![[13/08, 10:43] Sekarreporter: The Private complaint filed by Mrs. Uma Anandan,U/s.223 of BNSS ,2023 before the XVIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, Saidapet,Chennai,against Mr. K.Ponmudy, M.L.A on 12.6 2025, for the offences of hate speech, outraging the religious feelings, insulting the religion, and religious belief of Hindu religion U/s.196(1)(a),299 and 302 of BNS,2023 ,through her Counsel M/s S .Makesh and K.Premanand is transferred to Special Court for trial of offences pertaining to M.P and M.L.A of TamilNadu. [13/08, 10:43] Sekarreporter: .](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Mhc advt arulmoli interview regarding marriage age full video www.sekarreporter.com
- Previous story Mhc Advt P Vs Girithirar: To, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate, President, Supreme Court Bar Association
Recent Posts
- THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.M.A.No.2062 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.18113 of 2025 Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha, Rep. By its Mutawalli, M.Mohammed Azmathulaah, S/o. Mahamed Qutharothulla, Flat No.3,2nd Floor, No.89/149, Llyods Road, Royapetta, Chennai-600 014. …Appellant Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Represented by its Chairman,
- THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.M.A.No.2062 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.18113 of 2025 Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha, Rep. By its Mutawalli, M.Mohammed Azmathulaah, S/o. Mahamed Qutharothulla, Flat No.3,2nd Floor, No.89/149, Llyods Road, Royapetta, Chennai-600 014. …Appellant Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Represented by its Chairman,
- *Mere existence of Dargah does not make land a Waqf property: Madras High Court* The Court said the Waqf Board cannot assume automatic control over a Dargah unless the property is legally established as Waqf. https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/mere-existence-of-dargah-does-not-make-land-a-waqf-property-madras-high-court
- Vinothpandian: 2006 (4) SCC 538 : union of india vs Munshi Ram ; mistake on orders of court , cannot be allowed to retain the same benefit when the benefit given to Said others was reduced by order of court
- [08/06, 14:01] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx_oMflZJPFrOovujF03ZR6jbEnzOM5MId?si=z0ymYd4X_Px8P0XB [08/06, 14:01] sekarreporter1: *How an actress won ₹10 lakh from Sun TV for Veerappan’s remarks: 30-year case ends in Madras HC* During the interview, Veerappan had made certain claims about Sukanya’s alleged relationship with former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao’s son. https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/how-an-actress-won-10-lakh-from-sun-tv-for-veerappans-remarks-30-year-case-ends-in-madras-hc
More
Recent Posts
- THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.M.A.No.2062 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.18113 of 2025 Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha, Rep. By its Mutawalli, M.Mohammed Azmathulaah, S/o. Mahamed Qutharothulla, Flat No.3,2nd Floor, No.89/149, Llyods Road, Royapetta, Chennai-600 014. …Appellant Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Represented by its Chairman,
- THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.M.A.No.2062 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.18113 of 2025 Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha, Rep. By its Mutawalli, M.Mohammed Azmathulaah, S/o. Mahamed Qutharothulla, Flat No.3,2nd Floor, No.89/149, Llyods Road, Royapetta, Chennai-600 014. …Appellant Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Represented by its Chairman,
- *Mere existence of Dargah does not make land a Waqf property: Madras High Court* The Court said the Waqf Board cannot assume automatic control over a Dargah unless the property is legally established as Waqf. https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/mere-existence-of-dargah-does-not-make-land-a-waqf-property-madras-high-court
- Vinothpandian: 2006 (4) SCC 538 : union of india vs Munshi Ram ; mistake on orders of court , cannot be allowed to retain the same benefit when the benefit given to Said others was reduced by order of court
- [08/06, 14:01] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx_oMflZJPFrOovujF03ZR6jbEnzOM5MId?si=z0ymYd4X_Px8P0XB [08/06, 14:01] sekarreporter1: *How an actress won ₹10 lakh from Sun TV for Veerappan’s remarks: 30-year case ends in Madras HC* During the interview, Veerappan had made certain claims about Sukanya’s alleged relationship with former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao’s son. https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/how-an-actress-won-10-lakh-from-sun-tv-for-veerappans-remarks-30-year-case-ends-in-madras-hc