![2/6, 17:17] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1358019492698234883?s=08 [2/6, 17:17] Sekarreporter1: [2/6, 17:16] Sekarreporter1: Super [2/6, 17:16] Sekarreporter1: Legal Eagle Elites is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Special Session on “Intellectual Property Laws” – Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights Resource Person: M. Balasubramaniam, IPR Attorney & Advocate Date: 6-2-2021 (Saturday) Time: 6:00 PM IST Onwards Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9564726353 Meeting ID: 956 472 6353](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story DRAVADIAN FORAGE- AN EXPLORER BEHIND A LAWYER1
- Previous story Mr.V. Lakshmi narayanan, Advocate, Madras High Court zoom meeting
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*