![[9/15, 19:34] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1702684537581625614?t=ZjrSVfkZY-wOF-4MEhr3nA&s=08 [9/15, 19:34] sekarreporter1: Senthil balaji bail detailed counter filed by asg sundaresan and ed n ramesh court (Designated Spl. Court for PMLA Cases) Crl.M.P.No. _____ of 2023 In CC.No. 9 of 2023 Senthil Balaji, S/o. Velusamy, No.27, Mullai Illam, Dr. DGS Dhinakaran Salai, Chennai – 28. …Petitioner/Accused Vs The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Chennai Zonal Office- II, B-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006. … Respondent/Complainant COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Sun tv reporter ramesh book released today in anna arivalayam by dmk chief
- Previous story Mhc advt Arun C Mohan —Curious Case of Coronil: Madras HC Restrains Patanjali from Using Trademark ‘Coronil’
Recent Posts
- In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void andultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiatedagainst the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424,14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399,17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.(ii) The respective show cause notices/orders issued against the appellants shall stand quashed. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiatefresh proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended, in accordance with law.(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)23.04.2024
- Today MBA evening NAVJ / on “A Judge Criticizing his own Judgment in thematter of Suit for Land”/
- [25/04, 11:08] sekarreporter1: ,[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/EqQEISHw-MQ?si=Vx_4sGsqVTaEXeBj[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: [25/04, 10:55] sekarreporter1: Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan recalled an interesting anecdote about former A-G R Krishnamoorthy, a doyen of Madras Bar
- R Y George Williams requested the first bench CISF extent to entire high court as well as entire judiciary in Tamilnau and further argued that baricaurd between the city court and High court May be removed and it maye be covered to entire campus to avoid multiple bresking to enter the high court premises. CJ informed that direction issued to everywhere. and further RY George Williams argued that high court for got the security of the lower judiciary
- Today 5 law tips/ Vinothpandian: 2019 (4) SCC ( cri ) 469 : kamil vs state of Uttar pradesh : sentence or order passed by trial court in absence of charge or any error , omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder cannot be held invalid by court of appeal confirmation or revision, unless the accused is prejudiced and failure of justice has been occasioned thereby (. Sec 464 CRPC )
More
Recent Posts
- In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void andultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiatedagainst the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424,14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399,17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.(ii) The respective show cause notices/orders issued against the appellants shall stand quashed. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiatefresh proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended, in accordance with law.(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)23.04.2024
- Today MBA evening NAVJ / on “A Judge Criticizing his own Judgment in thematter of Suit for Land”/
- [25/04, 11:08] sekarreporter1: ,[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/EqQEISHw-MQ?si=Vx_4sGsqVTaEXeBj[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: [25/04, 10:55] sekarreporter1: Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan recalled an interesting anecdote about former A-G R Krishnamoorthy, a doyen of Madras Bar
- R Y George Williams requested the first bench CISF extent to entire high court as well as entire judiciary in Tamilnau and further argued that baricaurd between the city court and High court May be removed and it maye be covered to entire campus to avoid multiple bresking to enter the high court premises. CJ informed that direction issued to everywhere. and further RY George Williams argued that high court for got the security of the lower judiciary
- Today 5 law tips/ Vinothpandian: 2019 (4) SCC ( cri ) 469 : kamil vs state of Uttar pradesh : sentence or order passed by trial court in absence of charge or any error , omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder cannot be held invalid by court of appeal confirmation or revision, unless the accused is prejudiced and failure of justice has been occasioned thereby (. Sec 464 CRPC )