SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Category: Uncategorized

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.31934 of 2014 C.Jagadeesan           …Petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances, the period of absence was regularized by the competent authority, the punishment of dismissal from service is untenable and consequently the order impugned passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.Tha.Pa.3/2012 dated 07.11.2012 and the appellate order passed by the first respondent in proceedings C.No.A2/PR No.3/Appeal/2012 dated 23.01.2013 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the writ petitioner in service without backwages but with continuity of service. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Bala   for M/s.G.Bala and Daisy For Respondents : Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader ORDER The order of dismissal from service which was confirmed by the .

Uncategorized

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.31934 of 2014 C.Jagadeesan           …Petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances, the period of absence was regularized by the competent authority, the punishment of dismissal from service is untenable and consequently the order impugned passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.Tha.Pa.3/2012 dated 07.11.2012 and the appellate order passed by the first respondent in proceedings C.No.A2/PR No.3/Appeal/2012 dated 23.01.2013 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the writ petitioner in service without backwages but with continuity of service. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Bala   for M/s.G.Bala and Daisy For Respondents : Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader ORDER The order of dismissal from service which was confirmed by the .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.07.2022 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.31934 of 2014 C.Jagadeesan           …Petitioner ..Vs.. 1.Additional Director General of Police,    Economic Offences Wing,    Anna Nagar, Chennai...

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tahsildar to cause a survey of the land in question, as requested by the HR & CE Department, and send the report at the earliest, in any case not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  In case any encroachment is reported, the HR & CE Department would proceed to remove the encroachment by taking the process, as provided under the provisions of HR & CE Act, 1959.  There will be no order as to costs. (M.N.B., CJ.)           (D.B.C., J.)                                                              

Uncategorized

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tahsildar to cause a survey of the land in question, as requested by the HR & CE Department, and send the report at the earliest, in any case not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  In case any encroachment is reported, the HR & CE Department would proceed to remove the encroachment by taking the process, as provided under the provisions of HR & CE Act, 1959.  There will be no order as to costs. (M.N.B., CJ.)           (D.B.C., J.)                                                              

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:   04.08.2022 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.19869 of 2022 A.Radhakrishnan      … Petitioner versus 1.The Secretary...

தமிழகத்தின் மூத்த செய்தியானரும், சத்யாலயா நியூஸ் சர்வீஸ் அட்மினுமான சத்யாலயா இராமகிருஷ்ணன் மீது முன்னாள் மத்திய நிதி அமைச்சர் ப.சிதம்பரம் சார்பில் போடப்பட்ட 1 கோடி ரூபாய் மான நட்ட வழக்கை சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் இன்று தள்ளுபடி செய்தது.

Uncategorized

தமிழகத்தின் மூத்த செய்தியானரும், சத்யாலயா நியூஸ் சர்வீஸ் அட்மினுமான சத்யாலயா இராமகிருஷ்ணன் மீது முன்னாள் மத்திய நிதி அமைச்சர் ப.சிதம்பரம் சார்பில் போடப்பட்ட 1 கோடி ரூபாய் மான நட்ட வழக்கை சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் இன்று தள்ளுபடி செய்தது.

தமிழகத்தின் மூத்த செய்தியானரும், சத்யாலயா நியூஸ் சர்வீஸ் அட்மினுமான சத்யாலயா இராமகிருஷ்ணன் மீது முன்னாள் மத்திய நிதி அமைச்சர் ப.சிதம்பரம் சார்பில் போடப்பட்ட 1 கோடி ரூபாய் மான நட்ட வழக்கை சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் இன்று தள்ளுபடி செய்தது. 2006 காலகட்டத்தில், அரசியல் எரிமலை என்ற நாளேட்டின்...

,judge. MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Crl.O.P.No.79 of 2022 S.Selvasekar .. Petitioner  Vs. I am satisfied that prima facia there are materials to come to the conclusion that after confidential enquiry report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Thiruannamalai and the preliminary enquiry conducted on behalf of the District Collector,  a dead person appears to have been working in the MGNREGA Scheme.  Attendance muster roll payment is also been made and some withdrawal has also taken place in respect of the deceased person Amaravathi and hence, I find that it is a fit case to issue a direction to register the complaint given by the petitioner herein. 

Uncategorized

,judge. MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Crl.O.P.No.79 of 2022 S.Selvasekar .. Petitioner  Vs. I am satisfied that prima facia there are materials to come to the conclusion that after confidential enquiry report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Thiruannamalai and the preliminary enquiry conducted on behalf of the District Collector,  a dead person appears to have been working in the MGNREGA Scheme.  Attendance muster roll payment is also been made and some withdrawal has also taken place in respect of the deceased person Amaravathi and hence, I find that it is a fit case to issue a direction to register the complaint given by the petitioner herein. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 20.07.2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 04.08.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Crl.O.P.No.79 of 2022 S.Selvasekar .. Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,...

