You may also like...
-
![Pugalendhi pointed out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his Mann Ki Baat in 2015, had suggested that instead of using the word ‘viklang’ [meaning ‘disabled’ in Hindi], ‘divyang’ or ‘divyangjan’ [meaning ‘one with a divine body”] should be used. When such a compliment is given by the PM, it is](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Pugalendhi pointed out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his Mann Ki Baat in 2015, had suggested that instead of using the word ‘viklang’ [meaning ‘disabled’ in Hindi], ‘divyang’ or ‘divyangjan’ [meaning ‘one with a divine body”] should be used. When such a compliment is given by the PM, it is
by Sekar Reporter · Published October 30, 2020
-
In such circumstances, registering a case without conducting proper enquiry with regard to the payment of maintenance allowance is not correct and hence, the proceedings in STC.No.1393 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 06.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PJL To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN,J. PJL Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15704 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.6953 & 6954 of 2018 06.03.2023
by Sekar Reporter · Published July 4, 2023
-
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ O.S.A.No.50 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.4661 of 2023 Zee Media Corporation Limited (Zee News Channel) Considering the materials placed on record in the case on hand and the findings rendered above, we concur with the specific finding given by the learned Judge that the details / material facts required in the interrogatories are not dealt with in the written statement and further, no ground has been made out by the appellant for setting aside the impugned order. In such view of the matter, interrogatories have to be necessarily answered by the appellant / first defendant. Insofar as the maintainability of the application under Order XI Rule 7 before the learned Judge is concerned, the decision of the learned Judge has to be understood in the scheme of Rule 7, which permits an adversary to take out an application to strike out the interrogatory, if it is unreasonable, vexatious or are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous. The learned Judge in para 18 of the Order has clearly considered the scope of Rule 7 and then, held that the application is not maintainable as no ground as permissible under Rule 7 is made out. In view of the same, this ground is misconceived and is hence rejected. In view of the foregoing, this Original Side Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is directed to answer the interrogatories within a period of 10 days from today. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 31.08.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rk MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. rk O.S.A.No.50 of 2023 31.08.2023
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 1, 2023