Supreme court advocate famous cyber crime lawyer in india Nappinai madam interview regarding pubgi madan case whatsapp twitter case and new it rules congrats mam tks mam for exclusive interview
https://youtu.be/ckIL7u9pEzw
![[5/14, 13:21] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sureshkumarTOI/status/1260833474182709248?s=08 [5/14, 13:21] Sekarreporter 1: In a reprieve to @andrewsam founder of @simplicitycbe, #MadrasHC has made it clear that any action pursuant to FIR filed against him for publishing news article on alleged poor supply of food to CMC resident doctors would be subject to result of quash petition moved by him](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Full news THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD)No.2660 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 (Through Video Conference) Tmt.R.Rajathi – On the question whether the land once vested in the Government could be divested, the Supreme Court held in para 26 of the report in V. Chandrasekaran v.Administrative Officer [2012-5-L.W. 724; (2012) 12 SCC 133], that a land once acquired cannot be restored to the owners, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose either. 123. Therefore, it is clear that the original land owners do not acquire a right merely because the acquired land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose either. This is the general rule. The exception to this rule is in Section 48-B. But this exception also, as we have pointed out earlier, does not apply to all types of cases where the acquired land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. The exception under Section 48-B applies only to cases where the acquired land is not at all required either for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose.” 27. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any legal right for the petitioner to seek for reconveyance of the land, more particularly, when the State has already initiated steps to use the lands for public purpose for issuing ‘House Site Patta’ to persons belonging to Backward Community (B.C) and Most Backward Community (M.B.C.) and hence, this Court cannot issue a Mandamus and accordingly, the present Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
- Previous story [7/12, 08:20] Sekarreporter: https://youtu.be/f-ghPej_BNc [7/12, 08:20] Sekarreporter: [7/12, 08:17] Chandrasekar Mhc Advt: *சந்துரு சட்ட பயிற்சிப் பட்டறை*இணையதள கல்வி* *நீதித்துறை தேர்வாளர்கள்/ வழக்கறிஞர்கள்/ சட்ட மாணவர்கள்* பாடம்: *இ.த.ச. 1860* *தலைப்பு*அத்தியாயம்XVI* *நாள்*: 12 /7/ 2021 *நேரம்*: *6:45 PM to 8:30PM* தொடர்பு: 7339650446 [7/12, 08:17] Chandrasekar Mhc Advt: *CHANDRU LAW ACADEMY* inviting you to *Online coaching* for *APP/JUDICIAL EXAMINATION/MAGISTRATE* *SUBJECT* : *IPC,1860* *TITLE* – *CHAPTER XV* *CHAPTER XVI*,(continuation) Date: 12/7/ 2021 TIMING: 💥 6:45-8:30pm Contact:7339650446 [7/12, 08:17] Sekarreporter: 💐
Recent Posts
- Mhc news
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
More
Recent Posts
- Mhc news
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
