Tmt Kavitha vs The District Superintendent Of Police And Others
Judges: A Selvam, P Kalaiyarasan
07 August, 2017·THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN H.C.P.No.774 of 2017 Tmt.Kavitha Petitioner vs.1. The District Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.2. The District Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore.3. T...
Madras High Court
The Supreme Industries Ltd vs Gmmco Limited
Judges: Anita Sumanth
07 August, 2017·IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.08.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH O.P.No.188 of 2017 The Supreme Industries Ltd., represented by Mr. Rajendra Jugalkishore Saboo, the AVP (Corporate Affairs) & Company Secretary and its Authorised Signat...
Madras High Court
Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited Having Its Registered Office At M 10 vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By Its Additional Chief Secretary To Government Industries ( Mma 1 Department ) Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai And Others
Judges: M Venugopal, P D Audikesavalu
07 August, 2017·(Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL,J.) Heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Government Advocate for the First Respondent and the Learned Counsel for the second and third respondents.2. It comes to be known the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.186, Industries (MMA.1) Depa...
Madras High Court
V Senthamizselvan vs P Gurumoorthy
Judges: M Govindaraj
07 August, 2017·The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord / respondent has filed an interlocutory application under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller has passed the conditional order and the same was not complied with and therefore, f...
Madras High Court
Sri Ramakrishna Sarada Trust vs The Director Of Elementary School Education And Others
Judges: N Kirubakaran
07 August, 2017·The petitioner has challenged the order of appointing School Committee in respect of the school run by the petitioner's trust. The committee is for a period of three years only. As the period was already over as early as in the year 2001 itself, nothing survives in this writ petition.2. Hence, this ...
Madras High Court
The Senior Manager vs Tmt G Bhuvaneswari And Others
Judges: Nooty Ramamohana Rao, M Dhandapani
07 August, 2017·In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 07.8.2017 Coram :The Honourable Mr.Justice NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI Writ Appeal No.366 of 2017 & CMP.No.5588 of 2017 APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.2.2017 made in W.P.No....
Madras High Court
V Nagarajan vs The District Revenue Officer And Others
Judges: M Duraiswamy
07 August, 2017·The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought the permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and also made an endorsement to that effect.2.In view of the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is close...
Madras High Court
B Shankar vs The Tahsildar And Others
Judges: M Duraiswamy
07 August, 2017·Mr.Era.Premnath, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.2. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the ...
Madras High Court
J Rajasekar vs Pondicherry University Rep By The Registrar And Others
Judges: Nooty Ramamohana Rao, M Dhandapani
07 August, 2017·(Order of the Court was made by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5664 of 2017, whereby, the writ petition of the writ petitioner is dismissed.2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The writ petitio...
Madras High Court
Ravi Shankar Mangipudy vs The Authorised Officer And Others
Judges: S Manikumar, V Bhavani Subbaroyan
07 August, 2017·(Order of the Court was made by S. MANIKUMAR, J.) The petitioner has sought for a Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action, against respondents 3 and 4, in the light of the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.04.2014 and consequently, direct respondents 1 and 2 t...
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.