![[11/8, 18:19] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1325420064342831105?s=08 [11/8, 18:19] Sekarreporter 1: The Attorney General for India, K K Venugopal, has refused to reconsider his decision declining consent to initiate criminal contempt against the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy and his advisor.. Read more: https://t.co/aqkK2bK6Q2 https://t.co/npqwFCs3Zk](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Today 6 law tips / [20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) SCC 287 : Priyanka srivastava vs state of UP : when a borrower of financial institution covered under the SARFASI act , invokes jurisdiction under sec 156 (3) CRPC and also there is a separate procedure under Recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act , an attitude of more care , caution and circumspection has to be adhered to[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement: SLP ( civil ) No 9496 of 2020 dated 4- 02 – 2022 Ajanta LLP vs casino keisanki kabushiki computer ltd : consent decree cannot be modified / altered unless the mistake is patent or obvious mistake ( order 23 rule 3 CPC 1908 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) SCC 39 ; Joseph shine vs union.of india : A bench disagreeing with decision.of a larger or coequal bench can only refer the matter to a larger bench , it cannot disagree or dissent[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil.appeal no 363 of 2022 dated 10- 02 – 2022 Bank of baroda vs M / S karwa trading company and another : In a SARFASI proceedings , unless and until borrower ready to deposit / pay entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with secured creditor , borrower cannot be discharged from entire liability outstanding[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 830 : saradhammal vs sankaralingam : Held transfer of immovable property under attachment with knowledge of attachment vitiates transfer ( sec 52 transfer of property act 1882 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Held litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings especially when it contains a prayer for injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
- Previous story Juniors of Senior Govindaswinathan award function[20/04, 11:15] sekarreporter1: Juniors of late Senior adv Govindaswinathan award function held Sunday naradaganasaba 10.30 morning
Recent Posts
- 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: –
- Today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2008 (1) crimes 165 ; suryalakshmi cotton mills ltd vs Rajvir industries ltd : commercial expediencies may lead a person to issue blank cheques and filling up of blanks in a cheque itself would not amount to forgery or cheating
- Neet exam / THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHANW.P.(MD)No.9920 of 2024Ms.MonishaVs.
- Chief justice gankapurwala and judge baratha chakravarthy i) In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void and ultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiated against the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424, 14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399, 17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.
More
Recent Posts
- 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: –
- Today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2008 (1) crimes 165 ; suryalakshmi cotton mills ltd vs Rajvir industries ltd : commercial expediencies may lead a person to issue blank cheques and filling up of blanks in a cheque itself would not amount to forgery or cheating
- Neet exam / THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHANW.P.(MD)No.9920 of 2024Ms.MonishaVs.
- Chief justice gankapurwala and judge baratha chakravarthy i) In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void and ultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiated against the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424, 14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399, 17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.