SEKAR REPORTER – COURT NEWS

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

January 25, 2020

Today mhc judges advts cricket match player detail s

January 24, 2020

[1/24, 18:53] sekarreporter1: [1/24, 18:24] Bar Council vice chairman Karthigayan: The Bar Council Chairman Mr.P.S.AMALRAJ,Vice Chairman Mr.V.Karthikeyan ,BCI Mr.S.Prabakaran ,Senior Advocate,and Mr.G.Mhoganakrishnan all are special Welcome to Mr.P.Wilson,Senior Advocate,and Mr.ARL SUNDARESAN,Senior Advocate, Also Today 24/01/2020 Arbitration and Conciliation act 1996 Books issued For District Judge Exams(Preliminary)all Students. @ Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry. [1/24, 18:33] sekarreporter1: 👍👍 [1/24, 19:36] sekarreporter1: On behalf of our TN Senior Advocates forum, I thank Mr ARL Sundaresan Senior Advocate who delivered lecture today (24.1.2020) between 4.30-6.30pm at Barcouncil Auditorium , Chennai on The Arbitrationand concillation Act Many thanks to him💐 P. Wilson Senior Advocate Convenor NEETHI KARANGAL

Durai Arun: Publish news in a broader way , not in the narrow way [1/24, 19:14] sekarreporter1: 👍

January 24, 2020

Durai Arun: Publish news in a broader way , not in the narrow way [1/24, 19:14] sekarreporter1: 👍

Durai Arun: Publish news in a broader way , not in the narrow way [1/24, 19:14] sekarreporter1: 👍

Rajini case Durai Arun: Publish news in a broader way , not in the narrow way [1/24, 19:14] sekarreporter1: 👍

January 24, 2020

Rajini case Durai Arun: Publish news in a broader way , not in the narrow way [1/24, 19:14] sekarreporter1: 👍

[1/24, 19:14] sekarreporter1: [1/24, 16:33] sekarreporter1: 👍👍 [1/24, 16:50] Durai Arun: In the case filed by the Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam to take action against Actor Rajinikanth, the state Public Prosecutor senior counsel A.Natarajan appeared...

January 24, 2020

For state of Tamil Nadu State Government Pleader V.Jayaprakash Narayanan argued. Sankara subbu argued, at the time of arrest one accused shot dead and thereafter 3 more accused were shot dead by police. State GP argued that the review committee spent five different dates for hearing from various senior counsels including Sankara subbu on behalf of accused persons and taken a decision and after satisfaction of prima facie case made out under POTA Act permitted to continue the trial. Further the decision was taken after perusal of all materials collected by investigation officer found the case is fit for continuation of trial under POTA Act. GP further told the court that the terrorists only invited such situation which nececitates the police to take extreme step of firing on them. Heated arguments by both sides. Sankara subbu sought further time for continuation of arguments posted on 3/2/2020

January 24, 2020

After persual of affidivit filed by R.Y. George Williams hon’ble division bench consisting justice . Sathya Narayanan and Hema latha order notice to the R.G. , government , C.I.S.F commander.In this petition R.Y. George Williams mentioned that the learned advocates , litigants , law student , high court staff , medical staff , press reporter , law clerks are suffering a lot because , everyone are constrain to enter the high court premises atleast more than 10 to 15 times per day. And everytime they have to show identity card and has to raise hand for frisking and further C.I.S.F persons also suffer because of this procedure and since work.

January 24, 2020

Rajini case State Public Prosecutor Mr.A Natarajan argued that the petitioners should have followed procedures laid down by the Hon’ble division bench in Judgement “G.Prabakaran Vs Superintendent of Tanjore”

January 24, 2020

Rajiniganth case Justice P Rajamanickam wondered why the petitioner had hurried to the court without even waiting for at least 15 days from the date of filing the complaint. Moreover, the organisation must have approached the magistrate court first before moving the high court, the judge added.

