You may also like...
-
justices M Sathyanarayanan and P Rajamanickam stated that the litigant has not submitted any materials to support his claim that only a Kallar community member should have been appointed in the above post. They also pointed out that it is a service portfolio case and not a PIL and the litigant, despite being a practising advocate and a registered political party member, had not paid attention to the fact. Criticising the litigant for wasting the court’s time, the judge dismissed the PIL and directed the litigant to pay Rs 10,000 as cost to any one Kallar Reclamation school of his choice within two weeks.
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 1, 2020
-
[4/4, 07:23] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: 1. Court can pronounce judgement when parties are not in issue 2. Party to examine himself before any other witnesses 3. Memorandum of substance to be written and signed by judge 4. Court shall inform party not represented by pleader the court to which appeal lies and period of limitation 5 decree in suit for partition shall direct separation by Collector or any gazetted subordinate [4/4, 07:25] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Quote provision for above situation
by Sekar Reporter · Published April 4, 2020
-
12/23, 07:30] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/4uj3T0eSjhY [12/23, 07:30] sekarreporter1: ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ். அணிவகுப்பை சுற்றுச்சுவருக்கும் நடத்தும்படி பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவை எதிர்த்த மேல் முறையீட்டு மனுவுக்கு பதிலளிக்கும்படி, தமிழக அரசுக்கும், காவல் துறைக்கும் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டது.
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 23, 2022