Follow:
- Next story Madras HC issues bailable warrant against former Anna University V-C. —Justices R. Subbiah and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup passed the interim orders on a writ appeal preferred by the Indian Society for Technical Education (ISTE), who had been allotted the University land in 1992. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam of the High Court had on March 3, 2020 dismissed a writ petition filed by ISTE in 2004 against the University’s decision to resume the land.
- Previous story Having noted that the petitioner’s right to speedy trial has been infringed, I cannot wring my hands in despair,” observed the Madras High Court recently while directing the Narcotics Control Bureau (prosecution) to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the Petitioner-accused. While hearing the bail application of one M. Ananthan, booked under the NDPS Act for possession of prohibited quantities of contraband, a Single Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan called out the prosecution, i.e., the Narcotics Control Bureau for causing inordinate in the Petitioner’s trial.
Recent Posts
- Today 6 law tips / [20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) SCC 287 : Priyanka srivastava vs state of UP : when a borrower of financial institution covered under the SARFASI act , invokes jurisdiction under sec 156 (3) CRPC and also there is a separate procedure under Recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act , an attitude of more care , caution and circumspection has to be adhered to[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement: SLP ( civil ) No 9496 of 2020 dated 4- 02 – 2022 Ajanta LLP vs casino keisanki kabushiki computer ltd : consent decree cannot be modified / altered unless the mistake is patent or obvious mistake ( order 23 rule 3 CPC 1908 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) SCC 39 ; Joseph shine vs union.of india : A bench disagreeing with decision.of a larger or coequal bench can only refer the matter to a larger bench , it cannot disagree or dissent[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil.appeal no 363 of 2022 dated 10- 02 – 2022 Bank of baroda vs M / S karwa trading company and another : In a SARFASI proceedings , unless and until borrower ready to deposit / pay entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with secured creditor , borrower cannot be discharged from entire liability outstanding[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 830 : saradhammal vs sankaralingam : Held transfer of immovable property under attachment with knowledge of attachment vitiates transfer ( sec 52 transfer of property act 1882 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Held litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings especially when it contains a prayer for injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
- [20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1781564360177209576?t=ijXt2lW-UwiEB44RJHBZCg&s=08[20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: K Parasaran book Launch function vadapalani chennai today evening 5.30 thanjai sastra college chennai campus
- Juniors of Senior Govindaswinathan award function[20/04, 11:15] sekarreporter1: Juniors of late Senior adv Govindaswinathan award function held Sunday naradaganasaba 10.30 morning
- PLAINT LIFELINE OF LITIGATION
- DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: WHETHER THE SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC IS MAINTAINABLE FROM THE APPELLAT’S COURT DECREE OF REVERSING THE REJECTION OF PLAINT DECREE:-
More
Recent Posts
- Today 6 law tips / [20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) SCC 287 : Priyanka srivastava vs state of UP : when a borrower of financial institution covered under the SARFASI act , invokes jurisdiction under sec 156 (3) CRPC and also there is a separate procedure under Recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act , an attitude of more care , caution and circumspection has to be adhered to[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement: SLP ( civil ) No 9496 of 2020 dated 4- 02 – 2022 Ajanta LLP vs casino keisanki kabushiki computer ltd : consent decree cannot be modified / altered unless the mistake is patent or obvious mistake ( order 23 rule 3 CPC 1908 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) SCC 39 ; Joseph shine vs union.of india : A bench disagreeing with decision.of a larger or coequal bench can only refer the matter to a larger bench , it cannot disagree or dissent[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil.appeal no 363 of 2022 dated 10- 02 – 2022 Bank of baroda vs M / S karwa trading company and another : In a SARFASI proceedings , unless and until borrower ready to deposit / pay entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with secured creditor , borrower cannot be discharged from entire liability outstanding[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 830 : saradhammal vs sankaralingam : Held transfer of immovable property under attachment with knowledge of attachment vitiates transfer ( sec 52 transfer of property act 1882 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Held litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings especially when it contains a prayer for injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
- [20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1781564360177209576?t=ijXt2lW-UwiEB44RJHBZCg&s=08[20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: K Parasaran book Launch function vadapalani chennai today evening 5.30 thanjai sastra college chennai campus
- Juniors of Senior Govindaswinathan award function[20/04, 11:15] sekarreporter1: Juniors of late Senior adv Govindaswinathan award function held Sunday naradaganasaba 10.30 morning
- PLAINT LIFELINE OF LITIGATION
- DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: WHETHER THE SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC IS MAINTAINABLE FROM THE APPELLAT’S COURT DECREE OF REVERSING THE REJECTION OF PLAINT DECREE:-