Follow:
- Next story HC refuses to order notice in case filed by American International School
- Previous story [1/20, 16:24] sekarreporter1: [1/20, 16:24] sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1219211552219230209?s=08 [1/20, 16:24] sekarreporter1: வருமான வரி வழக்கை ரத்து செய்ய கோரி கார்த்தி சிதம்பரம், ஸ்ரீநிதி தாக்கல் செய்த மனுவை அவசர வழக்காக இன்றே விசாரிக்க சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் மறுப்பு #Highcourt | #KartiChidambaram [1/20, 21:51] Nalini Chithambaram Junior Nataraj: This is false news. Today i.e. 20-01-2020, A mention was made before the Madras High Court seeking permission to list the cases tomorrow and the cases are listed tomorrow. No request was made seeking permission to hear the case, today. Kindly issue the necessary clarification.
Recent Posts
- Removal of. encroachments S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 4677/1985 M.C.MEHTA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (MATTER IS LISTED ONLY FOR DIRECTIONS ONLY NAMES OF FOLLOWING ADVOCATES MAY BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE LIST :MR. S GURU KRISHNA KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.) MS. ANITHA SHENOY, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.)MR. A.D.N. RAO, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.)PETITIONER-IN-PERSON MR. G.S. MAKKER,MR. AMRISH KUMAR,MR. PRAVEEN SWARUP, MR. NISHIT AGRAWAL,MR. CHIRAG M. SHROFF, ADVOCATES ) Date : 30-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Ms. Aarti
- The Court while invoking the principles of Karma granted relief to the Petitioner-cop. “In the principles of Karma the “Sanchita Karma” (entire karma) is apportioned as “Prarabdha Karma” (portion of the karma) and punishment is imposed to undergo only for the “Prarabdha Karma” (portion of the karma).”, the bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed. – full order THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY (MD).No.19529 of 2022and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.14256 and 14257 of 2022 R.Srimurugan … Petitioner
- Quoting a Supreme Court order, Justice K Murali Shankar ruled last month that the position of law is well settled and that there is no bar or prohibition of initiating simultaneous proceedings claiming maintenance under different Acts, but while deciding the quantum of maintenance, the subsequent proceedings shall take into account the award made in the previous proceedings.
- Observing thus, the Bench of Justice Sandipkumar More quashed the lower court’s order granting the right to residence to a woman including access to amenities in the house.
- A bench of justices Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian set aside an order of the Madurai Bench of Madras HC order which reduced the compensation granted to appellants from Rs 4,29,37,700 to Rs 57,90,000.
More
Recent Posts
- Removal of. encroachments S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 4677/1985 M.C.MEHTA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (MATTER IS LISTED ONLY FOR DIRECTIONS ONLY NAMES OF FOLLOWING ADVOCATES MAY BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE LIST :MR. S GURU KRISHNA KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.) MS. ANITHA SHENOY, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.)MR. A.D.N. RAO, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.)PETITIONER-IN-PERSON MR. G.S. MAKKER,MR. AMRISH KUMAR,MR. PRAVEEN SWARUP, MR. NISHIT AGRAWAL,MR. CHIRAG M. SHROFF, ADVOCATES ) Date : 30-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Ms. Aarti
- The Court while invoking the principles of Karma granted relief to the Petitioner-cop. “In the principles of Karma the “Sanchita Karma” (entire karma) is apportioned as “Prarabdha Karma” (portion of the karma) and punishment is imposed to undergo only for the “Prarabdha Karma” (portion of the karma).”, the bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed. – full order THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY (MD).No.19529 of 2022and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.14256 and 14257 of 2022 R.Srimurugan … Petitioner
- Quoting a Supreme Court order, Justice K Murali Shankar ruled last month that the position of law is well settled and that there is no bar or prohibition of initiating simultaneous proceedings claiming maintenance under different Acts, but while deciding the quantum of maintenance, the subsequent proceedings shall take into account the award made in the previous proceedings.
- Observing thus, the Bench of Justice Sandipkumar More quashed the lower court’s order granting the right to residence to a woman including access to amenities in the house.
- A bench of justices Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian set aside an order of the Madurai Bench of Madras HC order which reduced the compensation granted to appellants from Rs 4,29,37,700 to Rs 57,90,000.
