Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: k subramanian · Page 1 of about 512 results (0.185 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.

Apr 25 2012

Pakkirisamy Yadav Saw Mill. Vs. the Additional Principal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-25-2012

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Tamilnadu Regulation of wood based Industries Rules 2010 ; Constitution of India - Articles 226

Advocate for Appellant : Mr.K.Sathish, Adv.

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent in E.Mi.PO/E.Pa/Kuda/Ko.Thani/A.No.25/11-12 dated 17.4.2012 and quash the same...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 25 2012

K.Gunasekaran. Vs. the Additional Principal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-25-2012

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Tamilnadu Regulation of wood based Industries Rules 2010 ; Constitution of India - Articles 226

Advocate for Appellant : Mr.K.Sathish, Adv.

Writ Petition  is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue  a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent in Letter No.2 Po/E.Pa/Pettai/Ko.Thani.A.No.007/12 dated 18.4.2012 and quash...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 25 2012

Elumalaiyan Saw Mill. Vs. the Additional Principal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-25-2012

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Tamilnadu Regulation of wood based Industries Rules 2010 ; Constitution of India - Articles 226

Advocate for Appellant : Mr.K.Sathish, Adv.

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent in E.Mi.PO/E.Pa/Peralam/Kattu.Thani.A.No.11/2012-13 dated 16.4.2012 and quash the same...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Apr 03 2006

State Vs. Shanthi

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-03-2006

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 8, 20 and 42(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 391

Reported in : 2006CriLJ3082

Advocate for Appellant : M.K. Subramanian, Govt. Adv.

K.N. Basha, J.1. Crl. M.P. No. 2050 of 2006 in Crl. A. No. 524 of 2005 has filed by the State through the Inspector of Police, Erode Taluk Police Station, Erode, with a prayer to allow...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 05 2003

R.R. Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal Vs. State, Represented by Inspector of P ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-05-2003

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 438

Reported in : 2003(2)CTC605

Advocate for Appellant : K. Subramanian, Sr. Counsel for ;P.T. Perumal, Adv.

ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. In Crl.O.P. No. 4254 of 2003, the petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest, in the case in Crime No. 676 of 1998 on the file of Inspector...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 08 2003

Abi International, Rep. by Its Proprietor Madhu Valluri Vs. Additional ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-08-2003

Subject : Customs

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226; ;Customs Act, 1962; Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Sections 3(3)

Reported in : 2004(164)ELT18(Mad)

Advocate for Appellant : K. Subramanian, Sr. Counsel for Azhagu Shivanandan

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents at length.2. In brief, an adjudication proceedings was initiated...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 10 2006

Karumpandi Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-10-2006

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302, 307 and 397; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313

Reported in : 2007CriLJ1922

Advocate for Appellant : M.K. Subramanian, Legal Aid Counsel

K.N. Basha, J.1. Karumpandi alias Muthupandi is a sole accused in this case has come forward with this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I,...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 19 2012

A. Senthil Kumar and Others Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government, ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-19-2012

Subject : Education

Reported in : 2013(1)MLJ125

Advocate for Appellant : For the Petitioners: R. Yashod Vardhan, SC for P. Solomon Francis, L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 to R4, P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram, AGP, R5, M. Devendran, Standing Counsel, R6, M.K. Subramanian, Spl.P.P, R8, 12, 19, 27 & 30, Ms. C.

(W.P.No.26513 of 2010 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of proceedings of G.O.Ms.No.27, Finance (BPE) Department, dated...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 26 2004

Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani @ Janani and anr. Vs. State Through Inspect ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-26-2004

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 2004(3)CTC215; (2004)12SCC266

Advocate for Appellant : Kapil Sibal and; K. Subramanian, Sr. Advs., E.C. Agrawala, M. Agarwal, Rishi Agrawal and J. Seela

ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard both sides.3. This is an appeal directed against an order denying bail to the appellants. The appellants are accused in a criminal case registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and under Section 25 of...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 05 2010

Commissioner of Income Tax .. Vs. M/S. Luk India P. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-05-2010

Subject : Income - Tax

Acts : Income-Tax Act, 1961, - Section 260-A

Advocate for Appellant : Mr.K.Subramanian, Adv.

1. The Revenue has come forward with these appeals raising the following substantial questions of law:"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding...

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