Follow:
- Next story [01/07, 10:39] Tv Press: பள்ளி கரனை ராம்சர் நில வழக்கு தொடர்பாக தலைமை நீதிபதி அமர்வில் முறையீடு [01/07, 10:40] Tv Press: Lady adv [01/07, 10:40] Tv Press: Name not known [01/07, 10:40] Tv Press: விசாரணைக்கு பட்டியலிடப்படும் போது விசாரிக்கப்படும் – தலைமை நீதிபதி
- Previous story Thus, the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for considering her application seeking compassionate appointment and the Central Administrative Tribunal has considered the issues in right perspective and in consonance with the legal principles settled by the constitutional courts. Consequently the order passed by the Central
Recent Posts
- 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 When that petition was withdrawn on 29.04.2026, liberty was granted to challenge the provision directly.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
- [01/07, 11:01] Vinothpandian: Supreme Court: civil appeal no 14407 of 2025 dated 28th nov 2025 : LK Prabhu vs KT Mathew: Attachment before judgement cannot override a prior completed transfer of property and allegations of fraudulent transfers fall exclusively under the purview of section 53 of the transfer of property act 1882 [01/07, 11:01] Vinothpandian: Supreme Court: civil appeal no 5015 of 2025 dated 20th nov 2025 : CM Meenakshi vs Archbishop of bangalore : Supreme Court has held that issues like limitation , res judicata and order 2 rule 2 CPC are matters to be decided during the trial and not at the stage of rejecting the plaint [01/07, 11:01] Vinothpandian: Supreme Court: SLP ( crl ) diary no 60854 of 2024 dated 2nd dec 2025 Rousanara begum vs SK Salahuddin: goods given to a daughter at the time of her marriage by her father or to the bridegroom can be claimed back by the divorced woman under the provisions of Muslim women ( protection of rights on divorce act section 3. , ensuring her dignity and financial protection post – divorce [01/07, 11:01] Vinothpandian: Karnataka High court : Sri Ganesh sai finance vs Shri Yathindra M Patel criminal appeal no 350 of 2025 dated 6th nov 2025 : Dismissal of a complaint for non – prosecution without ascertaining execution of issued non – bailable warrants ( NBW s ) is not sustainable under law , it is the duty of the court to ensure proper execution of NBW s before passing any orders
- Justice A.D. Maria Clete of #MadrasHighCourt refuses to reject a civil suit filed against the continuance of South Indian Artistes Association, popularly known as Nadigar Sangam, office-bearers M. Nasser, Vishal Krishna, Karthi and others even after the expiry of their three-year elected term in March 2025. The association member V. Nambirajan had filed the civil suit and another member S.R. Sekar had filed an application to reject the plaint. Today, the judge dismissed the rejection application. @THChennai Backgrounder👇 thehindu.com/news/national/…
- [01/07, 10:39] Tv Press: பள்ளி கரனை ராம்சர் நில வழக்கு தொடர்பாக தலைமை நீதிபதி அமர்வில் முறையீடு [01/07, 10:40] Tv Press: Lady adv [01/07, 10:40] Tv Press: Name not known [01/07, 10:40] Tv Press: விசாரணைக்கு பட்டியலிடப்படும் போது விசாரிக்கப்படும் – தலைமை நீதிபதி
| 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
- 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
- [01/07, 11:01] Vinothpandian: Supreme Court: civil appeal no 14407 of 2025 dated 28th nov 2025 : LK Prabhu vs KT Mathew: Attachment before judgement cannot override a prior completed transfer of property and allegations of fraudulent transfers fall exclusively under the purview of section 53 of the transfer of property act 1882 [01/07, 11:01] Vinothpandian: Supreme Court: civil appeal no 5015 of 2025 dated 20th nov 2025 : CM Meenakshi vs Archbishop of bangalore : Supreme Court has held that issues like limitation , res judicata and order 2 rule 2 CPC are matters to be decided during the trial and not at the stage of rejecting the plaint [01/07, 11:01] Vinothpandian: Supreme Court: SLP ( crl ) diary no 60854 of 2024 dated 2nd dec 2025 Rousanara begum vs SK Salahuddin: goods given to a daughter at the time of her marriage by her father or to the bridegroom can be claimed back by the divorced woman under the provisions of Muslim women ( protection of rights on divorce act section 3. , ensuring her dignity and financial protection post – divorce [01/07, 11:01] Vinothpandian: Karnataka High court : Sri Ganesh sai finance vs Shri Yathindra M Patel criminal appeal no 350 of 2025 dated 6th nov 2025 : Dismissal of a complaint for non – prosecution without ascertaining execution of issued non – bailable warrants ( NBW s ) is not sustainable under law , it is the duty of the court to ensure proper execution of NBW s before passing any orders
- Justice A.D. Maria Clete of #MadrasHighCourt refuses to reject a civil suit filed against the continuance of South Indian Artistes Association, popularly known as Nadigar Sangam, office-bearers M. Nasser, Vishal Krishna, Karthi and others even after the expiry of their three-year elected term in March 2025. The association member V. Nambirajan had filed the civil suit and another member S.R. Sekar had filed an application to reject the plaint. Today, the judge dismissed the rejection application. @THChennai Backgrounder👇 thehindu.com/news/national/…
- [01/07, 10:39] Tv Press: பள்ளி கரனை ராம்சர் நில வழக்கு தொடர்பாக தலைமை நீதிபதி அமர்வில் முறையீடு [01/07, 10:40] Tv Press: Lady adv [01/07, 10:40] Tv Press: Name not known [01/07, 10:40] Tv Press: விசாரணைக்கு பட்டியலிடப்படும் போது விசாரிக்கப்படும் – தலைமை நீதிபதி