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Crl.O.P.Nos.22187 of 2021 & 10040 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12024 of 2021 in Crl.O.P.No.22187 of 2021: Mohanraj Vs. 1.State through    Additional Superintendent of Police,    CBI/EOW/Chennai … Petitioner/Accused No.1    Crime No.R.C.No.12/E/2011. For Petitioner        : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Jagadeesan                              For R1                   : Mr.K.Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor for CBI                              For R2                   : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)                              For R3 to R5          : in Crl.O.P.No.10040 of 2022: direction to complete the trail

Uncategorized

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Crl.O.P.Nos.22187 of 2021 & 10040 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12024 of 2021 in Crl.O.P.No.22187 of 2021: Mohanraj Vs. 1.State through    Additional Superintendent of Police,    CBI/EOW/Chennai … Petitioner/Accused No.1    Crime No.R.C.No.12/E/2011. For Petitioner        : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Jagadeesan                              For R1                   : Mr.K.Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor for CBI                              For R2                   : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)                              For R3 to R5          : in Crl.O.P.No.10040 of 2022: direction to complete the trail

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS   RESERVED ON       :  13.07.2022               PRONOUNCED ON : 05.08.2022              CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Crl.O.P.Nos.22187 of 2021 & 10040 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12024 of...

Judge Tickaraman. In view of the fact that the investigation has been completed by C.B.I and also that the arguments has been completed are matter is ready for trial. The stay granted for pronouncement of judgment is also vacated.  Crl.O.P.No.22187 of 2021and Crl.M.P.No.12024 of 2021 and Crl.O.P.No.10040 of of 2022

Uncategorized

Judge Tickaraman. In view of the fact that the investigation has been completed by C.B.I and also that the arguments has been completed are matter is ready for trial. The stay granted for pronouncement of judgment is also vacated.  Crl.O.P.No.22187 of 2021and Crl.M.P.No.12024 of 2021 and Crl.O.P.No.10040 of of 2022

 Crl.O.P.No.22187 of 2021and Crl.M.P.No.12024 of 2021 and Crl.O.P.No.10040 of of 2022 The petitioner/first accused has come forward with a specific plea that the sale of property effected by the competent Authority, D.R.O has sold...

4.In the above said Revision, when the matter is came up before the Hon’ble Mr.Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, his Lordship has passed the following order: “Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is required to file the summary of allegations made by the victims against the Petitioner in a tabular column along with duration. For filing counter affidavit of the Respondent, call the matter on 11.08.2022.  In view of the submissions made above, the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai is required not to record evidence in Spl. SC. No.139 of 2021, till the next date of hearing viz., 11.08.2022

Uncategorized

4.In the above said Revision, when the matter is came up before the Hon’ble Mr.Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, his Lordship has passed the following order: “Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is required to file the summary of allegations made by the victims against the Petitioner in a tabular column along with duration. For filing counter affidavit of the Respondent, call the matter on 11.08.2022.  In view of the submissions made above, the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai is required not to record evidence in Spl. SC. No.139 of 2021, till the next date of hearing viz., 11.08.2022

Report about the case relating to teacher of PSBB School The All Women Police Station (W26) filed charge sheet alleging that the accused G.Rajagopal, who was working as a teacher in PSBB School, Ashok...

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.34104 of 2019, 932, 936, 1978, 1980, 2559, 2564, 3060, 3072, School property tax batch case allowed the impugned resolution, to the extent to which it levies surcharge, is found contrary to the provisions of the respective enactments and such levies are quashed. These Writ Petitions are allowed. For Petitioner : Dr.Father Xavier Arulraj, Senior Counsel   for M/s.Father Xavier Associates For Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazrudeen,   Additional Advocate General   assisted by Mr.P.Haribabu, Govt. Advocate   Mrs.C.Sangamithirai,   Special Government Pleader – R1   Ms.S.Vaitheeswari   Standing Counsel – R2 & R3

Uncategorized

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.34104 of 2019, 932, 936, 1978, 1980, 2559, 2564, 3060, 3072, School property tax batch case allowed the impugned resolution, to the extent to which it levies surcharge, is found contrary to the provisions of the respective enactments and such levies are quashed. These Writ Petitions are allowed. For Petitioner : Dr.Father Xavier Arulraj, Senior Counsel   for M/s.Father Xavier Associates For Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazrudeen,   Additional Advocate General   assisted by Mr.P.Haribabu, Govt. Advocate   Mrs.C.Sangamithirai,   Special Government Pleader – R1   Ms.S.Vaitheeswari   Standing Counsel – R2 & R3

JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.06.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.34104 of 2019, 932, 936, 1978, 1980, 2559, 2564, 3060, 3072, 3068, 3408, 3637, 3815, 3819, 5200, 6023, 7023, 7029, 12765, 8690...

Justice Anitha Sumanth has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Supreme Court has specifically noted the difference between a composite contract and an indivisible one. A composite contract is one that would involve components of sale and service, whereas an indivisible contract, also involving components of sale and service, is one where the distinction between the two is very fine and difficult to determine.

Uncategorized

Justice Anitha Sumanth has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Supreme Court has specifically noted the difference between a composite contract and an indivisible one. A composite contract is one that would involve components of sale and service, whereas an indivisible contract, also involving components of sale and service, is one where the distinction between the two is very fine and difficult to determine.

Justice Anitha Sumanth has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Supreme Court has specifically noted the difference between a composite...