Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing V.Gopal Reddiar (Dead) By L.R. And Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 6 December, 1994

M.Veerappan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 February, 2019

8. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that Unnamalai Achi filed her statutory returns under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 58 of 1961 on 13.07.1965. Thus even though the proceedings had commenced under the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, the fact remains that they were continued after the Reduction Act came into force. Thus the case on hand will be http://www.judis.nic.in 13 governed by the ratio of Gopal Reddiar case, as rightly contended by Thiru.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Thiru.Veerappan.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

G.K.Mani vs New Generation Media Corporation (P) ... on 15 March, 2019

27. It is the further contention of Mr.Ar.L.Sunderasan, learned Senior Counsel, that even the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy and Ors v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2017 (6) MLJ 267, as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal alias R.R.Gopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 264, and the judgment of mine in Ms.Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. P.Varadarajan and others, reported in 2018 (3) CTC 710, make an exception regarding comments on political http://www.judis.nic.in 23 actions of political leaders and what has been prohibited is only publication of any matter relating to the private life of the political leaders. He would further submit that even the material produced by the plaintiffs in the typed set of papers by way of interviews and other publications would only show that all the comments therein are against the political actions and the political affairs of the plaintiff’s party and its leaders. Nothing personal has been said about them, therefore, the injunction sought for cannot be granted.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - R Subramanian - Full Document

G.K.Mani vs New Generation Media Corporation (P) ... on 15 March, 2019

27. It is the further contention of Mr.Ar.L.Sunderasan, learned Senior Counsel, that even the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy and Ors v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2017 (6) MLJ 267, as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal alias R.R.Gopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 264, and the judgment of mine in Ms.Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. P.Varadarajan and others, reported in 2018 (3) CTC 710, make an exception regarding comments on political http://www.judis.nic.in 23 actions of political leaders and what has been prohibited is only publication of any matter relating to the private life of the political leaders. He would further submit that even the material produced by the plaintiffs in the typed set of papers by way of interviews and other publications would only show that all the comments therein are against the political actions and the political affairs of the plaintiff’s party and its leaders. Nothing personal has been said about them, therefore, the injunction sought for cannot be granted.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document
1