Follow:
- Next story GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *Crl. O.P. 10031/2021* Aarthi Vs. The Superintendent of Police Dated: 30.06.2021 *Hon’ble Justice M. Nirmal Kumar* disposed of the Criminal Original Petition while directing the 2nd Respondent police to independently consider the complaint lodged by the Petitioner in the matter relating to *“Judicial Magistrates should not pass mechanical orders”* and further observed and held the following:
- Previous story Kovil elephant case cj bench order
Recent Posts
- Govt aag gowtham argued The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 1), reserved orders on a plea filed by YouTuber Journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar seeking a CBI probe against the current head of the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Arun IPS, in light of the recent remarks against him by the High Court.
- NewsUpdate | இளையராஜா உாிமை கோர முடியாது 134 படங்களில் உள்ள பாடல்களுக்கு இளையராஜா உாிமை கோர முடியாது என டெல்லி உயா்நீதிமன்றம் தீர்ப்பு சாிகம நிறுவனம் தொடா்ந்த வழக்கில், இளையராஜாவுக்கு எதிராக டெல்லி உயா்நீதிமன்றம் தீா்ப்பு; முள்ளும் மலரும், 16 வயதினிலே, நெற்றிக்கண் உள்ளிட்ட 134 படங்களின் இசைக்கு இளையராஜா உாிமை கோர முடியாது – டெல்லி ஐகோா்ட் Ilaiyaraja | Saregama | DelhiHighcourt #Newstamil24x7 #ilaiyaraja #saregama #DelhiHC
- 21. Hence, in the light of the above, selection and appointment of respondents 2 to 18 to the post of P.A. to Hon’ble Judges in the High Court of Madras made as per circular dated 07.06.2023 and appointment made vide ROC.No.16/2023-CON.ESTT.I, dated 04.08.2023 are set aside. The High Court is at liberty to conduct a fresh selection in accordance with the Rules and by following the procedures contemplated as expeditiously as possible. 22. Accordingly, the suo-motu writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) Madras HC sets aside appointment of 17 PAs to judges of the HC made in 2023 for violation of Madras HC Service Rules during recruitment. Orders fresh selection in accordance with the rules. @TOIChennai
- Madras High Court Admits Writ Petition Challenging Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 Chennai, 1 July 2026: A Writ Petition (W.P. No. 23802 of 2026) filed by the All India Private Educational Institutions Association, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018, came up for hearing today before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Arul Murugan of the Madras High Court. After hearing detailed arguments advanced on behalf of the Association, the Bench admitted the Writ Petition and ordered notice to the Respondents, made returnable in four weeks, for filing their counter affidavit. The matter has been posted thereafter for final hearing. Background The Association, which represents a large number of private educational institutions across Tamil Nadu, had earlier approached the Court seeking action on its representation regarding the complete absence of any procedure under Section 30 of the Act. When that petition was withdrawn on 29.04.2026, liberty was granted to challenge the provision directly. The present petition is filed pursuant to that liberty. The Challenge Section 30 of the Act requires every private school to obtain prior permission from the Education Department before transferring, mortgaging, pledging, or otherwise dealing with its property, and declares any transaction made without such permission null and void. The Association has contended that the provision suffers from the following infirmities: • Legislative competence: Section 30, in pith and substance, regulates property and contract matters falling under Entries 6, 7 and 32 of List III, and not “Education” under Entry 25 of List III, and is therefore beyond the competence of the State Legislature. • Jurisdictional overreach: Private schools are run by societies, trusts, or companies governed by their own statutes; the Education Department has no jurisdiction over their property affairs. • Usurpation of civil court jurisdiction: Requiring an Education official to determine whether a transaction furthers the “objects” of the institution encroaches on the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 92 CPC. • Absence of procedure, hearing and appeal: Section 30 and the Rules of 2023 prescribe no time-frame, no right of hearing, no deemed approval, and no appellate remedy, in violation of Articles 14 and 21. • Repugnancy to Central law: Section 30(4), declaring unauthorised transactions void, is repugnant to the Transfer of Property Act, the Indian Contract Act, the Registration Act, and the SARFAESI Act, and is not shown to have received Presidential Assent under Article 254(2). • Disproportionality: A blanket permission requirement is disproportionate; a disclosure-based safeguard would achieve the same regulatory purpose through less restrictive means. Appearance Mr. E. VIJAY ANAND, Advocate appeared for and argued on behalf of the Association The matter will next be heard after the counter affidavit is filed by the Respondents. Issued by ALL INDIA PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ASSOCIATION K. Palaniyappan, State General Secretary • No. 5, M.P. Avenue, Majestic Colony, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093 For further details, contact the office of the Association.
