SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Daily Archive: March 1, 2021

The Madras HC comprising of Chief Justice and Mr Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoothy ordered notice returnable by last week of April 2021 in contempt petition filed by the DMK party for non implementation of the order first Bench dated 27.7.2020 directing to implement reservations in All India Quota in Medical and Dental state surrendered seats. Mr. P. Wilson appearing for DMK submitted that the issue relating to granting of reservations in All India Quota State Surrendered seats is settled

Uncategorized

 by · Published March 1, 2021

The Madras HC comprising of Chief Justice and Mr Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoothy ordered notice returnable by last week of April 2021 in contempt petition filed by the DMK party for non implementation of the order first Bench dated 27.7.2020 directing to implement reservations in All India Quota in Medical and Dental state surrendered seats. Mr. P. Wilson appearing for DMK submitted that the issue relating to granting of reservations in All India Quota State Surrendered seats is settled

The Madras HC comprising of Chief Justice and Mr Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoothy ordered notice returnable by last week of April 2021 in contempt petition filed by the DMK party for non implementation of...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
The Supreme Court on Monday held that the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) covers criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the corporate debtor. “We have held that proceedings under Section 138/141 NI Act are covered by moratorium under Section 14 of IBC”, Justice RF Nariman said reading out the operative portion of the judgment. The judgment also observed that moratorium was applicable only to the corporate debtor. The top court also held that it was disagreeing with the views taken by Bombay and other High Courts. A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph delivered the judgment on a batch of petitions which challenged the continuation of criminal trial under Section 138 NI Act during the pendency of liquidation proceedings in the National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT). Last year, a division bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Aniruddha Bose had issued notice to the Attorney General to determine the issue whether NCLT’s moratorium during corporate insolvency resolution proceess will bar complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The notice to AG was issued while considering an appeal against a Madras High Court judgment which held that NCLT’s moratorium will not affect complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The Madras High Court had held that since Section 138 NI Act was a criminal proceeding, the moratorium under Section 14 IBC will not affect it. “The Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a penal provision which empowers the court of competent jurisdiction to pass the order of imprisonment or fine. It is not the civil proceedings and even fine imposed by the criminal court cannot held to be a money claim or recovery against Corporate Debtor. It is seen from the above provision, the criminal proceedings is not covered under the prohibition and as such the petitioner cannot have a shelter under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code”, a single bench of Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan of Madras HC had held.

Uncategorized

 by · Published March 1, 2021

The Supreme Court on Monday held that the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) covers criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the corporate debtor. “We have held that proceedings under Section 138/141 NI Act are covered by moratorium under Section 14 of IBC”, Justice RF Nariman said reading out the operative portion of the judgment. The judgment also observed that moratorium was applicable only to the corporate debtor. The top court also held that it was disagreeing with the views taken by Bombay and other High Courts. A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph delivered the judgment on a batch of petitions which challenged the continuation of criminal trial under Section 138 NI Act during the pendency of liquidation proceedings in the National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT). Last year, a division bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Aniruddha Bose had issued notice to the Attorney General to determine the issue whether NCLT’s moratorium during corporate insolvency resolution proceess will bar complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The notice to AG was issued while considering an appeal against a Madras High Court judgment which held that NCLT’s moratorium will not affect complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The Madras High Court had held that since Section 138 NI Act was a criminal proceeding, the moratorium under Section 14 IBC will not affect it. “The Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a penal provision which empowers the court of competent jurisdiction to pass the order of imprisonment or fine. It is not the civil proceedings and even fine imposed by the criminal court cannot held to be a money claim or recovery against Corporate Debtor. It is seen from the above provision, the criminal proceedings is not covered under the prohibition and as such the petitioner cannot have a shelter under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code”, a single bench of Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan of Madras HC had held.

The Supreme Court on  Monday held that the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) covers criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Defamatory complaints against spouse and damaging his reputation amount to mental cruelty, the Supreme Court said on Friday while granting divorce to an Army officer. A Bench headed by Justice SK Kaul said

Uncategorized

 by · Published March 1, 2021

Defamatory complaints against spouse and damaging his reputation amount to mental cruelty, the Supreme Court said on Friday while granting divorce to an Army officer. A Bench headed by Justice SK Kaul said

  Example logo image Monday 01, March 2021 Example logo image Follow Us Twitter Facebook Youtube Instagram Share Article Aa NATION Damaging reputation of spouse amounts to mental cruelty: Supreme Court Google News Updated...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Wearing specs will not make one unfit for post, says HC Kaushik Kannan | TNN | Mar 1, 2021, 04:08 IST +1 AA Madurai: Madras high court has observed that a person wearing spectacles cannot be deemed unfit for a post when there is no specific visual standards mentioned in the recruitment notification. Dismissing an appeal by the state, the court upheld a single judge’s order directing to appoint a candidate for the post of sub-inspector of police (fingerprint). REMOVE ADS S Durga Devi had cleared the written examination for the post followed by physical measurement endurance test and viva voce. Though she was selected provisionally, she was found unsuitable for the post at the examination done by the medical board consisting of an eye specialist. The test was done in tune with the GO passed by the home department in 2000 fixing the visual standards for testing a candidate without wearing glasses. After making her undergo the test thrice, her candidature was rejected. Durga challenged it before the HC Madurai bench and the single judge held that the notification does not specify the visual standards and that it is not as if the work cannot be done by wearing glasses. The state challenged the order through the present appeal. Agreeing with the single judge, a division bench of Justices M M Sundresh and S Ananthi observed that it is clear that Durga can perform the work by wearing glasses and her candidature cannot be rejected by making her undergo a test without wearing glasses. The judges observed that the classification sought to be made is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is an indirect way of fixing qualification on the sole premise that a candidate wearing glasses cannot be considered.

Uncategorized

 by · Published March 1, 2021

Wearing specs will not make one unfit for post, says HC Kaushik Kannan | TNN | Mar 1, 2021, 04:08 IST +1 AA Madurai: Madras high court has observed that a person wearing spectacles cannot be deemed unfit for a post when there is no specific visual standards mentioned in the recruitment notification. Dismissing an appeal by the state, the court upheld a single judge’s order directing to appoint a candidate for the post of sub-inspector of police (fingerprint). REMOVE ADS S Durga Devi had cleared the written examination for the post followed by physical measurement endurance test and viva voce. Though she was selected provisionally, she was found unsuitable for the post at the examination done by the medical board consisting of an eye specialist. The test was done in tune with the GO passed by the home department in 2000 fixing the visual standards for testing a candidate without wearing glasses. After making her undergo the test thrice, her candidature was rejected. Durga challenged it before the HC Madurai bench and the single judge held that the notification does not specify the visual standards and that it is not as if the work cannot be done by wearing glasses. The state challenged the order through the present appeal. Agreeing with the single judge, a division bench of Justices M M Sundresh and S Ananthi observed that it is clear that Durga can perform the work by wearing glasses and her candidature cannot be rejected by making her undergo a test without wearing glasses. The judges observed that the classification sought to be made is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is an indirect way of fixing qualification on the sole premise that a candidate wearing glasses cannot be considered.

Wearing specs will not make one unfit for post, says HC Wearing specs will not make one unfit for post, says HC Kaushik Kannan | TNN | Mar 1, 2021, 04:08 IST +1 AA...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Exit mobile version