHANUSH JOY CRIEILDAA MAZEES BI, ALBERT PAUL R.

COURT NO. 38 The Honourable Mr. Justion N.SENTHILUMAR TO BE HEARD TO VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHISTICAL MODEHIDATO ME ON TUESDAY THE 20TH DA OF NOV 2023 AT 10.30 A.M. (Degular List FOR PRONKKUNCING ORDERS OA 904/2025...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
justices P Velmurugan and B Pugalendhi gave the direction on a contempt petition filed by A Radhakrishnan of Salem, over delay in compliance of a judgment, dated October 23, 2019, which directed the department to take necessary steps to remove the encroachments in nearly 508 acres of land belonging to the temple and to restore them.

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 25, 2025

justices P Velmurugan and B Pugalendhi gave the direction on a contempt petition filed by A Radhakrishnan of Salem, over delay in compliance of a judgment, dated October 23, 2019, which directed the department to take necessary steps to remove the encroachments in nearly 508 acres of land belonging to the temple and to restore them.

justices P Velmurugan and B Pugalendhi gave the direction on a contempt petition filed by A Radhakrishnan of Salem, over delay in compliance of a judgment, dated October 23, 2019, which directed the department...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
justices P Velmurugan and B Pugalendhi gave the direction on a contempt petition filed by A Radhakrishnan of Salem, over delay in compliance of a judgment, dated October 23, 2019, which directed the department to take necessary steps to remove the encroachments in nearly 508 acres of land belonging to the temple and to restore them.

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 25, 2025

justices P Velmurugan and B Pugalendhi gave the direction on a contempt petition filed by A Radhakrishnan of Salem, over delay in compliance of a judgment, dated October 23, 2019, which directed the department to take necessary steps to remove the encroachments in nearly 508 acres of land belonging to the temple and to restore them.

“justices P Velmurugan and B Pugalendhi gave the direction on a contempt petition filed by A Radhakrishnan of Salem, over delay in compliance of a judgment, dated October 23, 2019, which directed the department...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 25, 2025

ஹரியானா மாநிலத்திலிருந்து இந்தப் பதவியை அடையும் முதல் நபர் இவர்தான். அவர் ஓய்வு பெறும் வரை, அதாவது பிப்ரவரி 9, 2027 அன்று ஓய்வு பெறும் வரை தலைமை நீதிபதியாகப் பணியாற்றுவார் என்று எதிர்பார்க்கப்படுகிறது.

வழக்குகள் எஸ்சிஓ.எல்ஆர் நீதிபதிகள் பகுப்பாய்வு நீதிமன்றத் தரவு சேனல் SC பற்றி SCO பற்றி உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தின் 75 ஆண்டுகள் பதிவு முகப்பு > பகுப்பாய்வு > சூர்யா காந்த் யார்?: 53வது தலைமை நீதிபதியின் உருவாக்கம் பகுப்பாய்வு சூர்யா காந்த் யார்?: 53வது தலைமை நீதிபதியின்...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a District Judge’s plea against Vigilance Enquiry, after he was accused of misusing his position to seek vengeance against his own former Personal Security Officer (PSO).”

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 25, 2025

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a District Judge’s plea against Vigilance Enquiry, after he was accused of misusing his position to seek vengeance against his own former Personal Security Officer (PSO).”

[25/11, 08:15] Sekarreporter: “The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a District Judge’s plea against Vigilance Enquiry, after he was accused of misusing his position to seek vengeance against his own former Personal Security...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Uncategorized

 by · Published November 25, 2025

Justice Victoria Gowri noted that as per Section 18A of the Schedules castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the officers could not conduct a preliminary enquiry when an information disclosed offence under the Act. The court noted that the nature of the allegation did not dilute the duty of the police to register an FIR once the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence.

[24/11, 19:48] Sekarreporter: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-sc-st-act-police-cannot-close-land-dispossession-complaint-civil-dispute-310994 [24/11, 19:48] Sekarreporter: The Madras High Court recently noted that the police could not refuse to register FIR based on complaint made by members belonging to Scheduled caste and Scheduled...

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