Tvk no CBI madurai bench
Follow:
- Next story Asianet communications p Ltd vs surya TV : no party can transfer any title better than what itself possesses , in a suit for injunction party bound to prove its own title in order to seek injunction
- Previous story Tvk judge senthil kumar order
Recent Posts
- 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.
- Counsel for Appellants: Mr. R. Palaniandavan Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Perumpulavil Radhakrishnan, Mr.P.T.Perumal Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 Case No: AS No. 971 of 2015
- Defamation case orderTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU AS No. 971 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 Sun TV Network Limited Rep By its Authorized Signatory 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Amended vide Court order dated 27.04.2022 made in CMP No. 7151 of 2022 in A.S. No. 971 of 2015] ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Ms. R. Sukanya 2. Mr. Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal 3. Mr. Veerappan ..Respondent(s)
More
Recent Posts
- 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.
- Counsel for Appellants: Mr. R. Palaniandavan Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Perumpulavil Radhakrishnan, Mr.P.T.Perumal Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 Case No: AS No. 971 of 2015
- Defamation case orderTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU AS No. 971 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 Sun TV Network Limited Rep By its Authorized Signatory 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Amended vide Court order dated 27.04.2022 made in CMP No. 7151 of 2022 in A.S. No. 971 of 2015] ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Ms. R. Sukanya 2. Mr. Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal 3. Mr. Veerappan ..Respondent(s)