Thangam vs The State Represented By
Judges:
06 April, 2009·(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) In this writ application challenge is made to an order of the first respondent made in M.H.S.Confdl.No.118/2008 dated 31.07.2008, whereby Mariappan, the husband of the petitioner, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prev...
Madras High Court
Rama Raja vs The Managing Director
Judges:
06 April, 2009·This petition has been listed under the caption "For Dismissal", since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, on earlier occasions, i.e., on 02.04.2009 and 06.04.2009. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed for non-pros...
Madras High Court
Thangavel vs Dharmalingam
Judges:
06 April, 2009·This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 15.3.2004 passed in A.S.No.253 of 2002 by the District Judge,Perambulur, confirming the judgement and decree dated 31.7.1997 passed by the District Munsif, Perambulur, in O.S.No.321 of 1993, which was ...
Madras High Court
The Chairman vs Umayal Ramanathan
Judges:
06 April, 2009·ii) On such payment, the appellants are directed to receive it, compound the offence and inform the same to the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai where the appeal in C.A. No. 250 of 1998 preferred by the respondent is pending, within a period of six weeks thereafter13. It is needless to mention that...
Madras High Court
Daco Fab vs The Commissioner Of Customs ...
Judges:
06 April, 2009·Today, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought the permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.2. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the pet...
Madras High Court
Tr.Chandru Alias Chandrasekaran vs The Secretary To Government Of ...
Judges:
06 April, 2009·(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent made in reference No.48/BDFGISSV/2008, dated 15.05.2008 whereby, Tr.Chandru @ Chandrasekaran, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities ...
Madras High Court
Mr.D.Selvaraju vs Order
Judges:
06 April, 2009·IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:06.04.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN C. R. P. (NPD) No. 796 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 T.Kolandasamy .. Petitioner Vs.P.Rathinam @ Rathinayal ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, ...
Madras High Court
A.M.S.Gurusamy Nadar vs The Commissioner
Judges:
06 April, 2009·Today, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought the permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.2. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the pet...
Madras High Court
K.Ramanathan vs The Govt. Of Tamil Nadu
Judges:
06 April, 2009·The petitioner, who was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the District Board Higher Secondary School from 1952 to 1964, filed O.A.No.7426 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking for a direction to the respondents to sanction pension with effect from 5.1.1981 and to conti...
Madras High Court
K.Arunachalam ..Revision vs U.Duraikannu
Judges:
06 April, 2009·Heard the learned counsel for the respondent, who would contend that E.P.No.28 of 2007 in O.S.No.420 of 1995 is a limitation EP and that the EP amount comes to Rs.15,709/90 and that even after the filing of the EP, the decree holder has not realised even a single paisa towards EP amount. Before the ...
Madras High Court
Don’t wait for legal issues to escalate
By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, Refund Policy and Content Policies. © 2023 - Uber9 Business Process Services Private Limited. All rights reserved.