Follow:
- Next story 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.
- Previous story 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
Recent Posts
- The Madras High Court has upheld an order a 2015 order of the trial court directing Sun TV to pay around Rs 10 Lakh compensation to actress Sukanya for airing the defamatory statements made by notorious
- Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira of #MadrasHighCourt has directed Tamil Nadu government to pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh each to three minor boys who were subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by none other than their fathers over a long period of time. Impressing upon the need for trial courts to order compensation in such incestuous abuse cases since
- sekarreporter1: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/Tipranks/2345278/beardsell-wins-appeal-battle-to-protect-core-trademark-in-madras-high-court/ [08/06, 11:16] sekarreporter1: Home Canada Business Investing
- The Madras High Court held that the impugned order imposing General Penalty under Section 125 of the TNGST Act, 2017 could not be sustained in law because the default alleged against the petitioner, namely delayed filing of Annual Returns for FY 2020-21, was already specifically dealt with by Section 47 of the GST enactments, which prescribes Late Fee for such
- First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer to respond to the contempt plea by July 2, 2026. They, however, dispensed with his personal appearance before the court for now.
More
Recent Posts
- The Madras High Court has upheld an order a 2015 order of the trial court directing Sun TV to pay around Rs 10 Lakh compensation to actress Sukanya for airing the defamatory statements made by notorious
- Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira of #MadrasHighCourt has directed Tamil Nadu government to pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh each to three minor boys who were subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by none other than their fathers over a long period of time. Impressing upon the need for trial courts to order compensation in such incestuous abuse cases since
- sekarreporter1: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/Tipranks/2345278/beardsell-wins-appeal-battle-to-protect-core-trademark-in-madras-high-court/ [08/06, 11:16] sekarreporter1: Home Canada Business Investing
- The Madras High Court held that the impugned order imposing General Penalty under Section 125 of the TNGST Act, 2017 could not be sustained in law because the default alleged against the petitioner, namely delayed filing of Annual Returns for FY 2020-21, was already specifically dealt with by Section 47 of the GST enactments, which prescribes Late Fee for such
- First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer to respond to the contempt plea by July 2, 2026. They, however, dispensed with his personal appearance before the court for now.