Follow:
Recent Posts
- [21/04, 19:31] sekarreporter1: “The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan ordered, “As an interim measure, Rule 4(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, insofar as it requires educational agencies to upload a self-declaration for compliance of the provisions of the Act and Rules to the competent authority on or before 30th April of every year shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.” Senior Counsel S. Ravi represented the Petitioner, while Advocate General P.S. Raman represented the Respondent.” https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/sri-kamaraj-vidyalaya-primary-school-v-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rule-private-schools-compliance-political-activities-1612531#:~:text=The%20Division%20Bench,represented%20the%20Respondent. [21/04, 19:31] sekarreporter1: 👍
- [21/04, 19:24] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxryp4Y7A-5QraPG91yr8wab7sK8EVUlvz?si=L0HKWcNbuk0jQvlN [21/04, 19:24] sekarreporter1: I.A. No. 3 of 2026 in O.S. No. 1797 of 2026 Dated: 21.04.2026 ORDER: Affidavits of Service filed. R1 to R12, 18 and 19 were served. Notices on R14 and R16 were returned as Door Locked. Notices on R13 and R17 were returned as ‘Addressee Absent’. Notice on R15 is returned as ‘Refused’. M/s. T.S.Baskaran, & Ors. filed vakalat for the R7. M/s. R.Silambarasan, A.M.Natarajan & Ors. filed Vakalat for R3. The Counsel for the R7 convincingly submitted that the Respondents are in the serious campaigning for the ongoing election and he could get the vakalat from the R7 who is an Advocate and others were from various parts of the State and that he could not get vakalats from them. He submitted that he undertakes to file vakalat since they could not make arrangements on receiving the intimation at the last moment. He further submitted that he needs time to file Counter to the Petition and reasonable opportunity has to be given to him to file effective Counter. The Counsel for the R3 also prayed time for filing Counter. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner filed the suit in his individual capacity and persuaded to argue that his photograph should not be used by these Respondents and it is his right of privacy as well guaranteed under the Constitution of India. He further contended that he is very much entitled to protect his right to prevent the Respondents from using his photograph. He further submitted that projecting his photographs, the Respondents misuse the general public to secure votes. He further submitted that the legal notice was sent as early on 09.04.2026 and suit was filed on 16.04.2026 and therefore the Respondents cannot take the plea that the relief is being sought at the nth hour. He further referred to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. M/s. Varsha Productions, dated 03.02.2015. Considering the submissions made and the urgency involved, in view of the fact that the election campaigning ends today and polling is scheduled on 23.04.2026, and also taking into account that the Respondents have not yet filed their counters, this Court is of the view that instead of granting a blanket injunction, a narrow and calibrated interim direction would meet the ends of justice. This Court also takes note of the practical aspect that, at this stage, campaign materials would have already been prepared and circulated, and any direction for withdrawal or reprinting may cause inconvenience and the elections expenses would have been accounted and therefore making them to re-print would cause inconvenience. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed not to use the photograph of the Petitioner in any manner suggesting his consent or support, and shall also refrain from issuing any fresh campaign materials using the Petitioner’s photograph after the time of this order. It is made clear that this order shall operate prospectively and shall not affect any materials already printed or publicly circulated prior to this order. This limited direction is issued so as to avoid electoral disruption while at the same time preventing possible prejudice to the Petitioner who is seeking for his enforcement of his fundamental right. For filing Vakalat of other Respondents and Counter of all Respondents, call on 04.06.2026. XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Note: This Order shall be uploaded. I.A. No. 4 of 2026 in O.S. No. 1797 of 2026 Dated: 21.04.2026 ORDER: Affidavits of Service filed. R1 to R12, 18 and 19 were served. Notices on R14 and R16 were returned as Door Locked. Notices on R13 and R17 were returned as ‘Addressee Absent’. Notice on R15 is returned as ‘Refused’. M/s. T.S.Baskaran, & Ors. filed vakalat for the R7. M/s. R.Silambarasan, A.M.Natarajan & Ors. filed Vakalat for R3. Heard jointly with the I.A. No. 4 of 2026. However, it is in the nature of interim mandatory injunction. For filing Vakalat of other Respondents and Counter of all Respondents, call on 04.06.2026. XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Note: This Order shall be uploaded.
- sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxVuw7nPdyxqBvm7mP5t6LSfectdmaWL3T?si=Ay3-NbwIJcW-MBxk [21/04, 18:51] sekarreporter1: Mr.C.M Arumugam Advocate for Dr.Ramadass [21/04, 18:53] sekarreporter1: ராமதாஸ் பெயர் படம் பயன்படுத்த
- sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxBMnryo0EASmEfS0FsePJ_xev2ikUgxFx?si=cyAludm85k30v8gF [21/04, 16:51] sekarreporter1: [21/04, 16:49] sekarreporter1: Madras High
- sekarreporter1: Madras High Court Declines Immediate Anticipatory Bail in Jananayagan Leak Case. The Madras High Court on Tuesday
More
Recent Posts
- [21/04, 19:31] sekarreporter1: “The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan ordered, “As an interim measure, Rule 4(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, insofar as it requires educational agencies to upload a self-declaration for compliance of the provisions of the Act and Rules to the competent authority on or before 30th April of every year shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.” Senior Counsel S. Ravi represented the Petitioner, while Advocate General P.S. Raman represented the Respondent.” https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/sri-kamaraj-vidyalaya-primary-school-v-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rule-private-schools-compliance-political-activities-1612531#:~:text=The%20Division%20Bench,represented%20the%20Respondent. [21/04, 19:31] sekarreporter1: 👍
- [21/04, 19:24] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxryp4Y7A-5QraPG91yr8wab7sK8EVUlvz?si=L0HKWcNbuk0jQvlN [21/04, 19:24] sekarreporter1: I.A. No. 3 of 2026 in O.S. No. 1797 of 2026 Dated: 21.04.2026 ORDER: Affidavits of Service filed. R1 to R12, 18 and 19 were served. Notices on R14 and R16 were returned as Door Locked. Notices on R13 and R17 were returned as ‘Addressee Absent’. Notice on R15 is returned as ‘Refused’. M/s. T.S.Baskaran, & Ors. filed vakalat for the R7. M/s. R.Silambarasan, A.M.Natarajan & Ors. filed Vakalat for R3. The Counsel for the R7 convincingly submitted that the Respondents are in the serious campaigning for the ongoing election and he could get the vakalat from the R7 who is an Advocate and others were from various parts of the State and that he could not get vakalats from them. He submitted that he undertakes to file vakalat since they could not make arrangements on receiving the intimation at the last moment. He further submitted that he needs time to file Counter to the Petition and reasonable opportunity has to be given to him to file effective Counter. The Counsel for the R3 also prayed time for filing Counter. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner filed the suit in his individual capacity and persuaded to argue that his photograph should not be used by these Respondents and it is his right of privacy as well guaranteed under the Constitution of India. He further contended that he is very much entitled to protect his right to prevent the Respondents from using his photograph. He further submitted that projecting his photographs, the Respondents misuse the general public to secure votes. He further submitted that the legal notice was sent as early on 09.04.2026 and suit was filed on 16.04.2026 and therefore the Respondents cannot take the plea that the relief is being sought at the nth hour. He further referred to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. M/s. Varsha Productions, dated 03.02.2015. Considering the submissions made and the urgency involved, in view of the fact that the election campaigning ends today and polling is scheduled on 23.04.2026, and also taking into account that the Respondents have not yet filed their counters, this Court is of the view that instead of granting a blanket injunction, a narrow and calibrated interim direction would meet the ends of justice. This Court also takes note of the practical aspect that, at this stage, campaign materials would have already been prepared and circulated, and any direction for withdrawal or reprinting may cause inconvenience and the elections expenses would have been accounted and therefore making them to re-print would cause inconvenience. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed not to use the photograph of the Petitioner in any manner suggesting his consent or support, and shall also refrain from issuing any fresh campaign materials using the Petitioner’s photograph after the time of this order. It is made clear that this order shall operate prospectively and shall not affect any materials already printed or publicly circulated prior to this order. This limited direction is issued so as to avoid electoral disruption while at the same time preventing possible prejudice to the Petitioner who is seeking for his enforcement of his fundamental right. For filing Vakalat of other Respondents and Counter of all Respondents, call on 04.06.2026. XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Note: This Order shall be uploaded. I.A. No. 4 of 2026 in O.S. No. 1797 of 2026 Dated: 21.04.2026 ORDER: Affidavits of Service filed. R1 to R12, 18 and 19 were served. Notices on R14 and R16 were returned as Door Locked. Notices on R13 and R17 were returned as ‘Addressee Absent’. Notice on R15 is returned as ‘Refused’. M/s. T.S.Baskaran, & Ors. filed vakalat for the R7. M/s. R.Silambarasan, A.M.Natarajan & Ors. filed Vakalat for R3. Heard jointly with the I.A. No. 4 of 2026. However, it is in the nature of interim mandatory injunction. For filing Vakalat of other Respondents and Counter of all Respondents, call on 04.06.2026. XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Note: This Order shall be uploaded.
- sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxVuw7nPdyxqBvm7mP5t6LSfectdmaWL3T?si=Ay3-NbwIJcW-MBxk [21/04, 18:51] sekarreporter1: Mr.C.M Arumugam Advocate for Dr.Ramadass [21/04, 18:53] sekarreporter1: ராமதாஸ் பெயர் படம் பயன்படுத்த
- sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxBMnryo0EASmEfS0FsePJ_xev2ikUgxFx?si=cyAludm85k30v8gF [21/04, 16:51] sekarreporter1: [21/04, 16:49] sekarreporter1: Madras High
- sekarreporter1: Madras High Court Declines Immediate Anticipatory Bail in Jananayagan Leak Case. The Madras High Court on Tuesday