Monthly Archive: June 2021
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.6755 of 2021– 4. In view of the fact that the 1st petitioner has already made a representation to the respondent, the request of the first petitioner shall be considered for inclusion of his wife’s name / 2nd petitioner herein and his children in the Records, after due registration of their marriage with the appropriate Sub Registrar’s Office and the Registration Certificate shall be produced to the respondent herein. Upon receipt of the Certificate, the name of the second petitioner and his children shall be included as nominees in the Service Register, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.03.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.6755 of 2021 1. D. Joseph Manohar 2. J. Prasanna Indira … Petitioners -vs- Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation...
12:50] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1400349363956686849?s=1006 [6/3, 12:50] Sekarreporter1: Justice S. Vaidyanathan of Madras HC takes note of compromise reached between daughter & widowed daughter-in-law of a dead Village Assistant. Directs Govt to give a job on compassionate ground to the daughter but deduct 30% of her salary and pay it to daughter-in-law @THChennai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.03.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN W.P.Nos.3314 & 3669 of 2021 and WMP.No.4195 of 2021 W.P.No.3314 of 2021
[6/3, 12:50] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1400349363956686849?s=1006 [6/3, 12:50] Sekarreporter1: Justice S. Vaidyanathan of Madras HC takes note of compromise reached between daughter & widowed daughter-in-law of a dead Village Assistant. Directs Govt to give a job...
Justice N Satishkumar quashed the proceedings pending before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate in Egmore, after holding that staging a protest against the general price rise could never be construed as an undemocratic act and that the cases had no merit.
Madras-High-Court-quashes-criminal-cases-against-CPI-CPIM-leaders Madras High Court Photo: Wikipedia Commons The Madras High Court on Tuesday quashed the criminal cases pending before a lower court against K Balakrishnan and R Mutharasan, general secretaries of the Tamil Nadu...
Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and S. Ananthi restrained R. Sudha, M. Thangaraj and S. Nagarathinam from participating in syndicate meetings after it was alleged that their appointments as professors were not effected as per UGC norms. The court passed the order on a public interest litigation petition filed by M. Lionel Antony Raj of Madurai seeking a direction to quash their nomination as syndicate members.
Three members should not take part in MKU syndicate meetings: HC B. Tilak Chandar MADURAI , JUNE 02, 2021 21:44 IST UPDATED: JUNE 02, 2021 21:44 IST The Madurai Bench of the Madras High...
GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *W.P. 1613/2021* Dr. P. Sasikumar Vs. The Director & Anr. Dated: 31.03.2021 *Hon’ble Justice S. Vaidyanathan* allowed the Writ Petition, and since this matter is an exception one,
*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *W.P. 1613/2021* Dr. P. Sasikumar Vs. The Director & Anr. Dated: 31.03.2021 *Hon’ble Justice S. Vaidyanathan* allowed the Writ Petition, and since this matter is an exception one, interfered...
JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.Nos.23366 to 23369 of 2015—-For Petitioners in .. Mr.K.Balaji W.P.Nos.23366 and 23367 of 2015 For Petitioner in W.P.No.23368/2015 … Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, for M/s.Row & Reddy For Petitioner in … Mr.D.Vijayakumar W.P.No.23369/2015 For Respondents .. Mr.S.Karthikai Balan, 1 and 2 in all W.Ps. Government Advocate For 3rd Respondent .. Mr.A.Saravanan # 15.In such view of the matter, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to direct the second respondent to modify the date of grant of approval to the date of initial appointment of the petitioners. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to grant approval for the appointment of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and consequently, pay the difference in salary and other benefits for the disputed period to them, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such payment shall not bear any interest, as the petitioners have filed their respective affidavits dated 31.03.2021 to the effect that they will not claim interest for the difference in salary and other benefits for the disputed period. The impugned proceedings / orders passed by the second respondent are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for passing fresh orders, to that extent alone.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on Delivered on 01.04.2021 30.04.2021 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.Nos.23366 to 23369 of 2015 A.Punitha Kala Mary [ Petitioner in W.P.No.23366/2015 ] V.Latha...