SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

Full order of THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM   W.P. No. 31785 of 2018 R.S.Suriya                                                                            … Petitioner                                                                      -vs- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax     Central 2,     Nungambakkam,     Chennai – 34. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax     Central Circle – II(4),

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 17, 2021

Full order of THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM   W.P. No. 31785 of 2018 R.S.Suriya                                                                            … Petitioner                                                                      -vs- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax     Central 2,     Nungambakkam,     Chennai – 34. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax     Central Circle – II(4),

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS                                           DATED: 04.08.2021                                CORAM   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM   W.P. No. 31785 of 2018 R.S.Suriya                                                                            …...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 52 ( DB ) : KR chandrasekaran & others vs union of india : Power of bank or financial institution to resort to provision of section 14 of SARFASI act is only in continuation and after taking possession as per process

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 16, 2021

Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 52 ( DB ) : KR chandrasekaran & others vs union of india : Power of bank or financial institution to resort to provision of section 14 of SARFASI act is only in continuation and after taking possession as per process

[8/16, 05:19] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 52 ( DB ) : KR chandrasekaran & others vs union of india : Power of bank or financial institution to resort to provision of section 14 of...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
முறையாக பயிற்சி பெற்றவர்கள் மட்டுமே கோயில் அர்ச்சகர்களாக நியமிக்கப்படுவதாக தமிழ்நாடு அரசு சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 16, 2021

முறையாக பயிற்சி பெற்றவர்கள் மட்டுமே கோயில் அர்ச்சகர்களாக நியமிக்கப்படுவதாக தமிழ்நாடு அரசு சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

முறையாக பயிற்சி பெற்றவர்கள் மட்டுமே கோயில் அர்ச்சகர்களாக நியமிக்கப்படுவதாக தமிழ்நாடு அரசு சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் தெரிவித்துள்ளது. தமிழ்நாடு முழுவதும் இந்து சமய அறநிலையத்துறை கட்டுப்பாட்டில் உள்ள 38 கோயில்களில் அச்சகர்கள் நியமனம் தொடர்பாக ஜூலை 6ம் தேதி விண்ணப்பங்கள் வரவேற்று அறநிலைத்துறை விளம்பரம் வெளியிட்டது. அதில், அர்ச்சகர்களுக்கான...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 16, 2021

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.10659 of 2021 G.R.Sekar … Petitioner vs. 1. The Government of India, rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Culture, CSL Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. The Public Information Officer, The Kalakshetra Foundation, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. … Respondents

[8/16, 14:27] Sekarreporter: W.P.No.10659 of 2021 6. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate is expected to inform the Sub-Registrar Office/Revenue Department/Land Acquisition Officers concerned of the Government of Tamil Nadu, to furnish a copy of...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *W.P.(MD) 12064/2018* K. Ravi Vs. The Regional Director of Municipality Dated: 04.08.2021 *Hon’ble Justice D. Krishnakumar* dismissed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Compassionate appointment – rejected on age restriction”* and observed and held the following: i)  According to the petitioner, as per Rule

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 16, 2021

GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *W.P.(MD) 12064/2018* K. Ravi Vs. The Regional Director of Municipality Dated: 04.08.2021 *Hon’ble Justice D. Krishnakumar* dismissed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Compassionate appointment – rejected on age restriction”* and observed and held the following: i)  According to the petitioner, as per Rule

*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *W.P.(MD) 12064/2018* K. Ravi Vs. The Regional Director of Municipality Dated: 04.08.2021 *Hon’ble Justice D. Krishnakumar* dismissed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Compassionate appointment – rejected...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Justice Anita Sumanth had ordered maintenance of status quo as on August 8 and directed the HR&CE department to file its counter by August 25. She also called for the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules of 2020. However, now the litigant association had moved an application to implead 37 other temples including the Subramaniaswamy Temple in Tiruchendur, the Prasanna Venkatachalapathi temple in Thuraiyur and the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple in Madurai.

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 16, 2021

Justice Anita Sumanth had ordered maintenance of status quo as on August 8 and directed the HR&CE department to file its counter by August 25. She also called for the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules of 2020. However, now the litigant association had moved an application to implead 37 other temples including the Subramaniaswamy Temple in Tiruchendur, the Prasanna Venkatachalapathi temple in Thuraiyur and the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple in Madurai.

. Then, Justice Anita Sumanth had ordered maintenance of status quo as on August 8 and directed the HR&CE department to file its counter by August 25. She also called for the Tamil Nadu...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Mhc advocate Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CTC 241 : mukanchand bothra S vs vairamuthu ramaswamy ( DB ) : contempt petition filed at behest of private indivdual without consent of advocate general is not maintainable (

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 16, 2021

Mhc advocate Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CTC 241 : mukanchand bothra S vs vairamuthu ramaswamy ( DB ) : contempt petition filed at behest of private indivdual without consent of advocate general is not maintainable (

[8/3, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CTC 241 : mukanchand bothra S vs vairamuthu ramaswamy ( DB ) : contempt petition filed at behest of private indivdual without consent of advocate general is not maintainable...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Exit mobile version