![[10/4, 19:16] Sekarreporter.: https://youtu.be/KBUVobMC5MQ [10/4, 19:18] Sekarreporter.: நீட் தேர்வு ரத்து கோரிய வழக்கு சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் தீர்ப்பு பற்றி சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் வக்கீல். பேட்டி](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Next Post
- Previous story #BREAKING : தேர்தல் ஆணையராக அருண் கோயல் நியமிக்கப்பட்ட நியமனக் கோப்புகளை தாக்கல் செய்தது மத்திய அரசு தேர்தல் ஆணையராக அருண் கோயல் அவசரகதியில் நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாக உச்சநீதிமன்றம் கருத்து #SupremeCourtOfIndia
Recent Posts
- Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that on verifying the challenged order it is proved that the respondent regarded the timely payment of the applicant of the due amounts for the variance between the GSTR 1 and 3B dated January 9, 2023. Even after the consideration the respondent incorrectly mentioned on Page 23 of the transcript that levied entity loses to settle tax liabilities within 15 days of obtaining the notice on 17th March 2023. The same claim opposes the documented proof.
- Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala released a directory of designated senior advocates brought out by Tamil Nadu Senior Advocates Forum and Justice R. Mahadevan, the seniormost judge of the High Court, received the first copy in Chennai on April 24, 2024
- today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) crimes 134 SC : Ahmad Ali quraishi vs state of Uttar pradesh : Rejection.of application under section.156(3) CRPC does not preclude a complainant to file a complaint under section 200 CRPC
- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.A. No.1181 of 2024 andC.M.P.Nos.8549 and 8550 of 2024Ashok Leyland Limited rep. By itsAuthorized Signatory Satish S.M.,No.1, Sardar Patel Road,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. AppellantVs.1.The Controller of Patents & Designs,The Patent Office, ChennaiPatent Office Intellectual Property Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.2.Tata Motors Ltd.,Bombay House,24, Homi Mody Street,Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai – 400 001. .. RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in W.P. (IPD) No.1 of 2024 in respect of post-grant opposition proceedings against the Appellant’s patent number IN387429 (Patent application number 201641025668 dated 27.07.2016) and consequently direct respondent No.1 to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and to consider the matter afresh by re-constituting a fresh Opposition Board for providing a fresh joint recommendation pending disposal of thepresent writ appeal.For Appellant : Mr.M.S.BharathFor Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General for R1Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Ms.Archana Shankar for R2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.Sundar, J.)Captioned ‘Writ Appeal’ (hereinafter ‘captioned WA’ forthe sake of convenience and clarity) is an intra-court appeal and it is directed against an order dated 15.03.2024 made by Intellectual Property Division of this Court i.e., by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(IPD) No.1 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos.1 and 2thereat.
- In this context, in order to effectively implement the guidelines, the first respondent shall direct all the District Educational Authorities to constitute Monitoring Committees in each schools headed by the Head of the Institution, parents, teachers, senior students etc., as decided by the Government and such Monitoring Committees shall ensure that the guidelines are implemented scrupulously and any untoward incidents or any different behaviour of the staff members and the children, are brought to the notice of the Authorities, for initiation of remedial measures, the first respondent is directed to issue the guidelines in consonance with the Clauses 7.8 and 7.9 of the Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishment in Schools (GECP).(7) The consolidated Circular/Instructions are directed to be issued, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
More
Recent Posts
- Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that on verifying the challenged order it is proved that the respondent regarded the timely payment of the applicant of the due amounts for the variance between the GSTR 1 and 3B dated January 9, 2023. Even after the consideration the respondent incorrectly mentioned on Page 23 of the transcript that levied entity loses to settle tax liabilities within 15 days of obtaining the notice on 17th March 2023. The same claim opposes the documented proof.
- Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala released a directory of designated senior advocates brought out by Tamil Nadu Senior Advocates Forum and Justice R. Mahadevan, the seniormost judge of the High Court, received the first copy in Chennai on April 24, 2024
- today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) crimes 134 SC : Ahmad Ali quraishi vs state of Uttar pradesh : Rejection.of application under section.156(3) CRPC does not preclude a complainant to file a complaint under section 200 CRPC
- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.A. No.1181 of 2024 andC.M.P.Nos.8549 and 8550 of 2024Ashok Leyland Limited rep. By itsAuthorized Signatory Satish S.M.,No.1, Sardar Patel Road,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. AppellantVs.1.The Controller of Patents & Designs,The Patent Office, ChennaiPatent Office Intellectual Property Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.2.Tata Motors Ltd.,Bombay House,24, Homi Mody Street,Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai – 400 001. .. RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in W.P. (IPD) No.1 of 2024 in respect of post-grant opposition proceedings against the Appellant’s patent number IN387429 (Patent application number 201641025668 dated 27.07.2016) and consequently direct respondent No.1 to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and to consider the matter afresh by re-constituting a fresh Opposition Board for providing a fresh joint recommendation pending disposal of thepresent writ appeal.For Appellant : Mr.M.S.BharathFor Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General for R1Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Ms.Archana Shankar for R2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.Sundar, J.)Captioned ‘Writ Appeal’ (hereinafter ‘captioned WA’ forthe sake of convenience and clarity) is an intra-court appeal and it is directed against an order dated 15.03.2024 made by Intellectual Property Division of this Court i.e., by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(IPD) No.1 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos.1 and 2thereat.
- In this context, in order to effectively implement the guidelines, the first respondent shall direct all the District Educational Authorities to constitute Monitoring Committees in each schools headed by the Head of the Institution, parents, teachers, senior students etc., as decided by the Government and such Monitoring Committees shall ensure that the guidelines are implemented scrupulously and any untoward incidents or any different behaviour of the staff members and the children, are brought to the notice of the Authorities, for initiation of remedial measures, the first respondent is directed to issue the guidelines in consonance with the Clauses 7.8 and 7.9 of the Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishment in Schools (GECP).(7) The consolidated Circular/Instructions are directed to be issued, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.