Lordship s Vaithiyanathan j peculiar order in divorce case direction to registry by Sekar Reporter · December 21, 2019 [12/21, 09:28] Sekarreporter 1: C.M.P.No.26266 of 2019 in C.M.S.A.SR.No.107052 of 2019 1/10 C.M.P.No.26266 of 2019 in C.M.S.A.SR.No.107052 of 2019 Reserved on Pronounced on 09.12.2019 20.12.2019 Petitioner Respondent PU.VENKATESAN NO.7/227, (NEAR VELAMMAL SCHOOL) MOGAPPAIR WEST, CHENNAI 37. P.G.EGAVALLI NO.3/96, SEVINDIAMMAN KOIL ST, VANGANOOR PO, PALLIPAT TK, TIRUVALLUR DT. SMT. DEEPTHI ARIVUNIDHI I ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUVALLUR COIMBINED COURT. Petitioner Counsel Respondent Counsel PU.VENKATESAN P Subject NOT available District TIRUVALLUR Presentation Date 01/10/2019 Prayer To accept the cause title for adding Judge Smt Deepthi Arivunidhi as Respondent 2 in the above Case and thus render justice. S.VAIDYANATHAN,J. The Petitioner / Party-in-Person has come forward with the present petition, seeking to accept the cause title for adding the I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur, namely, Smt.Deepthi Arivunidhi as Respondent No.2 in the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, which is in SR stage. For the sake of brevity, the parties would be referred to as per their nomenclature in the present petition as “Petitioner” and “Respondent No.1 / Wife, namely, P.G.Egavalli”. [12/21, 09:31] Sekarreporter 1: C.M.P.No.26266 of 2019 in C.M.S.A.SR.No.107052 of 2019 8/10 the execution of any warrant or order, which he would be bound to execute, if within the jurisdiction of the person issuing the same.” In addition to the above, there is one more act, called The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, to secure additional protection for Judges and others acting judicially and relevant section of the Act is extracted hereunder: “3. Additional protection to Judges.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.” It is pertinent to state here that if a decision rendered by the Lower Forum is found to be wrong, in the appeal, the Appellate Court can rectify the same and rewrite the judgment. Likewise, if a decision is rendered based on any extraneous consideration, then the Higher Forum will suo motu take action against the Subordinate Judicial Officers. But, the averments made in the present case on hand are not germane and it is not known as to why Registry had not listed the matter for maintainability before numbering the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I find that there is no [12/21, 09:32] Sekarreporter 1: C.M.P.No.26266 of 2019 in C.M.S.A.SR.No.107052 of 2019 9/10 ground made out to accept the case of the Petitioner so as to amend the cause title by adding the name of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur therein. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. It is open to the Registry to scrutinize the papers and number the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, provided the same is in order. It is further directed that before numbering the CMSA, Registry must ensure that the name of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur does not find place anywhere in the petition, typeset, etc., including the cause title and if it is found, the same needs to be struck off / deleted by the Registry, by duly endorsing the order passed in this petition today. 20.12.2019
Nalini case mhc on behalf of State Mr.A.Natarajan Public Prosecutor appeared and filed his counter. State PP argued that total Rs.1.54 crores was allocated for telecommunication service to prisoners inside prison and As per G.O.254 of 2011 there is no specific clause for Making a call outside the country and also for security reasons the prisoners were not allowed to make the foreign call. May 28, 2020 by Sekar Reporter · Published May 28, 2020
For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceedings passed by the respondent in G.D.C.No.E4/8210/2008 dated 18.09.2017, is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondent to forthwith reinstate the petitioner back in service HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH W.P.No.28777 of 2017 V.Kumar For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondent : Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok Standing Counsel for Chennai Corporation February 17, 2022 by Sekar Reporter · Published February 17, 2022
Vinothpandian: 2011 (1) SCC 176 : Pepsico india holdings pvt ltd vs food inspector : Mere presence of pesticide residue does not ipso facto render article of food adulterated ( food adulteration ) September 22, 2021 by Sekar Reporter · Published September 22, 2021