Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing The State vs G.Karunairaj on 26 November, 2013

Rajalakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 July, 2019

18 As far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in S. Jayachandran (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, the order passed under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act was set aside, is concerned, we are unable to persuade ourselves to follow the said order, since it does not even refer to the law laid down by the Full Bench in Sree Latha (supra) and by the Division Benches in Kalavathy (supra), Premavathy (supra) and Karunairaj (supra).
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document

Varaluxsume vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 October, 2019

18 As far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.Jayachandran (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, the order passed under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act was set aside, is concerned, we are unable to persuade ourselves to follow the said order, since it does not even refer to the law laid down by the Full Bench in Sree Latha (supra) and by the Division Benches in Kalavathy (supra), Premavathy (supra) and Karunairaj (supra).
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document

A.Yogeshwari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 January, 2022

2. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the State and others vs. G.Karunairaj reported in 2014(1) LW 55 had held that the State has power to impose reasonable restriction on movements and direct them to reside in a particular place. Since there is no illegal custody, if there is any grievance over the restriction made by the Government, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same by way of filing writ petition and the Habeas Corpus Petition is not at all maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document
1