![[02/04, 10:41] Vinothpandian: 2002 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 43 ( DB ) : uniplas india ltd vs state : mere breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention was alleged right at the beginining of transaction [02/04, 10:41] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) CTC 97 : sarojinidevi A rep by power agent vs R Arumugam : code of civil procedure and civil rules of practice permits appearance of non – advocate to conduct litigation [02/04, 10:41] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) CTC 187 : vijay singh vs shanti devi SC : once ex parte decree is set aside , parties would be relegated to position at which they were when ex parte decree was passed ( order 9 rule 13 CPC 1908 ) [02/04, 10:41] Vinothpandian: 1996 (9) SCC 74 : secretary , Hailakandi bar association vs state of assam : Belated apology cannot be accepted in a contempt proceedings , because it is presumed not been given in good faith](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Concluding the 86-page judgment, Justice Dr. R.N. Manjula delivered a categorical ruling, noting that: “This Court is constrained to hold that the entire process followed by the first respondent is in gross violation of the earlier orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench… The very registration of the FIR and filing of chargesheet are vitiated by jurisdictional error, legal bar, and procedural impropriety.”
- Previous story (b)The Sale Deed dated October 15, 2012 registered as Document No.2160 of 2012 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Velagoundampatti stands in the name of the second Defendant would not bind the Plaintiff and her right (½ share) over the Suit Properties. (c)Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to costs. 11 / 12 / 2025 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes TK/pam To The Additional District Judge, Additional District Court, Namakkal. R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Recent Posts
- 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.
- Madurai Bench* *Division Bench*: Justices N. Sathish Kumar & M. Jothiraman — *1. Specific Direction to 14 Collectors*
More
Recent Posts
- 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.
- Madurai Bench* *Division Bench*: Justices N. Sathish Kumar & M. Jothiraman — *1. Specific Direction to 14 Collectors*