Follow:
- Next story 15:01] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1343489730621534208?s=08 [12/28, 15:01] Sekarreporter1: *CHANDRU LAW ACADEMY* inviting you to *online* *coaching* for *JUDICIAL
- Previous story Madras High Court resolves Ilaiyaraja, Prasad Studios dispute, composer to meditate for a day in his former haunt
Recent Posts
- appellant leased out acquired lands for developing Industrial Park for a period of 99 years for a lease amount of Rs.1/- p.a. and therefore, Clause 39 of the lease agreement would squarely apply for recovering sub-leasing charges. Further, SIPCOT is empowered to impose conditions and
- Mother-Father Temple Street) has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge, as no mandamus can be issued to the State authorities in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the street to be given a particular name.
- Naming of a street is certainly not liable to be interfered with the exercise of the powers under Article 226. 6. As the petitioner has no legal righ
- referred to the Vigilance Cell of the Madras High Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to hear this case. It is appropriate that the matter is placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for posting before an appropriate Bench
- cycling rally was flagged off in the presence of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court,
More
Recent Posts
- appellant leased out acquired lands for developing Industrial Park for a period of 99 years for a lease amount of Rs.1/- p.a. and therefore, Clause 39 of the lease agreement would squarely apply for recovering sub-leasing charges. Further, SIPCOT is empowered to impose conditions and
- Mother-Father Temple Street) has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge, as no mandamus can be issued to the State authorities in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the street to be given a particular name.
- Naming of a street is certainly not liable to be interfered with the exercise of the powers under Article 226. 6. As the petitioner has no legal righ
- referred to the Vigilance Cell of the Madras High Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to hear this case. It is appropriate that the matter is placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for posting before an appropriate Bench
- cycling rally was flagged off in the presence of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court,