Follow:
- Next story The real question was whether the final penalty order had been passed within the time limit set out in Section 275 of the Income Tax Act. At a preliminary stage, the court found that the order appeared to have been issued after the prescribed limitation and stayed recovery of the penalty.
- Previous story The Madras High Court ruled that a student who attains benchmark disability of 40 percent during the course of study is entitled to tuition fee waiver, notwithstanding the fact that the student was not admitted under the PwD quota at the time of admission.
Recent Posts
- 41.This judgment is a precedent for the proposition that when the language of the document is clear, plain and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to its literal
- Madras high court quashes corruption case against security officer of late Tamil Nadu CM Karunanidhi
- THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.4633 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.3270 of 2026 C.Ganesan, S/o.Chokkalingam Pillai, Inspector of Police, SBCID Security (Core Cell), /Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in the impugned Final Report in CC No.13 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Chennai in Crime No.4/AC/2012/CC-I on the file of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption, City Special Unit-I, Chennai-28 is quashed.
- Preponderance Of Probability Sufficient In Departmental Proceedings: Madras High Court Sets Aside Reinstatement Of Police Officer Found Drunk Inside Court Hall https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/2026-mhc-2846-director-general-of-police-v-v-arumuram-1618011 [19/07, 08:08] Meta AI: *Case #187: _Preponderance of Probability in Dept Proceedings_ | Madras HC* *Source: http://Verdictum.in* *Citation: 2026 MHC 2846* *Director General of Police v. V. Arumuram* *Service Law + Departmental Enquiry + Standard of Proof + Police Discipline*
- Judicial Magistrate, order quashed///HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.15309 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.9980 of 2026 Krishnamoorthy S/o.Subburaya Gounder … Petitioner vs. 1. State represented by The Inspector of Police Avinashipalayam Police Station
More
Recent Posts
- 41.This judgment is a precedent for the proposition that when the language of the document is clear, plain and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to its literal
- Madras high court quashes corruption case against security officer of late Tamil Nadu CM Karunanidhi
- THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.4633 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.3270 of 2026 C.Ganesan, S/o.Chokkalingam Pillai, Inspector of Police, SBCID Security (Core Cell), /Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in the impugned Final Report in CC No.13 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Chennai in Crime No.4/AC/2012/CC-I on the file of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption, City Special Unit-I, Chennai-28 is quashed.
- Preponderance Of Probability Sufficient In Departmental Proceedings: Madras High Court Sets Aside Reinstatement Of Police Officer Found Drunk Inside Court Hall https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/2026-mhc-2846-director-general-of-police-v-v-arumuram-1618011 [19/07, 08:08] Meta AI: *Case #187: _Preponderance of Probability in Dept Proceedings_ | Madras HC* *Source: http://Verdictum.in* *Citation: 2026 MHC 2846* *Director General of Police v. V. Arumuram* *Service Law + Departmental Enquiry + Standard of Proof + Police Discipline*
- Judicial Magistrate, order quashed///HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.15309 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.9980 of 2026 Krishnamoorthy S/o.Subburaya Gounder … Petitioner vs. 1. State represented by The Inspector of Police Avinashipalayam Police Station