Follow:
- Next story Mbbs student Leave granted. 2. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner(s)/appellants herein are entitled to complete deposit of requisite fees by 10.12.2025. Upon deposit, they shall be allocated the seat in appropriate college(s). 3. This order is being passed the facts and circumstances of the case and it shall not be treated as precedent. 4. With these observations, the Writ Petition and the Civil Appeals are disposed of. …………………………………………………………………………J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA] …………………………………………………………………………J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR] NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 05, 2025 ITEM NO.46
- Previous story M m sundaresh sc judge NGT conference YouTube link
Recent Posts
- CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23251 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.20158 and 20160 of 2025 Saravanaperumal … Petitioner/Accused Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Pudukkottai District. Crime No.25 of 2017 … Respondents / Complainants 2. Anandanayaki … Respondent / Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the
- In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.39 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) BNS, 2023, is quashed as against the petitioners. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The interim stay already granted stands made absolute. 30.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Sml To 1. The Inspector of Police, DCB, Madurai District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
- Mmsj rskj pudukotai new court building mmsj excellent speech video
- Judge Victoria Gowri refused to quash because: prosecution has more than just co-accused statement, conscious possession is disputed fact for trial, prima facie case exists, and it doesn’t meet SC’s _Bhajan Lal_ criteria for quashing. So case must go to trial.
- Judge victoriya gowri This Court finds: (a) prosecution is not shown to rest solely on co-accused confession; (b) disputed questions of conscious possession arise; (c) prima facie materials exist requiring trial; (d) case does not fall within State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal20 categories.
More
Recent Posts
- CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23251 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.20158 and 20160 of 2025 Saravanaperumal … Petitioner/Accused Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Pudukkottai District. Crime No.25 of 2017 … Respondents / Complainants 2. Anandanayaki … Respondent / Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the
- In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.39 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) BNS, 2023, is quashed as against the petitioners. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The interim stay already granted stands made absolute. 30.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Sml To 1. The Inspector of Police, DCB, Madurai District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
- Mmsj rskj pudukotai new court building mmsj excellent speech video
- Judge Victoria Gowri refused to quash because: prosecution has more than just co-accused statement, conscious possession is disputed fact for trial, prima facie case exists, and it doesn’t meet SC’s _Bhajan Lal_ criteria for quashing. So case must go to trial.
- Judge victoriya gowri This Court finds: (a) prosecution is not shown to rest solely on co-accused confession; (b) disputed questions of conscious possession arise; (c) prima facie materials exist requiring trial; (d) case does not fall within State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal20 categories.