SEKAR REPORTER Blog

this Court has to necessarily interfere with the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal only on the ground that the petitioner in O.P.No.80 of 2006 namely the said Mr.M.Maher Dadha was not provided with sufficient opportunity to present his case at the most crucial stage of the proceedings. Hence, there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice.

2025:MHC:2424 Reserved on : 16.10.2025 Delivered on: 23.10.2025 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH Original Petition Nos.80 of 2006 & 862 of 2007 M.Maher Dadha...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
SIR /senior advocate NR Elango

SIR /senior advocate NR Elango

[28/10, 14:28] Sekarreporter: https://x.com/sunnewstamil/status/1983069641795936732?t=0wpI4HZ1ooFhaE8vLsVKXw&s=08 [28/10, 14:28] Sekarreporter: https://x.com/sunnewstamil/status/1983069641795936732?t=0wpI4HZ1ooFhaE8vLsVKXw&s=19

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.29023 of 2025 Varadarajan	           	                                   …   Petitioner -Vs- State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, South Zone, Chennai. (Crime No.28 of 2025)	     …   Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS Act

JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.29023 of 2025 Varadarajan … Petitioner -Vs- State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, South Zone, Chennai. (Crime No.28 of 2025) … Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS Act

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.10.2025 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.29023 of 2025 Varadarajan … Petitioner -Vs- State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
2017 (5)CTC 430 ( DB ) : shinago holdings pvt ltd vs M  Ethiraj : Principles laid down under order 38 rule 5 CPC would apply to application under section 9 of the arbitration and coincilation act in case for attachment before judgement

2017 (5)CTC 430 ( DB ) : shinago holdings pvt ltd vs M Ethiraj : Principles laid down under order 38 rule 5 CPC would apply to application under section 9 of the arbitration and coincilation act in case for attachment before judgement

[28/10, 10:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (5)CTC 430 ( DB ) : shinago holdings pvt ltd vs M Ethiraj : Principles laid down under order 38 rule 5 CPC would apply to application under section 9...

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