Follow:
- Next story [2/22, 17:01] sekarreporter1: #MadrasHC has directed a Tahsildar to cut a coconut tree grown by a house owner within his compound. The reason is that the tree is leaning over a tiled roof house next door & the naturally falling coconuts/dry branches are damaging the tiles. @THChennai [2/22, 17:01] sekarreporter1: HamberMenu HOME NEWS INDIA TAMIL NADU Madras High Court directs Tahsildar to cut coconut tree leaning over house next door, in Mayiladuthurai The house owner had complained to the court that the coconuts and dry branches falling from the tree were damaging his roof tiles frequently; despite appeals to the neighbour and the district administration, the tree had not been cut down February 22, 2023 03:37 pm | Updated 04:07 pm IST – CHENNAI MOHAMED IMRANULLAH S. COMMENTSSHAREREAD LATER File photograph used for representational purposes only File photograph used for representational purposes only | Photo Credit: ASHOK R C. Vinoth Kumar of Kuthalam taluk in Mayiladuthurai district, had a problem with his neighbour’s coconut tree, planted close to the compound wall, leaning over his tiled roof and causing frequent damage to the tiles. He moved the Madras High Court and obtained an order for the tree to be cut. A resident of Om Kaleeswarar Sannidhi Street, Mr. Kumar filed a writ petition in the High Court complaining of the coconuts and dry branches, falling from his neighbour’s coconut tree, causing damage to the roof’s tiles. He claimed to have been suffering losses and mental agony due to
- Previous story Madras High Court convicts its court officer for taking bribe from illiterate man on false promise of securing job
Recent Posts
- THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.Nos.10807, 12409 and 12331 of 2026 Crl.O.P.No.10807 of 2026 K.Haridharan Vs. 1. The State Rep. by Special
- The Registry shall file a comprehensive Report furnishing the details with regard to total number of POCSO cases pending in every District of Tamil Nadu, number of Courts for POCSO cases that are presently functioning in every District, number of courts where Presiding Officers need to be posted, number of new courts to be established as well as infrastructure required for quick disposal of cases, etc. 3. Post this writ petition for further orders on 07.07.2026. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, C.J.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN J.) 22-06-2026 ssk
- Quashed order THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.P.(MD)Nos.7415, 6183, 9526 & 16387 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6087, 7591, 7592 & 12226 of 2026 W.P.(MD)No.7415 of 2026 M/s.Dugars, Represented by its Partner, Manjo Kumar Dugar, Son of Amar Chand Dugar, Door No.6, Plot No.8, MM Street, Kodaikanal-624 101. … Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Registration Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Law Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 100. 4.The Sub Registrar,
- Larger bench order THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR, AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN WP Crl. No s .722, 1167, 1244 and 1321 of 2025, and WPMP CRL. N o .555 of 2025 W.P.Crl.No.722 of 2025: Sheefa Rani W/o. Balu, No.13, SVSK Theru, Mahadmaganadhi Nagar, Marakonam Road, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. Petitioner(s)
- The Madras High Court has directed that applications seeking ordinary and emergency leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, shall once again be entertained pending the adjudication of a reference by a Five-Judge Bench and the Supreme Court’s consideration of a similar issue in Mukesh Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
More
Recent Posts
- THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.Nos.10807, 12409 and 12331 of 2026 Crl.O.P.No.10807 of 2026 K.Haridharan Vs. 1. The State Rep. by Special
- The Registry shall file a comprehensive Report furnishing the details with regard to total number of POCSO cases pending in every District of Tamil Nadu, number of Courts for POCSO cases that are presently functioning in every District, number of courts where Presiding Officers need to be posted, number of new courts to be established as well as infrastructure required for quick disposal of cases, etc. 3. Post this writ petition for further orders on 07.07.2026. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, C.J.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN J.) 22-06-2026 ssk
- Quashed order THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.P.(MD)Nos.7415, 6183, 9526 & 16387 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6087, 7591, 7592 & 12226 of 2026 W.P.(MD)No.7415 of 2026 M/s.Dugars, Represented by its Partner, Manjo Kumar Dugar, Son of Amar Chand Dugar, Door No.6, Plot No.8, MM Street, Kodaikanal-624 101. … Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Registration Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Law Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 100. 4.The Sub Registrar,
- Larger bench order THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR, AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN WP Crl. No s .722, 1167, 1244 and 1321 of 2025, and WPMP CRL. N o .555 of 2025 W.P.Crl.No.722 of 2025: Sheefa Rani W/o. Balu, No.13, SVSK Theru, Mahadmaganadhi Nagar, Marakonam Road, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. Petitioner(s)
- The Madras High Court has directed that applications seeking ordinary and emergency leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, shall once again be entertained pending the adjudication of a reference by a Five-Judge Bench and the Supreme Court’s consideration of a similar issue in Mukesh Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).