[3/11, 10:57] Sekarreporter 1: Madras HC says Puducherry L-G & Council of Ministers should work in unison and not in division @THChennai [3/11, 10:57] Sekarreporter 1: Sets aside single judge’s order which held hat L-G cannot interfere with day to day functioning of the Union territory.

by Sekar Reporter · March 11, 2020

You may also like...

• 

  Avoid doing anything adventurous at Veda Nilayam: Madras High Court –Justice N. Seshasayee of the Madras High Court on Monday advised the State government to avoid doing anything adventurous such as inaugurating a memorial for former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa at her Poes Garden residence Veda Nilayam until the court decides cases filed by her legal heirs against the acquisition proceedings.

  January 5, 2021

   by Sekar Reporter · Published January 5, 2021

• 

  Pandiyarajan Son: Wrong news by you. Since we challenged interim order court directed us to challenge the final order afresh with same grounds [10/17, 06:20] Sekarreporter 1: 1 ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 15849-15851/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-09-2022 in WAMD No. 973/2022, WAMD No. 977/2022 and WAMD No. 980/2022 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras At Madurai) TAMILNADU SPINNING MILLS ASSOCIATION Petitioner(s)

  October 17, 2022

   by Sekar Reporter · Published October 17, 2022

• 

  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN A.No.1423 of 2019 in C.S.Diary.No.140041 of 2018 1. Clement Selvaraj, aged about 73 years, Son of Mr.S.Antony Doss, 41/17, Meena Apartments, Appu Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 2. V.Jayabalan, aged about 62——- application is to be rejected holding that the applicants/ plaintiffs are not ” interested person” within the meaning of Section 92 CPC. The application is not filed with solemn view to vindicate public interest. The allegation of mismanagement or mal-administration are found to be without substance and basis. The application is also an attempt to re-agitate many of the issues which had been settled in the earlier proceedings in C.S.No.156/2002, O.S.A.No.83 & 129 of 2003 and C.A.No.3052 of 2006 as aforementioned. Thus the application is intended to harass the trustee and the Trust. The application also fails for misjoinder of parties (3rd , 4th and 7th respondents)As far as he legal ground relating to the limitation, though prima facie, the objection has considerable force, but this Court is not inclined to hold conclusively one way or the other, in view of the application being rejected wholly on merits. Likewise, the other legal issue raised as to the application of section 11 CPC and the principle of “Res judicata”, for the same reason, this Court is inclined to deal with the said objection. 118. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed. Consequently, C.S.D.No.140041 of 2018 is rejected. No costs. 17.11.2021 vsi V.PARTHIBAN,J. vsi-

  November 17, 2021

   by Sekar Reporter · Published November 17, 2021