- [01/07, 11:28] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxAiGvfdUnSYFBLaDTBWIt4pOgArlmKL2d?si=LkAvkAauue-ZsUaQ [01/07, 11:28] sekarreporter1: சவுக்கு சங்கர் வழக்கு against Arun IPS dvac directer விசாரணைக்கு உகந்தது அல்ல கூடுதல் அட்வகேட் ஜெனரல் கௌதமன் வாதாடினார் வழக்கில. தீர்ப்பு தள்ளிவைப்பு chief bench orders reserved
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
More
Recent Posts
- Govt aag gowtham argued The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 1), reserved orders on a plea filed by YouTuber Journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar seeking a CBI probe against the current head of the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Arun IPS, in light of the recent remarks against him by the High Court.
- NewsUpdate | இளையராஜா உாிமை கோர முடியாது 134 படங்களில் உள்ள பாடல்களுக்கு இளையராஜா உாிமை கோர முடியாது என டெல்லி உயா்நீதிமன்றம் தீர்ப்பு சாிகம நிறுவனம் தொடா்ந்த வழக்கில், இளையராஜாவுக்கு எதிராக டெல்லி உயா்நீதிமன்றம் தீா்ப்பு; முள்ளும் மலரும், 16 வயதினிலே, நெற்றிக்கண் உள்ளிட்ட 134 படங்களின் இசைக்கு இளையராஜா உாிமை கோர முடியாது – டெல்லி ஐகோா்ட் Ilaiyaraja | Saregama | DelhiHighcourt #Newstamil24x7 #ilaiyaraja #saregama #DelhiHC
- 21. Hence, in the light of the above, selection and appointment of respondents 2 to 18 to the post of P.A. to Hon’ble Judges in the High Court of Madras made as per circular dated 07.06.2023 and appointment made vide ROC.No.16/2023-CON.ESTT.I, dated 04.08.2023 are set aside. The High Court is at liberty to conduct a fresh selection in accordance with the Rules and by following the procedures contemplated as expeditiously as possible. 22. Accordingly, the suo-motu writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) Madras HC sets aside appointment of 17 PAs to judges of the HC made in 2023 for violation of Madras HC Service Rules during recruitment. Orders fresh selection in accordance with the rules. @TOIChennai
- Madras High Court Admits Writ Petition Challenging Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 Chennai, 1 July 2026: A Writ Petition (W.P. No. 23802 of 2026) filed by the All India Private Educational Institutions Association, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018, came up for hearing today before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Arul Murugan of the Madras High Court. After hearing detailed arguments advanced on behalf of the Association, the Bench admitted the Writ Petition and ordered notice to the Respondents, made returnable in four weeks, for filing their counter affidavit. The matter has been posted thereafter for final hearing. Background The Association, which represents a large number of private educational institutions across Tamil Nadu, had earlier approached the Court seeking action on its representation regarding the complete absence of any procedure under Section 30 of the Act. When that petition was withdrawn on 29.04.2026, liberty was granted to challenge the provision directly. The present petition is filed pursuant to that liberty. The Challenge Section 30 of the Act requires every private school to obtain prior permission from the Education Department before transferring, mortgaging, pledging, or otherwise dealing with its property, and declares any transaction made without such permission null and void. The Association has contended that the provision suffers from the following infirmities: • Legislative competence: Section 30, in pith and substance, regulates property and contract matters falling under Entries 6, 7 and 32 of List III, and not “Education” under Entry 25 of List III, and is therefore beyond the competence of the State Legislature. • Jurisdictional overreach: Private schools are run by societies, trusts, or companies governed by their own statutes; the Education Department has no jurisdiction over their property affairs. • Usurpation of civil court jurisdiction: Requiring an Education official to determine whether a transaction furthers the “objects” of the institution encroaches on the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 92 CPC. • Absence of procedure, hearing and appeal: Section 30 and the Rules of 2023 prescribe no time-frame, no right of hearing, no deemed approval, and no appellate remedy, in violation of Articles 14 and 21. • Repugnancy to Central law: Section 30(4), declaring unauthorised transactions void, is repugnant to the Transfer of Property Act, the Indian Contract Act, the Registration Act, and the SARFAESI Act, and is not shown to have received Presidential Assent under Article 254(2). • Disproportionality: A blanket permission requirement is disproportionate; a disclosure-based safeguard would achieve the same regulatory purpose through less restrictive means. Appearance Mr. E. VIJAY ANAND, Advocate appeared for and argued on behalf of the Association The matter will next be heard after the counter affidavit is filed by the Respondents. Issued by ALL INDIA PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ASSOCIATION K. Palaniyappan, State General Secretary • No. 5, M.P. Avenue, Majestic Colony, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093 For further details, contact the office of the Association.
- [01/07, 11:28] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxAiGvfdUnSYFBLaDTBWIt4pOgArlmKL2d?si=LkAvkAauue-ZsUaQ [01/07, 11:28] sekarreporter1: சவுக்கு சங்கர் வழக்கு against Arun IPS dvac directer விசாரணைக்கு உகந்தது அல்ல கூடுதல் அட்வகேட் ஜெனரல் கௌதமன் வாதாடினார் வழக்கில. தீர்ப்பு தள்ளிவைப்பு chief bench orders reserved