SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

Uncategorized

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Ranjith Kumar, and Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing on behalf of the HT Open Access Consumers, argued that the concession of deemed demand was explicitly granted to open access customers in the 2006 tariff order. In 2013, TANGEDCO, through its internal circular dated 29.07.2013, informed the Superintending Engineers of all divisions that it had been withdrawn from the 2013 tariff order, which was illegal and challenged by the Tamil Nadu Power Producers Association and open access customers through several writ petitions.

[10/03, 09:55] sekarreporter1: 👍 [10/03, 10:01] sekarreporter1: The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the finding of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court regarding the deemed demand concession withdrawal by TNERC...

Uncategorized

24.In view of the above, this Court finds the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 376(1) IPC is not sustainable. Hence, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 376(1) of IPC is modified to Section 417 of IPC and the sentence is modified to period already undergone and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C to the victim/PW2. 25.It is seen that in this case, the appellant deposited Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) to the credit of S.C.No.51 of 2016 before the trial

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 21.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 12.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.A.No.845 of 2018 Kumar … Appellant Vs. State by The Inspector of...

Uncategorized

Madurai Bench (Justice GR Swaminathan) rejected counsel’s claim that contempt can’t be heard by Single Judge after merger: cited Supreme Court, said contempt jurisdiction is independent, order was confirmed

[10/03, 08:08] sekarreporter1: ” HOMEBHARATWORLDOPERATION SINDOOREDITORIALANALYSISOPINIONCULTUREDEFENCEINTERNATIONAL EDITIONRSS @ 100MAGAZINEREAD ECOPY Home Bharat Thiruparankundram deepam row: Madras HC rejects Counsel’s argument, warns of charges if no response by March 18 The Madurai Bench of the...

NOTIFICATION NO. 61 / 2026 I. HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN will sit in a Division Bench at 2.15 P.M. on 10.03.2026 and take up the cases as listed through Video conferencing / Hybrid / Physical Mode. II. HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

Uncategorized

NOTIFICATION NO. 61 / 2026 I. HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN will sit in a Division Bench at 2.15 P.M. on 10.03.2026 and take up the cases as listed through Video conferencing / Hybrid / Physical Mode. II. HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

[10/03, 08:02] sekarreporter1: Today march 10 th cause list mhc https://www.sekarreporter.com/today-march-10-th-cause-list-mhc/ [10/03, 08:03] sekarreporter1: NOTIFICATION NO. 61 / 2026 I. HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN will sit in a Division Bench...

Uncategorized

Madras HC denied specific performance because buyer didn’t prove continuous readiness/willingness: missed timeline (₹3 L due Apr 2011, paid late Feb 2012; balance only in 2016). Trial court decree set aside; seller must refund ₹7 L advance

[10/03, 07:54] sekarreporter1: “Skip to content Home – News – Madras High Court: Specific performance denied where buyer failed to prove readiness and willingness — “Seller ordered to refund ₹7 lakh advance” Posted inNews...

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com