![[7/10, 16:54] sekarreporter1: Item 15. Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Seshasayee – S. Gurumurthy Vs. Doraisamy The challenge before the Writ Petition is the consent given by Advocate General to proceed with the Criminal Contempt against the S. Gurumurthy for his defematory statement. The challenge here is the re call order passed by the Advocate General. The judge heared the matter Doraisamy appeared party in person and Ramaswamy Meeyappan appeared for the petitioner Gurumurthy and sought time, because he is lead by senior Mahesh Jethmalani Question asked by the judge 1. Maintainabiity of the Writ Petition against the individual person 2. Whether writ court has power to question the order passed by Advocate General as he is the first law officer of the state. 3. The question of recall and reopen by the office of Advocate General. [7/10, 16:58] sekarreporter1: 🙏🏽💐](http://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story VAIDYANATHAN, J. The petitioner Management has come forward with W.P.No.18194 of 2020, contending that the EPF department had ordered a proclamation of sale notice dated 06.11.2020, as there was a default in payment of Provident Fund. —-The Management shall pay the 1st instalment to the PF Department on or before 20.06.2021 and the 2nd instalment on or before 10.08.2021. In case the amount is not paid as scheduled, there is no need for the Bank to wait for further orders and the Bank can straightaway sell the property and collect the money due to them, by inviting public auction and the balance amount, if any, to be paid to the PF Department.
- Previous story THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.4902 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.5510 and 5511 of 2021 M.Ammu — Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of this Writ Petition is not a bar for the petitioner to espouse the cause of her children / legalheirs 5 to 9, who are minors, after making necessary application to the respondent concerned. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Recent Posts
- Today 6 law tips / [20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) SCC 287 : Priyanka srivastava vs state of UP : when a borrower of financial institution covered under the SARFASI act , invokes jurisdiction under sec 156 (3) CRPC and also there is a separate procedure under Recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act , an attitude of more care , caution and circumspection has to be adhered to[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement: SLP ( civil ) No 9496 of 2020 dated 4- 02 – 2022 Ajanta LLP vs casino keisanki kabushiki computer ltd : consent decree cannot be modified / altered unless the mistake is patent or obvious mistake ( order 23 rule 3 CPC 1908 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) SCC 39 ; Joseph shine vs union.of india : A bench disagreeing with decision.of a larger or coequal bench can only refer the matter to a larger bench , it cannot disagree or dissent[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil.appeal no 363 of 2022 dated 10- 02 – 2022 Bank of baroda vs M / S karwa trading company and another : In a SARFASI proceedings , unless and until borrower ready to deposit / pay entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with secured creditor , borrower cannot be discharged from entire liability outstanding[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 830 : saradhammal vs sankaralingam : Held transfer of immovable property under attachment with knowledge of attachment vitiates transfer ( sec 52 transfer of property act 1882 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Held litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings especially when it contains a prayer for injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
- [20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1781564360177209576?t=ijXt2lW-UwiEB44RJHBZCg&s=08[20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: K Parasaran book Launch function vadapalani chennai today evening 5.30 thanjai sastra college chennai campus
- Juniors of Senior Govindaswinathan award function[20/04, 11:15] sekarreporter1: Juniors of late Senior adv Govindaswinathan award function held Sunday naradaganasaba 10.30 morning
- PLAINT LIFELINE OF LITIGATION
- DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: WHETHER THE SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC IS MAINTAINABLE FROM THE APPELLAT’S COURT DECREE OF REVERSING THE REJECTION OF PLAINT DECREE:-
More
Recent Posts
- Today 6 law tips / [20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) SCC 287 : Priyanka srivastava vs state of UP : when a borrower of financial institution covered under the SARFASI act , invokes jurisdiction under sec 156 (3) CRPC and also there is a separate procedure under Recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act , an attitude of more care , caution and circumspection has to be adhered to[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement: SLP ( civil ) No 9496 of 2020 dated 4- 02 – 2022 Ajanta LLP vs casino keisanki kabushiki computer ltd : consent decree cannot be modified / altered unless the mistake is patent or obvious mistake ( order 23 rule 3 CPC 1908 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) SCC 39 ; Joseph shine vs union.of india : A bench disagreeing with decision.of a larger or coequal bench can only refer the matter to a larger bench , it cannot disagree or dissent[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil.appeal no 363 of 2022 dated 10- 02 – 2022 Bank of baroda vs M / S karwa trading company and another : In a SARFASI proceedings , unless and until borrower ready to deposit / pay entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with secured creditor , borrower cannot be discharged from entire liability outstanding[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 830 : saradhammal vs sankaralingam : Held transfer of immovable property under attachment with knowledge of attachment vitiates transfer ( sec 52 transfer of property act 1882 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Held litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings especially when it contains a prayer for injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
- [20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1781564360177209576?t=ijXt2lW-UwiEB44RJHBZCg&s=08[20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: K Parasaran book Launch function vadapalani chennai today evening 5.30 thanjai sastra college chennai campus
- Juniors of Senior Govindaswinathan award function[20/04, 11:15] sekarreporter1: Juniors of late Senior adv Govindaswinathan award function held Sunday naradaganasaba 10.30 morning
- PLAINT LIFELINE OF LITIGATION
- DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: WHETHER THE SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC IS MAINTAINABLE FROM THE APPELLAT’S COURT DECREE OF REVERSING THE REJECTION OF PLAINT DECREE:-