Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Defendent: arul · Page 1 of about 1,955 results (0.134 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Nov 08 2005

Pattammal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-08-2005

Subject : Property

Acts : Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 18, 23(1A) and 51A

Reported in : AIR2006SC291; 2006(1)ALT17(SC); 2006(1)AWC216(SC); 2006(1)CTC232; JT2005(9)SC324; (2006)1MLJ177(SC); RLW2006(1)SC293; (2005)13SCC63

Advocate for Respondent : T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Adv. and ; V.G. Pragasam, Adv.

Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6309/04.2. 9 Hectares 75 Ares and 12 Ca of land situated in Keszhavei Village at Karaikal, Pondicherry, in Ward No. G, Block No. 3, spread...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 08 2008

S. Mira Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Mr. Farook Shabbir ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-08-2008

Subject : Customs

Acts : Foreign Trade (Development Regulation Act), 1992 - Sections 3, 5, 6(3), 8A, 8B, 9A and 9C; Customs Act, 1962; Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Sections 9A and 9C; Constitution of India - Articles 19(1), 226 and 301

Reported in : 2008(134)ECC199; 2008(160)LC199(Madras); 2009(235)ELT423(Mad); (2009)1MLJ846

Advocate for Respondent : C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Assistant Solicitor General

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The prayer in all these writ petitions is for declaring the policy condition imposed by the Director General of Foreign Trade vide its notification No. 15 (RE-2008)/2004-2009, dated 04.06.2008, insofar as it restricts...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 02 2006

Athimula Gounder and Ponnammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Deputy ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-02-2006

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 193 and 313

Reported in : 2007CriLJ271

Advocate for Respondent : V. Arul, Govt. Adv. (Crl.Side)

K.N. Basha, J.1. This appeal is preferred by accused 1 and 2, who are the husband and wife, challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Special Judge in S.C. No. 28 of...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Nov 23 2005

State Vs. Alexius Tirkey

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-23-2005

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302 and 449

Reported in : 2006(3)CHN508

Advocate for Respondent : Arul Prasanth, Adv.

P.N. Sinha, J.1. This appeal preferred by the State is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 28th July, 2005 in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2003 thereby...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 14 2005

Mrs. Nazia Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Govern ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-14-2005

Subject : CriminalCustoms

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2005CriLJ2925

Advocate for Respondent : V. Arul, Government Adv. (Crl. side) for R.1 and for R.3 in HCP No. 943/04 and ;Vanathi Srinivasan, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for R2

ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders of detention passed in the case of N. Santhanameeran and S. Sahul Hameed under Section 3(1)(i) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, detaining them in...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 19 2003

Tamil Nadu National Mine Workers Union, Rep. by Its General Secretary ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-19-2003

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ1061Mad

Advocate for Respondent : Arul Murugan, Adv. for ;Muthumani Doraisami

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioners are twenty workers, who are working in Periyanagalur quarry under the first respondent, a State owned company, located in Ariyalur, which was established in the year 1979, by the first...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 16 1999

Maragatham and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Cor ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-16-1999

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Reported in : 2000ACJ1216; (1999)3MLJ165

Advocate for Respondent : Arul Murugan, Adv.

M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants-appellants herein have filed this appeal seeking for enhancement. On 17.3.1991 one Purshothaman was riding his cycle at the extreme left side of the...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 16 1999

V. Maragatham and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Trans. Cor ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-16-1999

Subject : Civil

Reported in : I(2000)ACC124; 2001ACJ1336

Advocate for Respondent : Arul Murugan, Adv.

M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Having been dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants-appellants herein have filed this appeal seeking for enhancement. On 17.3.91 one Purushothaman was riding his cycle at the extreme left side of...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 19 2007

Rajendran Vs. Bensam Robinson

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-19-2007

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 138

Reported in : 2007(211)ELT368(Mad)

Advocate for Respondent : T. Arul, Adv.

ORDERP.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This Criminal Revision case is directed against the order passed by the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel in Crl.M.P. No. 9065 of 2006 in S.T.C. No. 58 of 1999. By the...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 20 2007

Anusha Vs. Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-20-2007

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21 and 309

Reported in : (2008)1MLJ1026

Advocate for Respondent : Arul, Adv.

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard Mr. Selvarangan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arul, learned Counsel representing the respondents and perused the records. 2. The petitioner challenges paragraph 6(A)(1) of the Advertisement No. 120 issued...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial