Vishal case smsj bench question

You may also like...

• 

  Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy of the Madras High Court, with respect to the recent appointment of 148 Forest Apprentices without a single Tamil-medium candidate. This was because the Bachelor’s degree in Forestry was being offered in the State only in the English medium.

  October 3, 2020

   by Sekar Reporter · Published October 3, 2020

• 

  *Tamil Nadu Government Order – 4.5 Litre Personal Use Exemption Not Applicable to Liquor from Puducherry and Other States: Madras High Court Accepts Submissions of State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah* Petitioners Tamilarasan and Rajesh Kumar from Minjur filed a plea before the Madras High Court stating that a case had been registered against them by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing at the Elavur check post, alleging that they transported 3.4 litres of liquor from Andhra Pradesh for sale. They contended that, as per the Tamil Nadu Government Order, possession of up to 4.5 litres of liquor is permitted for personal consumption, and since the liquor they carried was for their own use, the FIR against them should be quashed. When the matter was initially heard, the High Court had granted an interim stay on further investigation. Subsequently, upon mention by the State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, the case was taken up for final hearing before Justice Nirmal Kumar. Counsel for the petitioners argued that only 3.4 litres of liquor had been brought, which falls within the permissible limit under the Government Order, and relied on earlier judgments and the 4.5-litre personal consumption exemption to seek quashing of the FIR. Opposing this, the State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah submitted that the 4.5-litre exemption applies only to liquor lawfully sold within Tamil Nadu. He argued that this exemption does not extend to liquor brought from other States such as Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, or Karnataka. He further pointed out that clarifications to this effect had already been issued by the Home Secretary. He also submitted that earlier judgments had not considered this crucial aspect and therefore would not apply to the present case. Additionally, he brought to the Court’s attention the misinformation circulating on social media claiming that the High Court had permitted transportation of up to 4.5 litres of liquor from Puducherry into Tamil Nadu. After hearing both sides, Justice Nirmal Kumar held that the 4.5-litre personal consumption exemption under the Government Order applies only to liquor lawfully sold within Tamil Nadu, dismissed the petition, and upheld the case against the petitioners. *This judgment effectively puts an end to the misinformation circulating on social media that up to 4.5 litres of liquor can be brought from Puducherry or other States into Tamil Nadu. It also reaffirms that transporting liquor from other States into Tamil Nadu is an offence under law.*

  April 29, 2026

   by Sekar Reporter · Published April 29, 2026

• 

  [14/03, 07:51] sekarreporter1: “Division Bench comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman upheld the order of a Single Judge which had quashed the department’s decision to stop the pension of a respondent, Srinivasan, following his conviction in a cheque bounce case. Background” https://lawtrend.in/conviction-under-section-138-of-ni-act-is-not-grave-misconduct-pension-cannot-be-withheld-madras-high-court/#:~:text=Division%20Bench%20comprising,Background [14/03, 07:51] sekarreporter1: .. [14/03, 07:51] Meta AI: மதுரை HC டிவிஷன் பெஞ்ச் (நீதிபதிகள் N. சதீஷ்குமார், M. ஜோதிராமன்), செக் பவுன்ஸ் வழக்கில் தண்டனை பெற்ற ஸ்ரீனிவாசனின் பென்ஷனை நிறுத்திய தீர்மானத்தை ரத்து செய்த சிங்கிள் ஜட்ஜ் உத்தரவை உறுதிப்படுத்தியது—138 NI Act குற்றம் கடுமையான தவறு இல்லை எனக் கருதப்பட்டது.

  March 14, 2026

   by Sekar Reporter · Published March 14, 2026