M/s.SURANA & SURANA Law Firm contributed Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Five Rs5,55,555/- towards Bar Council of Tamil nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP )Advocates Relief fund.We thank them for their kind gesture.
![21:06] Ayyar And Dolia: CMRL 2nd phase expansion through Nangmangallam forest is given a nod by NGT Chennai bench with approval from Forest Department. CMRL has conducted Biodiversity and environmental impact assessment reports. The proposed stretch of CMRL Corridor 5 alignment](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story First anniversary of landmark judgement day celebrated
- Previous story Justice R. Subramanian said: “The petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody in the present case. A perusal of the First Information Report (FIR) shows that the petitioner has as many as 11 previous cases against him and all are of similar nature.
Recent Posts
- Justice C Kumarappan observed that while the court has to exercise its discretion in a humane and compassionate manner, considering the past conduct, there was every possibility of delaying the trial.
- Author is a Senior Advocate at the Madras High Court and an International Energy Law Consultant. He advises Indian public sector undertakings and private entities on cross-border energy, critical minerals, and ECTA trade law, with offices in Chennai, New Delhi, and a FIFO venue in Sydney.
- Ed k n neru In these circumstances and taking into consideration the statement of the then Advocate General made at the Bar, we direct the State authorities not to undertake any further proceedings against any of the parties till the next date of hearing. 8. List these cases on 23.6.2026 as already directed on 28.4.2026. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 05.06.2026 sasi
- THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1004 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1046 of 2026 1. Gnanasekaran 2. Shanmugasundharam 3. Sundaramoorthi … Petitioners/Accused Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No. 157 of 2012. …. Respondent / Complainant 2. Paneerselvam ….. Respondent / Defacto Complainant
- [05/06, 15:01] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxoUcnEUKUAcNVuG0UxiOMPAoMye-4OYGH?si=jTcxTfFm8xzeOYXA [05/06, 15:01] sekarreporter1: [05/06, 14:59] sekarreporter1: New office bearers of MTB have met the CJ [05/06, 14:59] sekarreporter1: 👍
More
Recent Posts
- Justice C Kumarappan observed that while the court has to exercise its discretion in a humane and compassionate manner, considering the past conduct, there was every possibility of delaying the trial.
- Author is a Senior Advocate at the Madras High Court and an International Energy Law Consultant. He advises Indian public sector undertakings and private entities on cross-border energy, critical minerals, and ECTA trade law, with offices in Chennai, New Delhi, and a FIFO venue in Sydney.
- Ed k n neru In these circumstances and taking into consideration the statement of the then Advocate General made at the Bar, we direct the State authorities not to undertake any further proceedings against any of the parties till the next date of hearing. 8. List these cases on 23.6.2026 as already directed on 28.4.2026. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 05.06.2026 sasi
- THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1004 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1046 of 2026 1. Gnanasekaran 2. Shanmugasundharam 3. Sundaramoorthi … Petitioners/Accused Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No. 157 of 2012. …. Respondent / Complainant 2. Paneerselvam ….. Respondent / Defacto Complainant
- [05/06, 15:01] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxoUcnEUKUAcNVuG0UxiOMPAoMye-4OYGH?si=jTcxTfFm8xzeOYXA [05/06, 15:01] sekarreporter1: [05/06, 14:59] sekarreporter1: New office bearers of MTB have met the CJ [05/06, 14:59] sekarreporter1: 👍