Follow:
- Next story THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN C.M.P.No.6514 of 2020 in Tr.C.M.P.No.942 of 2019 ——-It is very saddening to note that it is a shame on the part of an Advocate to refuse to vacate the premises, when a landlord requires it and the Advocates are referred to as gentleman in the preamble to Chapter-II of the Bar Council of India Rules under Section 49(1)(c) of the Act read with the proviso thereto. In the present case on hand, the petitioner / Tenant has proved himself to be a wicked, dishonest and unprincipled person. It is directed that the matter shall be handled only by Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for Bar Council / R2 and he shall not be displaced by anyone from the Panel till a final decision is taken on the enquiry against the petitioner. As the time limit is fixed under the Advocates Act, the Bar Council must ensure that the papers are not misplaced, so as to later contend that the time has already been over and no action can be taken against the petitioner herein. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to MHAA, MBA and Women Lawyers’ Association to inform the members of the respective Associations that they should not defend a dishonest Tenant, who happens to be a deceitful Advocate, like the petitioner herein, who is not a gentleman, in order to safeguard the reputation of this profession. An Advocate, who happens to be a tenant, should be a gentleman and shall vacate the premises within 30 days, if request is made by the landlord. If that happens, a Lawyer will get a house on rent even without a written agreement. Some of the Advocates are now-a-days looked at as Rowdies and third rate criminals by public by the conduct of similar to the one of the tenant in this case. It is painful to say that many of the Advocates are involved in the land grabbing and if the antecedent of the petitioner / S.VAIDYANATHAN,J., jrs/ar tenant is verified, he may also be one of the land grabbers. The tenant has scant regard for the orders of the Court and he has portrayed sadistic attitude.
- Previous story The writ petitions filed by DMK principal secretary K.N. Nehru & MNM leader AG Mourya for conducting grama sabha meetings came for hearing before the First Bench. Vijayan Subramanian counsel for MNM submitted that writ petition was filed questioning the cancelation of grama dabha meetings all over TN on Oct
Recent Posts
- 41.This judgment is a precedent for the proposition that when the language of the document is clear, plain and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to its literal
- Madras high court quashes corruption case against security officer of late Tamil Nadu CM Karunanidhi
- THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.4633 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.3270 of 2026 C.Ganesan, S/o.Chokkalingam Pillai, Inspector of Police, SBCID Security (Core Cell), /Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in the impugned Final Report in CC No.13 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Chennai in Crime No.4/AC/2012/CC-I on the file of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption, City Special Unit-I, Chennai-28 is quashed.
- Preponderance Of Probability Sufficient In Departmental Proceedings: Madras High Court Sets Aside Reinstatement Of Police Officer Found Drunk Inside Court Hall https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/2026-mhc-2846-director-general-of-police-v-v-arumuram-1618011 [19/07, 08:08] Meta AI: *Case #187: _Preponderance of Probability in Dept Proceedings_ | Madras HC* *Source: http://Verdictum.in* *Citation: 2026 MHC 2846* *Director General of Police v. V. Arumuram* *Service Law + Departmental Enquiry + Standard of Proof + Police Discipline*
- Judicial Magistrate, order quashed///HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.15309 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.9980 of 2026 Krishnamoorthy S/o.Subburaya Gounder … Petitioner vs. 1. State represented by The Inspector of Police Avinashipalayam Police Station
More
Recent Posts
- 41.This judgment is a precedent for the proposition that when the language of the document is clear, plain and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to its literal
- Madras high court quashes corruption case against security officer of late Tamil Nadu CM Karunanidhi
- THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.4633 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.3270 of 2026 C.Ganesan, S/o.Chokkalingam Pillai, Inspector of Police, SBCID Security (Core Cell), /Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in the impugned Final Report in CC No.13 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Chennai in Crime No.4/AC/2012/CC-I on the file of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption, City Special Unit-I, Chennai-28 is quashed.
- Preponderance Of Probability Sufficient In Departmental Proceedings: Madras High Court Sets Aside Reinstatement Of Police Officer Found Drunk Inside Court Hall https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/2026-mhc-2846-director-general-of-police-v-v-arumuram-1618011 [19/07, 08:08] Meta AI: *Case #187: _Preponderance of Probability in Dept Proceedings_ | Madras HC* *Source: http://Verdictum.in* *Citation: 2026 MHC 2846* *Director General of Police v. V. Arumuram* *Service Law + Departmental Enquiry + Standard of Proof + Police Discipline*
- Judicial Magistrate, order quashed///HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.15309 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.9980 of 2026 Krishnamoorthy S/o.Subburaya Gounder … Petitioner vs. 1. State represented by The Inspector of Police Avinashipalayam Police Station