Follow:
- Next story Govt has spent only 20 paisa per month to treat 15 crore people suffering from mental health: Madras high court
- Previous story Whether Advocate Sticker Is Legally Authorized & Why Not Court Bans Sticker As It Is Being Used For Criminal Activities? Asks Madras HC https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/whether-advocate-sticker-is-legally-authorized-why-not-court-bans-sticker-as-it-is-being-used-for-criminal-activities-asks-madras-hc-166503
Recent Posts
- The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a Family Court’s decision whereby custody of a 7-year old child (respondent 2) from his biological mother (respondent 1) was refused to be transferred to the appellant—father on the grounds that he kept a second
- Madras hc news
- CJ Bench 8 WA/175/2026 (Forest) THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND VS SRI KANCHI KAMAKOTI PEETHAM AND 4 OTHERS. STATE GOVERNMENT PLEADER
- No mudslinging against judges’: Madras HC pulls up lawyer in Savukku Shankar case During the bail proceedings, Shankar’s counsel alleged that the judge had exhibited bias by referring to Shankar
- Justice Vijayakumar of the Madras High Court, it observed that since the Censor Board had already granted certification, the court could not interfere. Granting liberty to file a public interest litigation in connection with the issue, the judge disposed of the case with this order.
More
Recent Posts
- The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a Family Court’s decision whereby custody of a 7-year old child (respondent 2) from his biological mother (respondent 1) was refused to be transferred to the appellant—father on the grounds that he kept a second
- Madras hc news
- CJ Bench 8 WA/175/2026 (Forest) THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND VS SRI KANCHI KAMAKOTI PEETHAM AND 4 OTHERS. STATE GOVERNMENT PLEADER
- No mudslinging against judges’: Madras HC pulls up lawyer in Savukku Shankar case During the bail proceedings, Shankar’s counsel alleged that the judge had exhibited bias by referring to Shankar
- Justice Vijayakumar of the Madras High Court, it observed that since the Censor Board had already granted certification, the court could not interfere. Granting liberty to file a public interest litigation in connection with the issue, the judge disposed of the case with this order.