Follow:
- Next story Army officer actual விடுதலை அதிரடி உத்தரவு Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial Court rendered in C.C.No.5 of 2000 on the file of the XIII Additional Court for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 29/05/2013 is hereby set aside. Fine amount paid if any to be refunded to the appellant. The bail bond shall stand cancel. 22.09.2023 Index :Yes/No. Internet :Yes/No. Speaking order/Non-speaking order rpl Copy to:- The XIV Additional Court for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai The Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai. The Special Public Prosecutor (CBI), High Court of Madras, Chennai. Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. rpl Pre-Delivery judgment made in Crl.A.No.443 of 2013 22.09.2023. Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial Court rendered in C.C.No.5 of 2000 on the file of the XIII Additional Court for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 29/05/2013 is hereby set aside. Fine amount paid if any to be refunded to the appellant. The bail bond shall stand cancel. 22.09.2023 Index :Yes/No. Internet :Yes/No. Speaking order/Non-speaking order rpl Copy to:- The XIV Additional Court for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai The Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai. The Special Public Prosecutor (CBI), High Court of Madras, Chennai. Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. rpl Pre-Delivery judgment made in Crl.A.No.443 of 2013 22.09.2023
- Previous story 425 ஆசிரியர் காலி பணியிடங்களுடன் அண்ணா பல்கலைக்கழகம் எப்படி செயல்படுகிறது நீதிபதிகள் சரமாரி கேள்வி
Recent Posts
- Consider and pass order /THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAMWP No.34387 of 2023Tamil Nadu Palli Mattrum Kaloori KalviThiraipada Amaippalargal Sangam,(Tamil Nadu Schooll annd College EducationalFilm Organisation Society),(Registration No.214/2015)Represented by its President
- bar council vice chairman karthikeyan speech வக்கீல் வெற்றி பெறுவது எப்படி
- judge manjula order In the result,(i) W.P.No.25424 of 2021 is allowed and the impugned government order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.(3D) No.3 School Education [SE(1)] Department, dated 13.07.2021 is quashed and the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to re-do the exercise by rightly issuing two separate selection lists one for the open category and another for the teacher category by following the communal reservation in accordance with the vacancies earmarked as against each community or priority and complete the exercise and issue the revised selection list within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(ii) W.P.Nos.19622 of 2020 and 169, 170, 3398,and 3402 of 2021 are also disposed with the abovedirection.(iii) No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 29.04.2024 Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes/No jrs To
- CONCLUSION:-(97)For all the above reasons, the writ petitions stand allowed and the impugned order dated 26.04.2017 in Letter No.24801/UD-VII[1]/2016-3 is hereby quashed. The clarification of limited extent of 13,720 Hectares of lands as catchment area as per Second Master Plan is declared unconstitutional. However, it is open to the respondents to revise the Master Plan taking note of this judgment and in the light of the recommendations of M/s.CUBE in their Final Report strictly adhering to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The respondents shall consult experts and provide necessary infrastructure to ensure protection of water bodies throughout the area where the jurisdiction of CMDA is extended and supply of quality drinking water in sufficient quantity. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.[S.S.S.R., J.] [N.S., J.]30.04.2024
- today law tips DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: THE HON’BLE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN R.MALA CASE REPORTED IN 2007 (3) LW 68 HELD THAT: –
More
Recent Posts
- Consider and pass order /THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAMWP No.34387 of 2023Tamil Nadu Palli Mattrum Kaloori KalviThiraipada Amaippalargal Sangam,(Tamil Nadu Schooll annd College EducationalFilm Organisation Society),(Registration No.214/2015)Represented by its President
- bar council vice chairman karthikeyan speech வக்கீல் வெற்றி பெறுவது எப்படி
- judge manjula order In the result,(i) W.P.No.25424 of 2021 is allowed and the impugned government order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.(3D) No.3 School Education [SE(1)] Department, dated 13.07.2021 is quashed and the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to re-do the exercise by rightly issuing two separate selection lists one for the open category and another for the teacher category by following the communal reservation in accordance with the vacancies earmarked as against each community or priority and complete the exercise and issue the revised selection list within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(ii) W.P.Nos.19622 of 2020 and 169, 170, 3398,and 3402 of 2021 are also disposed with the abovedirection.(iii) No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 29.04.2024 Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes/No jrs To
- CONCLUSION:-(97)For all the above reasons, the writ petitions stand allowed and the impugned order dated 26.04.2017 in Letter No.24801/UD-VII[1]/2016-3 is hereby quashed. The clarification of limited extent of 13,720 Hectares of lands as catchment area as per Second Master Plan is declared unconstitutional. However, it is open to the respondents to revise the Master Plan taking note of this judgment and in the light of the recommendations of M/s.CUBE in their Final Report strictly adhering to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The respondents shall consult experts and provide necessary infrastructure to ensure protection of water bodies throughout the area where the jurisdiction of CMDA is extended and supply of quality drinking water in sufficient quantity. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.[S.S.S.R., J.] [N.S., J.]30.04.2024
- today law tips DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: THE HON’BLE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN R.MALA CASE REPORTED IN 2007 (3) LW 68 HELD THAT: –