Author: Sekar Reporter

[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(2) CWC 353 : Hitachi power europe Gmbh project office chennai vs central board of indirect taxes and customs : Taxability of services rendered ,notice demanding deposit of service tax ,resulting in issuance of show cause notice ,show cause notice issued without holding pre consulting hearing ,full opportunity to be given to supplier before issuing show cause notice if needed ,writ petition allowed[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(1) CWC 802 : Aruchamy S vs principal secretary to govt : Request for revocation of suspension rejected citing, pendency of criminal case ,suspension for indefinite period neither in interest of indivdual nor in interest of public administration ,reinstatement directed pending finalization of criminal trial , writ petition allowed[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(2) SCC ( crl ) 20 : state of madhya pradesh vs vikram das : power under article 142 cannot be invoked to impose sentence less than minimum sentence[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(2) CTC 463 : Purushothaman A vs pondicherry industrial promotion development and investment corporation : Held grant of loan based on contract/ agreement between borrower and financial corporation ,court in exercise of article 226 of constitution cannot re – schedule loan and cannot re write terms of contract and issue positive direction for re – scheduling loan[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(3) MWN ( cr ) DCC 127 : murugan KS vs M vadivel : sec 45 evidence act and sec 138 NI act : petition to call for sample signature from bank and to send cheque along with sample signature for expert opinion , petition dismissed and challenged now , signature in cheque not questioned in reply notice nor such a stand taken during pendency of complaint for 3 years ,petition held filed with a view to drag proceedings as rightly held by trial court , no illegality in impugned order passed by trial court , petition dismissed[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(3) CTC 391 : state rep by inspector of police vs VP pandi : evidence act 1872 sec 56 & 57 : facts indisputably widely known to public can be taken judicial notice of by court

[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(2) CWC 353 : Hitachi power europe Gmbh project office chennai vs central board of indirect taxes and customs : Taxability of services rendered ,notice demanding deposit of service tax ,resulting in issuance of show cause notice ,show cause notice issued without holding pre consulting hearing ,full opportunity to be given to supplier before issuing show cause notice if needed ,writ petition allowed[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(1) CWC 802 : Aruchamy S vs principal secretary to govt : Request for revocation of suspension rejected citing, pendency of criminal case ,suspension for indefinite period neither in interest of indivdual nor in interest of public administration ,reinstatement directed pending finalization of criminal trial , writ petition allowed[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(2) SCC ( crl ) 20 : state of madhya pradesh vs vikram das : power under article 142 cannot be invoked to impose sentence less than minimum sentence[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(2) CTC 463 : Purushothaman A vs pondicherry industrial promotion development and investment corporation : Held grant of loan based on contract/ agreement between borrower and financial corporation ,court in exercise of article 226 of constitution cannot re – schedule loan and cannot re write terms of contract and issue positive direction for re – scheduling loan[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(3) MWN ( cr ) DCC 127 : murugan KS vs M vadivel : sec 45 evidence act and sec 138 NI act : petition to call for sample signature from bank and to send cheque along with sample signature for expert opinion , petition dismissed and challenged now , signature in cheque not questioned in reply notice nor such a stand taken during pendency of complaint for 3 years ,petition held filed with a view to drag proceedings as rightly held by trial court , no illegality in impugned order passed by trial court , petition dismissed[19/03, 11:56] Vinothpandian: 2019(3) CTC 391 : state rep by inspector of police vs VP pandi : evidence act 1872 sec 56 & 57 : facts indisputably widely known to public can be taken judicial notice of by court

Judge Anath venkadesh full order 5.The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the Additional Commissioner of Police has already got in touch with the experts in adolescent psychology and an attempt is being made to come up with a mechanism to deal with the psychology of these teenagers who are prone to such reckless driving.

Judge Anath venkadesh full order 5.The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the Additional Commissioner of Police has already got in touch with the experts in adolescent psychology and an attempt is being made to come up with a mechanism to deal with the psychology of these teenagers who are prone to such reckless driving.

6.This Court will take the present case as a sample case in order to evolve a mechanism to effectively deal with cases of this nature in future. Crl.OP.No.5473 of 2024 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J Sl.No....

