Judge Suthantheram: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-default-bail-claiming-benefit-of-scs-extension-of-limitation-single-bench-of-madras-hc-dissents-from-earlier-judgment-156672

[5/13, 14:31] Sekarreporter 1: [5/13, 13:55] Sekarreporter 1: [5/13, 13:55] Judge Suthantheram: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-default-bail-claiming-benefit-of-scs-extension-of-limitation-single-bench-of-madras-hc-dissents-from-earlier-judgment-156672
[5/13, 13:55] Sekarreporter 1: 🍁🍁
[5/13, 14:22] Judge Suthantheram: Differing with the Judgment of Justice G. R. Swaminathan on the issue of default bail u/s167 (2) Cr. P. C., Justice G. Jeyachandran has rendered a judgement holding that judgment is non est.
Normal practice if a single Judge of High Court differs with the legal issue or the ratio laid down in the earlier judgment of another single judge the matter should be referred to the Division Bench.
Now the problem is for the lower courts, since the question remains whether single judge can overrule the judgment of another single judge.
Supporting the view of Justice Jeyachandran if it is said that he had not overruled and observed that judgment as non est, can it be accepted when both judgments are quite contradictory to each other on an important same issue.
Justice Jeyachandran takes it as there is limitation for filing final report (60 or 90 days as applicable) and it is extended by Supreme Court special order, but according to Justice Swaminathan there is no limitation for filing final report and enabling provision to get bail if investigation is not completed within prescribed period.
My personal view is that Cr. P. C. does not prescribe any limitation for filing final report, only limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. Further as per the ratio laid down by Justice Jeyachandran, can it be said that police can seek for custody even after 15days from the date of arrest of the accused based on supreme court extension on limitation. Urgent issue and a quietus must be given
[5/13, 16:41] Sekarreporter 1: [5/13, 15:46] Rajaram Delhi: Breaking: Chief Justice of India SA Bobde has informed Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal during a hearing that instructions would soon be released from the Supreme Court asking lawyers and judges to not wear robes or gowns to curb the spread of COVID-19.

Read more at https://bit.ly/3dF7dQf

Download our App !

Android & iOS: http://onelink.to/t9agbr
[5/13, 16:28] Rajaram Delhi: 🔴🔴 FLASH | தற்போதைய சூழ்நிலையில் நீதிபதிகள் மற்றும் வழக்கறிஞர்கள் கருப்பு நிற ஜாக்கெட் மற்றும் கோட் அணிவதை தவிர்ப்பது நல்லது

– உச்சநீதிமன்ற தலைமை நீதிபதி கருத்து

அதன் மூலம் வைரஸ் எளிதில் தொற்றக்கூடிய அபாயம் இருப்பதால் அவற்றை அணிவதை தவிர்க்க வேண்டும்

– உச்சநீதிமன்ற தலைமை நீதிபதி எஸ் ஏ பாப்டே

இன்று உச்சநீதிமன்றத்தில் வீடியோ கான்ஃபரன்சிங் முறையில் நடைபெற்ற வழக்கு விசாரணையின் போது தலைமை நீதிபதி ,வழக்கறிஞர்களிடம் இதனை தெரிவித்தார்

இன்று தலைமை நீதிபதி எஸ் ஏ பாப்டேயும் அவருடன் இருந்த மற்றொரு நீதிபதியும் வெள்ளை நிற சட்டை மற்றும் பேண்ட் மட்டுமே அணிந்து வழக்குகளை விசாரித்தனர்
[5/13, 16:38] Sekarreporter 1: 🍁🍁
[5/13, 16:41] Sekarreporter 1: [5/13, 14:14] Advt kavitha rajesh: In tomorrow’s hearing in writ petitions (TASMAC CASES) coming up before the Hon’ble Full Bench consisting of the The Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari and Hon’ble Mr. justice P.N. Prakash on video conference challenging opening of liquor shops or to vend liquor online only, PVS Giridhar is appearing for the Petitioner, G. Rajesh in WP No.7589 of 2020 and in WMP No 8929/20 . The SLP filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu against the order dated 8.5.20 in WMP No 8929 /20 in WP No 7589/20 in closing the TASMAC shops is not yet listed.
[5/13, 16:41] Sekarreporter 1: 🍁🍁
[5/13, 16:47] Sekarreporter 1: [5/13, 14:14] Advt kavitha rajesh: In tomorrow’s hearing in writ petitions (TASMAC CASES) coming up before the Hon’ble Full Bench consisting of the The Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari and Hon’ble Mr. justice P.N. Prakash on video conference challenging opening of liquor shops or to vend liquor online only, PVS Giridhar is appearing for the Petitioner, G. Rajesh in WP No.7589 of 2020 and in WMP No 8929/20 . The SLP filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu against the order dated 8.5.20 in WMP No 8929 /20 in WP No 7589/20 in closing the TASMAC shops is not yet listed.
[5/13, 16:41] Sekarreporter 1: 🍁🍁
[5/13, 16:47] Sekarreporter 1: [5/13, 14:28] Krishnakumar Secretary Mhaa: R. Krishna Kumar, Secretary, Mhaa: Lordship, we hope that these words of encouragement will bring some positivity in their service and one step closer towards achieving their goals.
[5/13, 16:37] Sekarreporter 1: 🍁🍁
[5/13, 16:47] Sekarreporter 1: [5/13, 15:39] Bar Council Secretry: Mr. K. Kathiravan, Member , Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry
has contributed Rupees One Lakh (Rs 100000/- )towards Bar Council of Tamil nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP )Advocates Relief fund.We thank him for the contribution.
[5/13, 16:37] Sekarreporter 1: 🍁🍁
[5/13, 16:47] Sekarreporter 1: [5/13, 16:19] Kanagaraj Advt: I have filed caveat petition today in the Supreme Court on behalf RTI TNCC in the Tamilnadu govt Tasmac Appeal Case .
[5/13, 16:31] Kanagaraj Advt: I have filed caveat petition today in the Supreme Court on behalf RTI TNCC in the Tamilnadu govt Tasmac Appeal Case .

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com