Follow:
- Next story Justice Pugalendhi observed that the case pending before the division bench is only related to the disciplinary proceedings, and it would not prevent the DVAC from inquiring whether the town panchayat officials were involved in misappropriation. He passed the order, noting that the government had already granted sanction to initiate a
- Previous story Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held – “ Once it is not in dispute that on a previous reference the Tribunal after giving
Recent Posts
- நீதிபதி ஆர் சுப்பிரமணியம் அருமையான பேச்சு சைவ சித்தாந்த மாநாட்டில்
- DMK said that the Centre’s argument that Waqf dif-fers from Hindu endowments because Waqf encompasses chari-table purposes such as healthcare, education, and aid to the poor and needy, is entirely “fallacious”.
- [05/05, 13:32] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx4zXhTtnmGLO7k1eGVgVlI-69Ad_zcZUv?si=nL_BsIhIYBvTFL8L [05/05, 13:32] sekarreporter1: Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the department had gone on issuing notices and making demands even after being notified of the death of the assessee, thus making the proceedings ex parte and inherently defective. The Court held that such orders are void in law and susceptible to being quashed.”
- quashing of the order blocking YouTube channel ‘4 PM’. A bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice K V Viswanathan agreed to hear the plea and issued notices to the Centre a
- Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar ordered, “The respondents are directed to ensure that required number of State Level Scrutiny Committees are
More
Recent Posts
- நீதிபதி ஆர் சுப்பிரமணியம் அருமையான பேச்சு சைவ சித்தாந்த மாநாட்டில்
- DMK said that the Centre’s argument that Waqf dif-fers from Hindu endowments because Waqf encompasses chari-table purposes such as healthcare, education, and aid to the poor and needy, is entirely “fallacious”.
- [05/05, 13:32] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx4zXhTtnmGLO7k1eGVgVlI-69Ad_zcZUv?si=nL_BsIhIYBvTFL8L [05/05, 13:32] sekarreporter1: Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the department had gone on issuing notices and making demands even after being notified of the death of the assessee, thus making the proceedings ex parte and inherently defective. The Court held that such orders are void in law and susceptible to being quashed.”
- quashing of the order blocking YouTube channel ‘4 PM’. A bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice K V Viswanathan agreed to hear the plea and issued notices to the Centre a
- Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar ordered, “The respondents are directed to ensure that required number of State Level Scrutiny Committees are