[19/03, 11:19] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769964382140662173?t=8CSHkSSEOSNIjQA5eyXFKA&s=08[19/03, 11:19] sekarreporter1: [19/03, 11:18] sekarreporter1: ககன் போத்ரா குண்டாஸ் ரத்து நீதிபதி MS Ramesh and Sunder mohan judge[19/03, 11:18] sekarreporter1: .

[19/03, 11:19] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769964382140662173?t=8CSHkSSEOSNIjQA5eyXFKA&s=08[19/03, 11:19] sekarreporter1: [19/03, 11:18] sekarreporter1: ககன் போத்ரா குண்டாஸ் ரத்து நீதிபதி MS Ramesh and Sunder mohan judge[19/03, 11:18] sekarreporter1: .

[19/03, 11:19] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769964382140662173?t=8CSHkSSEOSNIjQA5eyXFKA&s=08[19/03, 11:19] sekarreporter1: [19/03, 11:18] sekarreporter1: ககன் போத்ரா குண்டாஸ் ரத்து நீதிபதி MS Ramesh and Sunder mohan judge[19/03, 11:18] sekarreporter1: .

[19/03, 10:29] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769951747768807523?t=EFHpiKBTzU_k3nrrnvtv6A&s=08[19/03, 10:29] sekarreporter1: Prof Dr C V Chittibabu, HOD of Botany, Presidency College honored during the Botany Association Day Celebration on 14th March 2024 at the Conference Hall of Sir Theagaraya College, Chennai (Affiliated to University of Madras).His scintillating lecture on the title “Decoding the science of Plant Taxonomy” was applauded by the audience. As the Chief Guest of the day, he also gave away the Prizes and Certificates to the students who emerged as winners and runners of various events conducted in the College…

[19/03, 10:29] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769951747768807523?t=EFHpiKBTzU_k3nrrnvtv6A&s=08[19/03, 10:29] sekarreporter1: Prof Dr C V Chittibabu, HOD of Botany, Presidency College honored during the Botany Association Day Celebration on 14th March 2024 at the Conference Hall of Sir Theagaraya College, Chennai (Affiliated to University of Madras).His scintillating lecture on the title “Decoding the science of Plant Taxonomy” was applauded by the audience. As the Chief Guest of the day, he also gave away the Prizes and Certificates to the students who emerged as winners and runners of various events conducted in the College…

[19/03, 10:29] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769951747768807523?t=EFHpiKBTzU_k3nrrnvtv6A&s=08[19/03, 10:29] sekarreporter1: Prof Dr C V Chittibabu, HOD of Botany, Presidency College honored during the Botany Association Day Celebration on 14th March 2024 at the Conference Hall of Sir Theagaraya...

Temple land order judge velmurugan for Petitioner : Mr.M.RamamoorthiFor R1 to R5 : Mr.A.SelvendranSpecial Government PleaderFor R6 : Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar andMr.Aditya Chandramouli SC for CMDA

Temple land order judge velmurugan for Petitioner : Mr.M.RamamoorthiFor R1 to R5 : Mr.A.SelvendranSpecial Government PleaderFor R6 : Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar andMr.Aditya Chandramouli SC for CMDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.02.2024CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGANW. P.No.33554 of 2023andW.M.P.No.33369 of 2023Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal temple, represented by its Fit Person Durai. Shankar,Kaliamman Koil street,Virugambakkam, Chennai-...

Admk flag symbol order judge Sathikumar //For Applicant : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.GowthamkumarFor Respondent : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, Senior Counsel in O.A.Nos.787 & 788 of 2023for Mrs.P.RajalakshmiMr.Abdul Saleem, Senior Counsel in O.A.No.789 of 2023for Mrs.P.RajalakshmiCOMMON ORDER

Admk flag symbol order judge Sathikumar //For Applicant : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.GowthamkumarFor Respondent : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, Senior Counsel in O.A.Nos.787 & 788 of 2023for Mrs.P.RajalakshmiMr.Abdul Saleem, Senior Counsel in O.A.No.789 of 2023for Mrs.P.RajalakshmiCOMMON ORDER

2024:MHC:1310IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASReserved on : 12.03.2024Pronounced on : 18.03.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMARO. A.Nos.787 to 790 of 2023in C.S.No.181 of 2023Thiru.Edappadi K.PalaniswamiGeneral SecretaryAll India Anna Dravida Munnetra...

