You may also like...
Follow:
- Next story திருச்செந்தூர் தொகுதி திமுக எம்எல்ஏ அனிதா ராதாகிருஷ்ணனுக்கு எதிரான தேர்தல் வழக்கை நிராகரிக்க சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் மறுப்பு
- Previous story On perusal of the submissions, justice S S Sundar observed that Dharmar stood by his final report closing the counter case as mistake of fact as the case was a false one. The judge said that his action cannot be taken as a serious misconduct. The judge said the petitioner had explained to the second and third charges against him by stating that the deputy superintendent of police asked him not to go to the village due to emotional turbulence in the village after the murder. “It is a normal behaviour of any person from the victim’s family to complain about the inaction or inefficiency against the police official if something big happens. When serious charges are framed against the investigation officer alleging dereliction of duty, the allegations should be specific. In the present case, the allegations are too remote,” observed the judge.
Recent Posts
- Breaking
- today 5 law tips Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) CTC 33 : Hariba tatyaba more vs dada ekhatnath more ( FB ) : procedural laws intended to sub – serve cause of substantive justice , inherent power under section 151 of code can be exercised in interest of justice to restore suit dismissed under order 9 rule 5 ( 1) CPC 1908
- Today the matter was listed before the High Court, honourable justice, Sachin Dutta, heard both the parties enquired election commission as to what action has been taken on the representation of the petitioner. The ECI produced an order dated 20 April 2024, that was passed after the filing of the repetition Wherein ECI, without any reasoning has rejected the representation. ECI stated that the petitioner didn’t have the locus and petition. The earlier petition filed with regard to the same issue by someone else has been dismissed as withdrawn at the Honble High Court of Delhi.
- THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHWP.No.6859 of 2017 andWMP.Nos.7912 of 2020 & 7436 of 2017Sasikala … PetitionerVs1.The Secretary to Government, Health Department, Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.2.The District Collector, Salem District.3.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District.
- (no title)
More
Recent Posts
- Breaking
- today 5 law tips Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) CTC 33 : Hariba tatyaba more vs dada ekhatnath more ( FB ) : procedural laws intended to sub – serve cause of substantive justice , inherent power under section 151 of code can be exercised in interest of justice to restore suit dismissed under order 9 rule 5 ( 1) CPC 1908
- Today the matter was listed before the High Court, honourable justice, Sachin Dutta, heard both the parties enquired election commission as to what action has been taken on the representation of the petitioner. The ECI produced an order dated 20 April 2024, that was passed after the filing of the repetition Wherein ECI, without any reasoning has rejected the representation. ECI stated that the petitioner didn’t have the locus and petition. The earlier petition filed with regard to the same issue by someone else has been dismissed as withdrawn at the Honble High Court of Delhi.
- THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHWP.No.6859 of 2017 andWMP.Nos.7912 of 2020 & 7436 of 2017Sasikala … PetitionerVs1.The Secretary to Government, Health Department, Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.2.The District Collector, Salem District.3.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District.
- (no title)