Follow:
- Next story Justice P.T. Asha refused to entertain the journalist’s application to reject the plaint and directed him to file a written statement in the suit by September 21. She eschewed his contention that the allegations levelled by him against the Chief Minister were merely a statement of opinion and they could not be the basis for preferring a defamation suit.
- Previous story கொடநாடு கொலை கொள்ளை வழக்கை மூன்று மாதங்களில் விசாரித்து முடிக்கவேண்டும் என நீலகிரி மாவட்ட நீதிமன்றத்துக்கு சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது full order.
Recent Posts
- Justice A.D. Maria Clete decided to deliver orders, on a plea to reject the plaint, after wondering how the plaintiff would stand to benefit even if the court decrees the suit
- These are the Islamic principles that the Hon’ble Justices of the Madras High Court, G.R. Swaminathan and P.B. Balaji, have mentioned in their judgments. Heartfelt Thanks* 🤲🕋 – Musthaqeem Raja, Advocate, Madras High Court
- [28/06, 11:49] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2071115932815237336 [28/06, 11:49] sekarreporter1: Sabaresan legal notice to Adav and Nirmal kumar
- division bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman observed that the petitioner has no locus to seek such prayer. The court does
- Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the Principal District Judge’s characterisation of the arbitral award as “hypothetical” reflected non-application of mind.
More
Recent Posts
- Justice A.D. Maria Clete decided to deliver orders, on a plea to reject the plaint, after wondering how the plaintiff would stand to benefit even if the court decrees the suit
- These are the Islamic principles that the Hon’ble Justices of the Madras High Court, G.R. Swaminathan and P.B. Balaji, have mentioned in their judgments. Heartfelt Thanks* 🤲🕋 – Musthaqeem Raja, Advocate, Madras High Court
- [28/06, 11:49] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2071115932815237336 [28/06, 11:49] sekarreporter1: Sabaresan legal notice to Adav and Nirmal kumar
- division bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman observed that the petitioner has no locus to seek such prayer. The court does
- Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the Principal District Judge’s characterisation of the arbitral award as “hypothetical” reflected non-application of mind.