Follow:
- Next story Cat member swaminathan bench order /transfer stayed/பாலியல் புகார் அளித்த பெண் வன அதிகாரியை பணியிட மாற்றம் செய்த மத்திய அரசின் உத்தரவுக்கு இடைக்கால தடை விதித்து சென்னை மத்திய நிர்வாக தீர்ப்பாயம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.
- Previous story [05/09, 10:12] Vinothpandian: 2018(6) CTC 590 ( DB) : V Santhi vs k Kumar ; Hindu marriage act 1955 sec 13(1)(1-a) : Held indulging in character assassination of spouse and failure to substantiate it in manner known to law is cruelty as it would cause actute mental pain and agony to other spouse[05/09, 10:12] Vinothpandian: 2019(6) CTC 9 : V manimegalai vs Selvaraj Kannan : TN regulation of rights and responsibilities of land lords and tenants act 2017 section 4 – A ( c) : effect of non – registration of tenancy agreement with rent authority ,non – registration would only render agreement not having evidentiary value ,held registration is not a pre condition for approaching rent court invoking provisions of section 21 for recovery of possession[05/09, 10:12] Vinothpandian: 2016(4) CTC 92 : Axis bank vs SBS organics Pvt Ltd : SARFASi act 2002 sec 18 : Held pre – deposit made by borrower with tribunal would not empower bank to claim general lien ,banker cannot exercise right of general lien against pre – deposit amount deposited by borrower[05/09, 10:12] Vinothpandian: 2019(6) CTC 62 : C Rangaraj vs inspector general of registration ,santhome : Registration act 1908 sec 22- A : Registering authority cannot act like post office and register any document presented if manifest lack of title apparent ,registering authority cannot register document[05/09, 10:12] Vinothpandian: 2015(3) CTC 1 : Ranganathan vs narayanan : limitation act 1963 section 3 : court can adjudicate issue of limitation even in absence of defence raised by defendant
Recent Posts
- [06/10, 15:28] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1842866950583591292?t=B3osCuxBnWBM7AcWaXCcfQ&s=08[06/10, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Justice Kannadasan at the Air Show Celebration along with his daughter Keerthana Arulnithi and grandchildren Mazhilan Arulnithi and Saaral Arulnithi.[06/10, 15:29] sekarreporter1: 👍👍🌹🌹
- தலைமை நீதிபதி கே.ஆர்.ஸ்ரீராம் மற்றும் நீதிபதி டி.கிருஷ்ணகுமார் அமர்வு, கடந்த 2017ம் ஆண்டே கூடுதல் ஊதியத் தொகையை திரும்பச் செலுத்திய மனுதாரர், மூன்று ஆண்டுகளுக்கு பின் உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் வழக்கு தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளதாகக் கூறி, தனி நீதிபதி உத்தரவை ரத்து செய்து உத்தரவிட்டது.
- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW.P.No.30639 of 2017A.Radhakrishnan Petitioner Vs.1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,Chepuak,Chennai – 600 005.2.The Commissioner,Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Nungambakkam High
- The Madras High Court has held that mere possession of tainted money is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the burden to prove the innocence lies upon the persons facing money-laundering charges.
- A Division Bench of Justices G. R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi observed that the claim of the petitioners was well founded and there was a waterbody in the survey numbers known as Aralikuthukulam.It was now well settled that the government as well as the citizens have a constitutional
More
Recent Posts
- [06/10, 15:28] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1842866950583591292?t=B3osCuxBnWBM7AcWaXCcfQ&s=08[06/10, 15:28] sekarreporter1: Justice Kannadasan at the Air Show Celebration along with his daughter Keerthana Arulnithi and grandchildren Mazhilan Arulnithi and Saaral Arulnithi.[06/10, 15:29] sekarreporter1: 👍👍🌹🌹
- தலைமை நீதிபதி கே.ஆர்.ஸ்ரீராம் மற்றும் நீதிபதி டி.கிருஷ்ணகுமார் அமர்வு, கடந்த 2017ம் ஆண்டே கூடுதல் ஊதியத் தொகையை திரும்பச் செலுத்திய மனுதாரர், மூன்று ஆண்டுகளுக்கு பின் உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் வழக்கு தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளதாகக் கூறி, தனி நீதிபதி உத்தரவை ரத்து செய்து உத்தரவிட்டது.
- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW.P.No.30639 of 2017A.Radhakrishnan Petitioner Vs.1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,Chepuak,Chennai – 600 005.2.The Commissioner,Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Nungambakkam High
- The Madras High Court has held that mere possession of tainted money is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the burden to prove the innocence lies upon the persons facing money-laundering charges.
- A Division Bench of Justices G. R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi observed that the claim of the petitioners was well founded and there was a waterbody in the survey numbers known as Aralikuthukulam.It was now well settled that the government as well as the citizens have a constitutional