Dr S K Prakash vs The Directorate Of Government Examinations Higher Secondary And Others
Judges: N Kirubakaran
04 August, 2017·The petitioner has already got admission in Medical College and pursuing his medical course. Even if additional marks are given, the advantage which he would have got, has already been obtained by him and therefore there is no necessity to pass any orders.Hence, this writ petition is closed. No cost...
Madras High Court
V Arulmozhi vs Mr S Jayaramachandran Regional Transport Officer Chennai [East] And Others
Judges: M Duraiswamy
04 August, 2017·IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.08.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.SR.No.22090/2015 V.Arulmozhi ... Petitioner v.1. Mr.S.Jayaramachandran Regional Transport Officer Chennai [East], Chennai-12.2. Mr.P.Muruganandam M.V.Inspector O/o.The...
Madras High Court
Rajiv vs Ilakiya
Judges:
04 August, 2017·When the matter was taken up for hearing on 02.08.2017, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 04.08.2017 i.e., today, under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of V.M.VELUMANI, J.klt the petitioner. There...
Madras High Court
A.Anish Kumar vs The Chief Secretary
Judges:
04 August, 2017·(Order of the Court was made by T.S.Sivagnanam, J. ) The petitioner has filed this writ petition designed as a Public Interest Litigation with a prayer to direct the second respondent to take appropriate action on the representation dated 31.5.2017, in which the petitioner has sought for closing dow...
Madras High Court
S.Bala Krishnan vs The Additional Director Of Survey ...
Judges:
04 August, 2017·The order of cancellation of regularisation in Na.Ka. No.A8/3127/2013 dated 09.03.2015 and consequential notification in Na.Ka.No.A8/1931/2015 dated 10.03.2015 both issued by the 4th respondent, is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The order of cancellation of regularisation dated 9th March 2...
Madras High Court
M/S Borg Warner Morse Tec Murugappa Pvt Ltd Rep By Its Company Secretary Mr N Pandi 79 vs Mr S Jayagopal And Others
Judges: C V Karthikeyan
04 August, 2017·The learned counsel for the plaintiff made following endorsement:- “The plaintiff prays that the suit may be dismissed as settled out of court and refund of ½ court fees may be ordered.”2. In view of the same, suit is dismissed as settled out of court. The plaintiff is entitled to refund o...
Madras High Court
P Mathivanan vs The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Rep By Its Regional Manager ( Chennai South ) And Others
Judges: V Parthiban
04 August, 2017·IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.08.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.13817 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 P.Mathivanan .. Petitioner Vs.1. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation rep. by its Regional Manager (Chennai South), Chennai - 86...
Madras High Court
Pramella vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its Secretary To Government Prohibition And Excise Department [Home] Secretariat Chennai – 600 009 And Others
Judges: A Selvam, P Kalaiyarasan
04 August, 2017·IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 04.08.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN H.C.P.No.901 of 2017 Pramella .. Petitioner Vs1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise ...
Madras High Court
Kayal Aqua Hatcheries (Under ... vs The Registrar Of Companies
Judges:
04 August, 2017·The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter in the writ petition has become infructuous. She has also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also ...
Madras High Court
R.Karunakaran vs M/S.Hi-Tech Construction
Judges:
04 August, 2017·This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the workman seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation in W.C.Case No.128 of 2014.2. The fact that the appellant was working as Centring Carpenter in the site of the first respondent is not denied. Similarly...
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.