தெருநாய்கள் தொடர்பான வழக்கில் தமிழ்நாடு அரசின் தலைமைச் செயலாளர் முருகானந்தம் உச்சநீதிமன்றத்தில் ஆஜர் தெருநாய்களை கட்டுப்படுத்துவது தொடர்பான வழக்கில் அனைத்து மாநில தலைமைச் செயலாளர்களையும் நேரில் ஆஜராக உச்சநீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டு இருந்தது.

You may also like...

• 

  Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Madras High Court The Madras High Court has held that a sale certificate issued upon completion of an auction is only evidence of title and does not operate as an instrument of conveyance capable of attracting surcharge under the Tamil Nadu Duty on Transfers of Property (in

  November 26, 2025

   by Sekar Reporter · Published November 26, 2025

• 

  Meta AI: The Madras High Court has upheld the CESTAT’s rejection of a limitation plea raised by Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt Ltd (MEPP) under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appellant, engaged in fabrication, was issued a Show Cause Notice in 2000 for allegedly floating shadow units to evade excise duty. The court noted that the limitation plea was raised for the first time before the Tribunal without supporting facts. Since the issue involved a mixed question of law and fact, and necessary factual material was lacking, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea. The court concluded that the extended limitation period was correctly invoked, and the appeal was dismissed [1]. Key points: – MEPP allegedly floated shadow units to evade excise duty (1995-96) – Limitation plea raised for the first time before CESTAT without facts – Madras HC upheld CESTAT’s rejection of the plea – Appeal dismissed, with no order as to costs

  January 14, 2026

   by Sekar Reporter · Published January 14, 2026

• 

  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Crl.A.(MD)Nos.451, 458, 479, 482, 498 of 2019 and 60 of 2020.      (i) These Criminal Appeals are allowed.                      (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the learned  Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Court), Tuticorin, in  S.C.No.233 of 2012, dated 13.08.2019,  is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges.                (iii) Since the appellant/A1 in Crl.A(MD)No.60 of 2020 is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.                (iv) The bail bond executed by the appellants in Crl.A(MD)Nos.451, 458, 479, 482 & 498 of 2019 shall stand terminated and fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them.                                                                       [J.N.B., J.]      [N.A.V., J.]                                                                                           23.09.2022

  September 23, 2022

   by Sekar Reporter · Published September 23, 2022