Today photos mhc advts human chain against CAA
Follow:
- Next story Mhc advts agitation advts opinion
- Previous story [1/3, 12:22] Pandian Mhc: Section 362 CrPC does not bar inherent power of high court To recall An order:SC NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs KRISHNA KUMAR PANDEY 6’Dec’2019 [1/3, 12:55] Sekarreporter: [1/3, 12:22] Pandian Mhc: Section 362 CrPC does not bar inherent power of high court To recall An order:SC NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs KRISHNA KUMAR PANDEY 6’Dec’2019 [1/3, 12:55] Sekarreporter: 👍
Recent Posts
- THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-05-2026 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G. R. SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN WMP No.21519 & 21523 of 2026 in WP No. 20111 of 2026 T.R.Ramesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600
- Justice C Kumarappan observed that while the court has to exercise its discretion in a humane and compassionate manner, considering the past conduct, there was every possibility of delaying the trial.
- Author is a Senior Advocate at the Madras High Court and an International Energy Law Consultant. He advises Indian public sector undertakings and private entities on cross-border energy, critical minerals, and ECTA trade law, with offices in Chennai, New Delhi, and a FIFO venue in Sydney.
- Ed k n neru In these circumstances and taking into consideration the statement of the then Advocate General made at the Bar, we direct the State authorities not to undertake any further proceedings against any of the parties till the next date of hearing. 8. List these cases on 23.6.2026 as already directed on 28.4.2026. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 05.06.2026 sasi
- THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1004 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1046 of 2026 1. Gnanasekaran 2. Shanmugasundharam 3. Sundaramoorthi … Petitioners/Accused Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No. 157 of 2012. …. Respondent / Complainant 2. Paneerselvam ….. Respondent / Defacto Complainant
More
Recent Posts
- THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-05-2026 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G. R. SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN WMP No.21519 & 21523 of 2026 in WP No. 20111 of 2026 T.R.Ramesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600
- Justice C Kumarappan observed that while the court has to exercise its discretion in a humane and compassionate manner, considering the past conduct, there was every possibility of delaying the trial.
- Author is a Senior Advocate at the Madras High Court and an International Energy Law Consultant. He advises Indian public sector undertakings and private entities on cross-border energy, critical minerals, and ECTA trade law, with offices in Chennai, New Delhi, and a FIFO venue in Sydney.
- Ed k n neru In these circumstances and taking into consideration the statement of the then Advocate General made at the Bar, we direct the State authorities not to undertake any further proceedings against any of the parties till the next date of hearing. 8. List these cases on 23.6.2026 as already directed on 28.4.2026. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 05.06.2026 sasi
- THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1004 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1046 of 2026 1. Gnanasekaran 2. Shanmugasundharam 3. Sundaramoorthi … Petitioners/Accused Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No. 157 of 2012. …. Respondent / Complainant 2. Paneerselvam ….. Respondent / Defacto Complainant