Petitioner : Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi  Senior CounselFor Mr.L.PalanimuthuFor R1 & R2 : Mrs.S.Premalatha, Junior St.CounselMr.R.S.BalajiSenior Standing CounselFor R3 : Mr.J.C.DurairajAddl.Govt.PleaderFor R4 : Mrs.Sameer BhuvaneshwariParty in person O R D E R The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the second respondent/the Tax Recovery Officer-III under Rule 11(1) of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Petitioner : Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi Senior CounselFor Mr.L.PalanimuthuFor R1 & R2 : Mrs.S.Premalatha, Junior St.CounselMr.R.S.BalajiSenior Standing CounselFor R3 : Mr.J.C.DurairajAddl.Govt.PleaderFor R4 : Mrs.Sameer BhuvaneshwariParty in person O R D E R The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the second respondent/the Tax Recovery Officer-III under Rule 11(1) of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASRESERVED ON : 11.09.2023PRONOUNCED ON : 15.02.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANANW.P.No.5336 of 2023 andWMP.Nos.5361, 5362 & 10301 of 2023K.N.Subramaniam … Petitioner (2) This section applies to cases where...

sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769897257468625220?t=5og8-IWC85zuTzMpAeMv6Q&s=08[19/03, 06:53] sekarreporter1: Aa[18/03, 18:00] sekarreporter1: Contempt plea against ‘Savukku’ Shankar | Madras High Court judge kumaresh babu directs him to submit explanation https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/contempt-plea-against-savukku-shankar-madras-high-court-directs-him-to-submit-explanation/article67963548.ece[18/03, 18:21] sekarreporter1: “

sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769897257468625220?t=5og8-IWC85zuTzMpAeMv6Q&s=08[19/03, 06:53] sekarreporter1: Aa[18/03, 18:00] sekarreporter1: Contempt plea against ‘Savukku’ Shankar | Madras High Court judge kumaresh babu directs him to submit explanation https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/contempt-plea-against-savukku-shankar-madras-high-court-directs-him-to-submit-explanation/article67963548.ece[18/03, 18:21] sekarreporter1: “

[19/03, 06:53] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769897257468625220?t=5og8-IWC85zuTzMpAeMv6Q&s=08[19/03, 06:53] sekarreporter1: Aa[18/03, 18:00] sekarreporter1: Contempt plea against ‘Savukku’ Shankar | Madras High Court directs him to submit explanation https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/contempt-plea-against-savukku-shankar-madras-high-court-directs-him-to-submit-explanation/article67963548.ece[18/03, 18:21] sekarreporter1: “ HOMENEWSINDIATAMIL NADUContempt plea against ‘Savukku’ Shankar |...

SM subramaniyam judge and Rajasekar judge full order ////// Finally, regarding the quantum of punishment, we are of the opinion that the Judicial Officers are expected to maintain high level of integrity and in the present case, the charge Nos.1 and 4 against the writ petitioner, were held proved. The proved charges, viz., charge Nos.1 and 4 are grave in nature, touching upon the integrity and honesty of the Judicial Officer. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service, cannot be construed as disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Consequently, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

SM subramaniyam judge and Rajasekar judge full order ////// Finally, regarding the quantum of punishment, we are of the opinion that the Judicial Officers are expected to maintain high level of integrity and in the present case, the charge Nos.1 and 4 against the writ petitioner, were held proved. The proved charges, viz., charge Nos.1 and 4 are grave in nature, touching upon the integrity and honesty of the Judicial Officer. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service, cannot be construed as disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Consequently, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ORDERS RESERVED ON : 07-03-2024 ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON: 18-03-2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAMAndTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR WP No.1162 of 2023AndWMP No.1183 of 2023...