January 24, 2020

TAMIL NADU Will consider listing of plea for disqualification of 11 AIADMK MLAs, SC tells DMK A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. File A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. File | Photo Credit: PTI Legal Correspondent NEW DELHI 24 JANUARY 2020 12:03 IST UPDATED: 24 JANUARY 2020 12:03 IST The legislators voted against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palanisamy in a confidence motion in 2017. Chief Justice of India Sharad A. Bobde on Friday agreed to consider listing a petition filed by the DMK for the disqualification of 11 AIADMK MLAs for voting against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palanisamy in a confidence motion in 2017. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, during an oral mentioning, referred to a January 21 judgment by a Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman requiring Speakers of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies to decide disqualification petitions against legislators, especially those who defect, within a “reasonable period” of maximum three months. This judgment had also urged Parliament to amend the Constitution to strip Speakers, who may be biased by their respective political ideology, of their power to decide disqualification pleas under the Tenth Schedule and hand it over to an independent tribunal to decide fairly and impartially. Advertising Advertising This judgment works quite opposite to what the Supreme Court had orally observed in July last year while hearing the DMK’s case for disqualification of the 11 AIADMK MLAs. Justice Bobde (as he was then) had expressed strong reservations about appropriating powers conferred exclusively on the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker under the anti-defection law to conduct disqualification proceedings against State’s Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam and 10 other AIADMK MLAs for voting against the CM in February 2017. “When the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution confers the power of disqualification on the Speaker, why should the court assume this power? Why should the court assume the power of the Speaker for something which happens inside the House?” Justice S.A. Bobde had asked Mr. Sibal then Mr. Sibal is appearing for DMK leader R. Sakkarapani, who has appealed an April 2018 order of the Madras High Court. In its 57-page order, the High Court had held that it could not, merely on the basis of a writ petition under Article 226, encroach on the Speaker’s powers under the Tenth Schedule. The High Court had reasoned in its order that it was “difficult to conceive how this court can disqualify the concerned MLAs… Passing of such orders would only not amount to judicial overreach, it would also amount to gross breach of judicial discipline, if not contempt”. The High Court had further refrained from passing any orders on the prayer made by Mr. Sakkarapani to issue a mandamus to the Speaker to disqualify the 11 AIADMK legislators under the anti-defection law. The High Court had said the legal question of whether a court could direct a Speaker to disqualify members was pending consideration before the apex court. Arguing before the Justice Bobde Bench, Mr. Sibal submitted in July 2019 that if the Speaker had abandoned his duty under the Tenth Schedule, the court should now take over. “If the Speaker, who has the power, does not decide on the disqualification, the court will have to,” Mr. Sibal had argued. Mr. Sakkarapani’s petition said 11 MLAs from the Panneerselvam faction voted against the trust vote on February 18, 2017. The plea for their disqualification was made before the Speaker under Paragraph 2 (1)(b) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. However, the Speaker did not issue any notice on the disqualification petition.

[1/24, 12:33] sekarreporter1: 👍 [1/24, 12:52] sekarreporter1: #DMK seeks urgent listing of its plea in the #SupremeCourt on the issue of disqualification of 11 #AIADMK MLAs for voting against EPS in 2017 confidence motion. Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal for DMK cites recent SC judgment in Manipur case on similar question. @KapilSibal

January 24, 2020

[1/24, 12:33] sekarreporter1: 👍 [1/24, 12:52] sekarreporter1: #DMK seeks urgent listing of its plea in the #SupremeCourt on the issue of disqualification of 11 #AIADMK MLAs for voting against EPS in 2017 confidence motion. Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal for DMK cites recent SC judgment in Manipur case on similar question. @KapilSibal

[1/24, 12:33] sekarreporter1: 👍 [1/24, 12:52] sekarreporter1: #DMK seeks urgent listing of its plea in the #SupremeCourt on the issue of disqualification of 11 #AIADMK MLAs for voting against EPS in 2017 confidence motion....

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J. VRI Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside and consequently, the punishment imposed by the Management against the second respondent is restored. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.01.2020

January 24, 2020

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J. VRI Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside and consequently, the punishment imposed by the Management against the second respondent is restored. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.01.2020

[1/24, 12:14] sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.01.2020 ORDERS RESERVED ON 09.01.2020 ORDERS DELIVERED ON 24.01.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.37956 OF 2016 and WMP No.32551 of...