Follow:
- Next story W. P.No.4914 of 2022and W.M.P.Nos.5061 & 5062 of 2022 Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J. Mrs.GeethaThamaraiselvan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents and is represented by Mr.Silambannan, learned Additional Advocate General. A request is made on behalf of the respondents for some time to obtain instructions and file a counter. Stay granted
- Previous story Justice SM Subramaniam of Madras HC directs TN DGP to depute Armed Reserve Police for crowd management at Tiruchendur Subramaniaswmay Temple. Also directs temple management to control Tirusudhandirargal (freelance Archakas) & ensure that they don’t harass devotees. Full order of The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM WP(MD) No.1700 of 2022 SEETHARAMAN.M … PETITIONER
Recent Posts
- In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void andultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiatedagainst the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424,14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399,17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.(ii) The respective show cause notices/orders issued against the appellants shall stand quashed. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiatefresh proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended, in accordance with law.(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)23.04.2024
- Today MBA evening NAVJ / on “A Judge Criticizing his own Judgment in thematter of Suit for Land”/
- [25/04, 11:08] sekarreporter1: ,[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/EqQEISHw-MQ?si=Vx_4sGsqVTaEXeBj[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: [25/04, 10:55] sekarreporter1: Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan recalled an interesting anecdote about former A-G R Krishnamoorthy, a doyen of Madras Bar
- R Y George Williams requested the first bench CISF extent to entire high court as well as entire judiciary in Tamilnau and further argued that baricaurd between the city court and High court May be removed and it maye be covered to entire campus to avoid multiple bresking to enter the high court premises. CJ informed that direction issued to everywhere. and further RY George Williams argued that high court for got the security of the lower judiciary
- Today 5 law tips/ Vinothpandian: 2019 (4) SCC ( cri ) 469 : kamil vs state of Uttar pradesh : sentence or order passed by trial court in absence of charge or any error , omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder cannot be held invalid by court of appeal confirmation or revision, unless the accused is prejudiced and failure of justice has been occasioned thereby (. Sec 464 CRPC )
More
Recent Posts
- In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void andultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiatedagainst the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424,14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399,17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.(ii) The respective show cause notices/orders issued against the appellants shall stand quashed. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiatefresh proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended, in accordance with law.(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)23.04.2024
- Today MBA evening NAVJ / on “A Judge Criticizing his own Judgment in thematter of Suit for Land”/
- [25/04, 11:08] sekarreporter1: ,[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/EqQEISHw-MQ?si=Vx_4sGsqVTaEXeBj[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: [25/04, 10:55] sekarreporter1: Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan recalled an interesting anecdote about former A-G R Krishnamoorthy, a doyen of Madras Bar
- R Y George Williams requested the first bench CISF extent to entire high court as well as entire judiciary in Tamilnau and further argued that baricaurd between the city court and High court May be removed and it maye be covered to entire campus to avoid multiple bresking to enter the high court premises. CJ informed that direction issued to everywhere. and further RY George Williams argued that high court for got the security of the lower judiciary
- Today 5 law tips/ Vinothpandian: 2019 (4) SCC ( cri ) 469 : kamil vs state of Uttar pradesh : sentence or order passed by trial court in absence of charge or any error , omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder cannot be held invalid by court of appeal confirmation or revision, unless the accused is prejudiced and failure of justice has been occasioned thereby (. Sec 464 CRPC )