![[2/9, 10:30] sekarreporter1: Madras High Court sets aside detention orders Pointing to violation of procedure, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the detention orders passed by the Thoothukudi Collector against three persons accused of selling banned tobacco products and Indian-made foreign liquor bottles to school and college students. The court was hearing the petitions filed on behalf of the accused, S. Uchimakali, E. Manikandan and S. Sudalaimani, who had been detained in Palayamkottai Central Prison. The accused challenged the detention order passed in 2022. The detaining authority, after considering [2/9, 10:30] sekarreporter1: .](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story bank case news video
- Previous story Nkj bench question news video
Recent Posts
- 5 lakhs fine MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Contempt Petition No.556 of 2024 and Sub Appl Nos.174, 175 of 2024 and 72 of 2025 Elephant G. Rajendran Advocate, Plot No.4, Door No.10/301, Anjaneyar Koil Street, Vengaivasal, Chennai 600 126. … Petitioner Versus Mr.Shiv Das Meena, IAS., The Chief Secrtary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 9. Mr.P.Amudha, I.A.S., The Home Secretary,
- Justices N Mala and G Arul Murugan issued the order, citing concerns over the large-scale violence that had erupted during a similar event organised by the party in
- Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar dismissed the convict’s appeal against the Mahila Court’s 2019 judgment, noting that
- Centre told the Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy that a separate scientific method, prescribed by an expert body, was being followed.The court observed that upon perusal of the materials available on record, it was seen that the petition was premature. There was no data before the court to compare and determine the correctness of the rankings. The court was not inclined to entertain the petition, it observed, adding that if the petitioner was aggrieved after the publication of the list, he might challenge it with the evidence.
- Supreme Court on Friday pulled up an advocate, who represents an accused in the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam, for filing a plea purportedly on behalf of the victims of the same scam in which former minister Senthil Balaji is the prime accused.
More
Recent Posts
- 5 lakhs fine MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Contempt Petition No.556 of 2024 and Sub Appl Nos.174, 175 of 2024 and 72 of 2025 Elephant G. Rajendran Advocate, Plot No.4, Door No.10/301, Anjaneyar Koil Street, Vengaivasal, Chennai 600 126. … Petitioner Versus Mr.Shiv Das Meena, IAS., The Chief Secrtary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 9. Mr.P.Amudha, I.A.S., The Home Secretary,
- Justices N Mala and G Arul Murugan issued the order, citing concerns over the large-scale violence that had erupted during a similar event organised by the party in
- Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar dismissed the convict’s appeal against the Mahila Court’s 2019 judgment, noting that
- Centre told the Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy that a separate scientific method, prescribed by an expert body, was being followed.The court observed that upon perusal of the materials available on record, it was seen that the petition was premature. There was no data before the court to compare and determine the correctness of the rankings. The court was not inclined to entertain the petition, it observed, adding that if the petitioner was aggrieved after the publication of the list, he might challenge it with the evidence.
- Supreme Court on Friday pulled up an advocate, who represents an accused in the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam, for filing a plea purportedly on behalf of the victims of the same scam in which former minister Senthil Balaji is the prime accused.
