SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Daily Archive: June 7, 2021

Sekarreporter1: [6/7, 20:13] Leaf Let Web Paras Nath Singh: No person or entity (including print and electronic media, and social media platforms) other than an authorised person or entity will be allowed to record, share or disseminate live-streamed proceedings or archival data, the draft Rules state https://www.theleaflet.in/scs-e-committee-releases-draft-rules-for-

Uncategorized

Sekarreporter1: [6/7, 20:13] Leaf Let Web Paras Nath Singh: No person or entity (including print and electronic media, and social media platforms) other than an authorised person or entity will be allowed to record, share or disseminate live-streamed proceedings or archival data, the draft Rules state https://www.theleaflet.in/scs-e-committee-releases-draft-rules-for-

[6/7, 09:55] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/_z5AkJExeXY [6/7, 13:05] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/a1OLoMD37lA [6/7, 13:05] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/9TMn4FRZ54s [6/7, 17:15] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/D-G2yMWQqhE [6/7, 17:20] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/7BiI6HI1EQk [6/7, 19:56] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/DLERAhR4nOs [6/7, 20:32] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/tVbCf5wwbps [6/7, 20:32] Sekarreporter1: [6/7, 20:13] Leaf...

[6/7, 15:36] Sekarreporter1: [6/7, 15:35] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1401842683576918019?s=1006 [6/7, 15:35] Sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court Monday issued a slew of directions to allow the #LGBTQIA+ community to lead a safe and secure life. https://www.theleaflet.in/madras-hc-issues-directions-for-protection-of-lgbtqia-community/ [6/7, 15:38] Leaf Let Web Paras Nath Singh: “Ignorance is no justification for normalizing any form of discrimination. Therefore, I took upon myself, the vested responsibility and the duty to deliver justice in all its forms and spirit, of cutting across personal prejudices and notions and setting forth to, at the least, educate myself lest my ignorance interfere with in guiding homosexuality and the LGBTQIA+ community towards social justice”, Justice Venkatesh said in his 107-page judgment. https://www.theleaflet.in/i-too-belong-to-a-majority-that-is-yet-to-comprehend-homosexuality-says-justice-n-anand-venkatesh-overcomes-his-prejudices-to-rule-in-favour-of-lgbtqia-community/

Uncategorized

[6/7, 15:36] Sekarreporter1: [6/7, 15:35] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1401842683576918019?s=1006 [6/7, 15:35] Sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court Monday issued a slew of directions to allow the #LGBTQIA+ community to lead a safe and secure life. https://www.theleaflet.in/madras-hc-issues-directions-for-protection-of-lgbtqia-community/ [6/7, 15:38] Leaf Let Web Paras Nath Singh: “Ignorance is no justification for normalizing any form of discrimination. Therefore, I took upon myself, the vested responsibility and the duty to deliver justice in all its forms and spirit, of cutting across personal prejudices and notions and setting forth to, at the least, educate myself lest my ignorance interfere with in guiding homosexuality and the LGBTQIA+ community towards social justice”, Justice Venkatesh said in his 107-page judgment. https://www.theleaflet.in/i-too-belong-to-a-majority-that-is-yet-to-comprehend-homosexuality-says-justice-n-anand-venkatesh-overcomes-his-prejudices-to-rule-in-favour-of-lgbtqia-community/

[6/7, 15:36] Sekarreporter1: [6/7, 15:35] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1401842683576918019?s=1006 [6/7, 15:35] Sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court Monday issued a slew of directions to allow the #LGBTQIA+ community to lead a safe and secure life. https://www.theleaflet.in/madras-hc-issues-directions-for-protection-of-lgbtqia-community/ [6/7,...

His Lordship Justice S.Vaidyanathan Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and disagreeing with the decision rendered by this Court in S.Balasubramanian and others vs. State, reported in (2013) 2 LW (Cri) 289, referred the matter to a Larger Bench to decide the following issues: i) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the Government is going to sanction prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for not implementing the provisions of the Act against persons falling under Section 32 of the Act, 1947; ii) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the words “as well as the Company” are absent under Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the same is not in pari materia with the provisions of Section 141 of the N.I.Act. [6/7, 14:48] Sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2021 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.2869 of 2021

Uncategorized

His Lordship Justice S.Vaidyanathan Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and disagreeing with the decision rendered by this Court in S.Balasubramanian and others vs. State, reported in (2013) 2 LW (Cri) 289, referred the matter to a Larger Bench to decide the following issues: i) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the Government is going to sanction prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for not implementing the provisions of the Act against persons falling under Section 32 of the Act, 1947; ii) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the words “as well as the Company” are absent under Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the same is not in pari materia with the provisions of Section 141 of the N.I.Act. [6/7, 14:48] Sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2021 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.2869 of 2021

[6/7, 14:48] Sekarreporter1: His Lordship Justice S.Vaidyanathan Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and disagreeing with the decision rendered by this Court in S.Balasubramanian and others vs. State, reported in (2013) 2 LW (Cri) 289,...

Judge s vaithiyanathan sir dismissed the Writ Petition and disagreeing with the decision rendered by this Court in S.Balasubramanian and others vs. State, reported in (2013) 2 LW (Cri) 289, referred the matter to a Larger Bench to decide the following issues: i) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the Government is going to sanction prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for not implementing the provisions of the Act against persons falling under Section 32 of the Act, 1947; ii) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the words “as well as the Company” are absent under Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the same is not in pari materia with the provisions of Section 141 of the N.I.Act. [6/7, 14:48] Sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2021 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.2869 of 2021 P.Rajendran … Petitioner -vs- The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore Division – II) Ltd, Chennimalai Road, Erode-1.

Uncategorized

Judge s vaithiyanathan sir dismissed the Writ Petition and disagreeing with the decision rendered by this Court in S.Balasubramanian and others vs. State, reported in (2013) 2 LW (Cri) 289, referred the matter to a Larger Bench to decide the following issues: i) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the Government is going to sanction prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for not implementing the provisions of the Act against persons falling under Section 32 of the Act, 1947; ii) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the words “as well as the Company” are absent under Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the same is not in pari materia with the provisions of Section 141 of the N.I.Act. [6/7, 14:48] Sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2021 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.2869 of 2021 P.Rajendran … Petitioner -vs- The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore Division – II) Ltd, Chennimalai Road, Erode-1.

[6/7, 14:48] Sekarreporter1: Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and disagreeing with the decision rendered by this Court in S.Balasubramanian and others vs. State, reported in (2013) 2 LW (Cri) 289, referred the matter to...

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU Suo Motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 and WP(MD)No.24178 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.30869 of 2017, 19652 of 2018, 20421 of 2020 and 1810, 1814, 1816, 1818, 1819, 1821 and 1822 of 2021 Suo Motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 1.The Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpat, New Delhi-110 004.

Uncategorized

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU Suo Motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 and WP(MD)No.24178 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.30869 of 2017, 19652 of 2018, 20421 of 2020 and 1810, 1814, 1816, 1818, 1819, 1821 and 1822 of 2021 Suo Motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 1.The Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpat, New Delhi-110 004.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.06.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU Suo Motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 and WP(MD)No.24178 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.30869 of 2017,...

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com