Siddhi Nagwekar

J.N. Ashmina, a NEET aspirant, was denied counselling participation under BC category. However, she was allowed later and yet, there was confusion with regards to her nativity certificate. The present case delves into the requirements of a nativity certificate. The case was heard and decided upon by Hon’ble Justice B.

Madras HC dismisses Malaysian National’s Plea demanding payment of Interest After 9 years, in question on the grounds of statute of limitations as also, the Petitioner failed to ask for a modification of or challenge the order in 1999.

A 25-year-old man, was arrested and detained by the Commissioner of Police and held as a “Sexual Offender” as given under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982. The Court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition and set aside the detention order of the detenu.

The court dismissed a PIL that contended that the Government had proposed to establish the Government Medical College, however the land so identified, has already been acquired for the Government Hospital, that if the Government utilizes the land for establishing District Directorate, it would lead to traffic problems of sorts in the area.

Madras HC dismissed former CISF Official’s appeal Petition over compulsory retirement order, the Court, along with other reasons stated that it does not sit in appeal over such disciplinary proceedings.

Madras HC Allows Intra-Court Appeal Against Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police

Madras HC Slams company for abusing the process of law by invoking Writ Jurisdiction of the high court upon an interim order of the trial court.

Writ Petitions were filed by Miss V. Shanti and Mr G. Ravichandran, challenging a common order of the Madras High Court dated 05 November 20. The impugned order was related to the allotment of an alternate accommodation extended to them under their eviction orders that were dismissed. The Petitioners claimed

Two Writ Petitions of a similar nature were taken up together by the Court. It refers to both the petitioners challenging their renewal of the original application for construction. The matter was heard and decided upon by Hon’ble Justice N. Anand Venkatesh. Facts of the Case The petitioners in the

A Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. It challenged a demand notice issued by The Commissioner which demanded the payment of approximately Rs. 65 lakhs for the renewal of the license of the Petitioner. The matter was heard and decided upon by Hon’ble Justice Abdul Quddhose.