SEKAR REPORTER Blog

Justice S Srimathy gave the direction on an anticipatory bail petition filed by six trustees — Thannermalai, Muthuraman, Alagu Narayanan, Arunachalam, Swaminathan, and Balamurugan. According to the prosecution, the six were booked by the district crime branch,

Justice S Srimathy gave the direction on an anticipatory bail petition filed by six trustees — Thannermalai, Muthuraman, Alagu Narayanan, Arunachalam, Swaminathan, and Balamurugan. According to the prosecution, the six were booked by the district crime branch,

Madurai Bench of Madras HC Madurai Bench of Madras HC MADURAI: The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court recently appointed a commission under a retired HC judge to probe into the alleged swindling...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Concluding the 86-page judgment, Justice Dr. R.N. Manjula delivered a categorical ruling, noting that: “This Court is constrained to hold that the entire process followed by the first respondent is in gross violation of the earlier orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench… The very registration of the FIR and filing of chargesheet are vitiated by jurisdictional error, legal bar, and procedural impropriety.”

Concluding the 86-page judgment, Justice Dr. R.N. Manjula delivered a categorical ruling, noting that: “This Court is constrained to hold that the entire process followed by the first respondent is in gross violation of the earlier orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench… The very registration of the FIR and filing of chargesheet are vitiated by jurisdictional error, legal bar, and procedural impropriety.”

Home News HIGH COURTS MADRAS CBI Cannot Override Court’s Authority: No FIR or Chargesheet Without Compliance with Section 195 CrPC: Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Idol Wing’s Former IG A.G. Ponmanickavel 28 December...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

(b)The Sale Deed dated October 15, 2012 registered as Document No.2160 of 2012 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Velagoundampatti stands in the name of the second Defendant would not bind the Plaintiff and her right (½ share) over the Suit Properties. (c)Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to costs. 11 / 12 / 2025 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes TK/pam To The Additional District Judge, Additional District Court, Namakkal.   R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

2025:MHC:2828 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 22 / 08 / 2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 11 / 12 / 2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Justice R. Sakthivel, Madras High Court The Madras High Court held that merely mortgaging the property is not sufficient to disrupt the presumption of joint possession by co-heirs/co-owners. The Court held thus in an Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Home / Court Updates / High Courts / Madras High Court Merely Mortgaging Property Not Sufficient To Disrupt Presumption Of Joint Possession By Co-Heirs: Madras High Court The Madras High Court remarked that in...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

The point framed for consideration is answered that the Will under Ex. B-1 has been proved as required under law. 35. In view of the above reasons, the Appeal stands allowed. The Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is set aside. No order as to costs. [C.V.K., J.] [K.B., J.]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 01.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 08 .12.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU A.S.No. 521 of 2011...

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