You may also like...
-
On perusal of the submissions, justice S S Sundar observed that Dharmar stood by his final report closing the counter case as mistake of fact as the case was a false one. The judge said that his action cannot be taken as a serious misconduct. The judge said the petitioner had explained to the second and third charges against him by stating that the deputy superintendent of police asked him not to go to the village due to emotional turbulence in the village after the murder. “It is a normal behaviour of any person from the victim’s family to complain about the inaction or inefficiency against the police official if something big happens. When serious charges are framed against the investigation officer alleging dereliction of duty, the allegations should be specific. In the present case, the allegations are too remote,” observed the judge.
by Sekar Reporter · Published June 17, 2020
-
Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Order 6 rule 2 , 17 & order 1 rule 1 Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exorts Pvt. Ltd., & others 2012(4) SCJ 724 Amendment to plaint to detail payment of consideration not stated in the original plaint- High Court permitted amendment and impleadment of plaintiff 2 and 3 in suit for specific performance – Liberal approach should be given where other side can be compensated by costs and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – cause of action not getting altered by amendment – Not barred by limitation
by Sekar Reporter · Published March 9, 2020
-
Former judge praba sridevan lecture in sasthira college video
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 5, 2020