Chithmbaram temple case order mhc bench
![[12/17, 08:59] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1339412394947141634?s=08 [12/17, 08:59] Sekarreporter1: Madras HC recalls remarks made against an advocate who made an outcry of injustice – http://toi.in/0625CY/a31gj Use the TOI app to get Breaking news and headlines. Download now: https://timesofindia.onelink.me/efRt/ASmwebshare](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Justice PB Balaji noted that the airlines were negligent and had mischievously attempted to shift the liability to the caterer. Though the court interfered with the order of trial court imposing a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000, the court directed the airline to pay the cost of the suit and the court fee expenses.
- Previous story Constitution of Special Committee – Reg. ——– 1. The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry has taken note of the fact that an alleged unpleasant situation had occurred in and around the premises of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry on 07.10.2025,
Recent Posts
- sekarreporter1: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/Tipranks/2345278/beardsell-wins-appeal-battle-to-protect-core-trademark-in-madras-high-court/ [08/06, 11:16] sekarreporter1: Home Canada Business Investing
- The Madras High Court held that the impugned order imposing General Penalty under Section 125 of the TNGST Act, 2017 could not be sustained in law because the default alleged against the petitioner, namely delayed filing of Annual Returns for FY 2020-21, was already specifically dealt with by Section 47 of the GST enactments, which prescribes Late Fee for such
- First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer to respond to the contempt plea by July 2, 2026. They, however, dispensed with his personal appearance before the court for now.
- Counsel for Appellants: Mr. R. Palaniandavan Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Perumpulavil Radhakrishnan, Mr.P.T.Perumal Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 Case No: AS No. 971 of 2015
- Defamation case orderTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU AS No. 971 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 Sun TV Network Limited Rep By its Authorized Signatory 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Amended vide Court order dated 27.04.2022 made in CMP No. 7151 of 2022 in A.S. No. 971 of 2015] ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Ms. R. Sukanya 2. Mr. Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal 3. Mr. Veerappan ..Respondent(s)
More
Recent Posts
- sekarreporter1: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/Tipranks/2345278/beardsell-wins-appeal-battle-to-protect-core-trademark-in-madras-high-court/ [08/06, 11:16] sekarreporter1: Home Canada Business Investing
- The Madras High Court held that the impugned order imposing General Penalty under Section 125 of the TNGST Act, 2017 could not be sustained in law because the default alleged against the petitioner, namely delayed filing of Annual Returns for FY 2020-21, was already specifically dealt with by Section 47 of the GST enactments, which prescribes Late Fee for such
- First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer to respond to the contempt plea by July 2, 2026. They, however, dispensed with his personal appearance before the court for now.
- Counsel for Appellants: Mr. R. Palaniandavan Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Perumpulavil Radhakrishnan, Mr.P.T.Perumal Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 Case No: AS No. 971 of 2015
- Defamation case orderTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU AS No. 971 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 Sun TV Network Limited Rep By its Authorized Signatory 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Amended vide Court order dated 27.04.2022 made in CMP No. 7151 of 2022 in A.S. No. 971 of 2015] ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Ms. R. Sukanya 2. Mr. Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal 3. Mr. Veerappan ..Respondent(s)