![Justices M.M. Sundresh and Krishnan Ramasamy issued the direction while disposing of an appeal preferred by National Insurance Company challenging an award of ₹1.93 crore to the family members of an engineer who died in a road accident after a bus dashed hit his car on July 6, 2012. [2/19, 07:37] Sekarreporter: Incongruous evidence The judges pointed out that though the claimants themselves had stated that the income of the deceased was only ₹1 lakh a month, the presiding officer had ended up determining the income to be ₹1.25 lakh per month despite no acceptable evidence having been produced to substantiate the income during his lifetime.](http://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Mr.T.Mohan, Advocate,Zoom Meeting may 12th
- Previous story justice K Kannan: While it is remarkable that HC passed compensation orders in transfer petition, I shudder to think if this must become a new practice. Passing orders on consent of counsel on WhatsApp affirmation from counsel or parties about the quantum of compensation will serve insurance co.panies well but there is a lurking danger of the parties staying completely ignorant of these orders.
Recent Posts
- Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala released a directory of designated senior advocates brought out by Tamil Nadu Senior Advocates Forum and Justice R. Mahadevan, the seniormost judge of the High Court, received the first copy in Chennai on April 24, 2024
- today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) crimes 134 SC : Ahmad Ali quraishi vs state of Uttar pradesh : Rejection.of application under section.156(3) CRPC does not preclude a complainant to file a complaint under section 200 CRPC
- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.A. No.1181 of 2024 andC.M.P.Nos.8549 and 8550 of 2024Ashok Leyland Limited rep. By itsAuthorized Signatory Satish S.M.,No.1, Sardar Patel Road,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. AppellantVs.1.The Controller of Patents & Designs,The Patent Office, ChennaiPatent Office Intellectual Property Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.2.Tata Motors Ltd.,Bombay House,24, Homi Mody Street,Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai – 400 001. .. RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in W.P. (IPD) No.1 of 2024 in respect of post-grant opposition proceedings against the Appellant’s patent number IN387429 (Patent application number 201641025668 dated 27.07.2016) and consequently direct respondent No.1 to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and to consider the matter afresh by re-constituting a fresh Opposition Board for providing a fresh joint recommendation pending disposal of thepresent writ appeal.For Appellant : Mr.M.S.BharathFor Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General for R1Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Ms.Archana Shankar for R2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.Sundar, J.)Captioned ‘Writ Appeal’ (hereinafter ‘captioned WA’ forthe sake of convenience and clarity) is an intra-court appeal and it is directed against an order dated 15.03.2024 made by Intellectual Property Division of this Court i.e., by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(IPD) No.1 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos.1 and 2thereat.
- In this context, in order to effectively implement the guidelines, the first respondent shall direct all the District Educational Authorities to constitute Monitoring Committees in each schools headed by the Head of the Institution, parents, teachers, senior students etc., as decided by the Government and such Monitoring Committees shall ensure that the guidelines are implemented scrupulously and any untoward incidents or any different behaviour of the staff members and the children, are brought to the notice of the Authorities, for initiation of remedial measures, the first respondent is directed to issue the guidelines in consonance with the Clauses 7.8 and 7.9 of the Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishment in Schools (GECP).(7) The consolidated Circular/Instructions are directed to be issued, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
- Case agains Pension Scheme / HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARW. P.Nos.1661 of 2015 and 19076 and 35462 of 2023andW.M.P.Nos.18326, 18327, 35437 and 35439 of 2023W.P.No.1661 of 2015 dismissed#,#
More
Recent Posts
- Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala released a directory of designated senior advocates brought out by Tamil Nadu Senior Advocates Forum and Justice R. Mahadevan, the seniormost judge of the High Court, received the first copy in Chennai on April 24, 2024
- today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) crimes 134 SC : Ahmad Ali quraishi vs state of Uttar pradesh : Rejection.of application under section.156(3) CRPC does not preclude a complainant to file a complaint under section 200 CRPC
- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.A. No.1181 of 2024 andC.M.P.Nos.8549 and 8550 of 2024Ashok Leyland Limited rep. By itsAuthorized Signatory Satish S.M.,No.1, Sardar Patel Road,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. AppellantVs.1.The Controller of Patents & Designs,The Patent Office, ChennaiPatent Office Intellectual Property Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.2.Tata Motors Ltd.,Bombay House,24, Homi Mody Street,Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai – 400 001. .. RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in W.P. (IPD) No.1 of 2024 in respect of post-grant opposition proceedings against the Appellant’s patent number IN387429 (Patent application number 201641025668 dated 27.07.2016) and consequently direct respondent No.1 to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and to consider the matter afresh by re-constituting a fresh Opposition Board for providing a fresh joint recommendation pending disposal of thepresent writ appeal.For Appellant : Mr.M.S.BharathFor Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General for R1Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Ms.Archana Shankar for R2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.Sundar, J.)Captioned ‘Writ Appeal’ (hereinafter ‘captioned WA’ forthe sake of convenience and clarity) is an intra-court appeal and it is directed against an order dated 15.03.2024 made by Intellectual Property Division of this Court i.e., by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(IPD) No.1 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos.1 and 2thereat.
- In this context, in order to effectively implement the guidelines, the first respondent shall direct all the District Educational Authorities to constitute Monitoring Committees in each schools headed by the Head of the Institution, parents, teachers, senior students etc., as decided by the Government and such Monitoring Committees shall ensure that the guidelines are implemented scrupulously and any untoward incidents or any different behaviour of the staff members and the children, are brought to the notice of the Authorities, for initiation of remedial measures, the first respondent is directed to issue the guidelines in consonance with the Clauses 7.8 and 7.9 of the Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishment in Schools (GECP).(7) The consolidated Circular/Instructions are directed to be issued, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
- Case agains Pension Scheme / HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARW. P.Nos.1661 of 2015 and 19076 and 35462 of 2023andW.M.P.Nos.18326, 18327, 35437 and 35439 of 2023W.P.No.1661 of 2015 dismissed#,#