Justice M.M. Sundresh
Know thy Judge

Born on 21-07-1962, in the picturesque city of Erode, Justice M.M. Sundresh has achieved remarkable milestones in his legal career, culminating in his appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 26-08-2021. His journey from a small town to the highest echelons of the Indian judiciary serves as an inspiration to many aspiring legal minds.

Bigamy
Case BriefsSupreme Court

“The deserved punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offence is a continuous and continuing demand based on civic sense and unfailing in categories of serious offences where more than individual interest is also involved, the above rule of proportionality in providing punishment should not failed as otherwise it will impact the society.”

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

If 100% of the vacancies in a particular department is reserved only for women, then, the applications have to be forwarded to the District Collector or to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department as the case may be, to be considered under the general pool for being appointed in other suitable posts for compassionate appointment.

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“We come across many such cases where people in the locality oppose the move of the authorities to locate the TASMAC shop or IMFL shop or license for selling such IMFL and in respect of those objections given by the public, especially the women folk, the answer given by the authorities is that the Rule is not violated.”

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Once the theory of the prosecution about burning the police jeep is unbelievable, and there is no other evidence on the side of the prosecution to convict the appellants for the offences under Sections 3 or 4 of the TNPPDL Act, the case of the prosecution has to fall in toto”

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Branding culture in the legal profession is detrimental to society. Ranking or providing customer ratings to lawyers is unheard of and demeans the ethos of the profession. Professional dignity and integrity must never be compromised especially in the legal profession.”

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The conclusion that the taxable person is providing a service to the supplier while taking the benefit of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier, is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law. Therefore, this conclusion warrants interference, and this issue requires re consideration.”