SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Author: Sekar Reporter

Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala released a directory of designated senior advocates brought out by Tamil Nadu Senior Advocates Forum and Justice R. Mahadevan, the seniormost judge of the High Court, received the first copy in Chennai on April 24, 2024

Uncategorized

Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala released a directory of designated senior advocates brought out by Tamil Nadu Senior Advocates Forum and Justice R. Mahadevan, the seniormost judge of the High Court, received the first copy in Chennai on April 24, 2024

HamberMenu HOMENEWSINDIATAMIL NADUMoot court was an extra-curricular activity when I was in law college: Chief Justice GangapurwalaApril 24, 2024 09:28 pm | Updated 09:57 pm IST – CHENNAI He lauds Tamil Nadu Senior Advocates...

today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) crimes 134 SC : Ahmad Ali quraishi vs state of Uttar pradesh : Rejection.of application under section.156(3) CRPC does not preclude a complainant to file a complaint under section 200 CRPC

Uncategorized

today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) crimes 134 SC : Ahmad Ali quraishi vs state of Uttar pradesh : Rejection.of application under section.156(3) CRPC does not preclude a complainant to file a complaint under section 200 CRPC

[25/04, 15:35] Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) crimes 134 SC : Ahmad Ali quraishi vs state of Uttar pradesh : Rejection.of application under section.156(3) CRPC does not preclude a complainant to file a complaint under section...

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.A. No.1181 of 2024 andC.M.P.Nos.8549 and 8550 of 2024Ashok Leyland Limited rep. By itsAuthorized Signatory Satish S.M.,No.1, Sardar Patel Road,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. AppellantVs.1.The Controller of Patents & Designs,The Patent Office, ChennaiPatent Office Intellectual Property Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.2.Tata Motors Ltd.,Bombay House,24, Homi Mody Street,Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai – 400 001. .. RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in W.P. (IPD) No.1 of 2024 in respect of post-grant opposition proceedings against the Appellant’s patent number IN387429 (Patent application number 201641025668 dated 27.07.2016) and consequently direct respondent No.1 to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and to consider the matter afresh by re-constituting a fresh Opposition Board for providing a fresh joint recommendation pending disposal of thepresent writ appeal.For Appellant : Mr.M.S.BharathFor Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General for R1Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Ms.Archana Shankar for R2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.Sundar, J.)Captioned ‘Writ Appeal’ (hereinafter ‘captioned WA’ forthe sake of convenience and clarity) is an intra-court appeal and it is directed against an order dated 15.03.2024 made by Intellectual Property Division of this Court i.e., by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(IPD) No.1 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos.1 and 2thereat.

Uncategorized

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.A. No.1181 of 2024 andC.M.P.Nos.8549 and 8550 of 2024Ashok Leyland Limited rep. By itsAuthorized Signatory Satish S.M.,No.1, Sardar Patel Road,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. AppellantVs.1.The Controller of Patents & Designs,The Patent Office, ChennaiPatent Office Intellectual Property Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.2.Tata Motors Ltd.,Bombay House,24, Homi Mody Street,Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai – 400 001. .. RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in W.P. (IPD) No.1 of 2024 in respect of post-grant opposition proceedings against the Appellant’s patent number IN387429 (Patent application number 201641025668 dated 27.07.2016) and consequently direct respondent No.1 to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and to consider the matter afresh by re-constituting a fresh Opposition Board for providing a fresh joint recommendation pending disposal of thepresent writ appeal.For Appellant : Mr.M.S.BharathFor Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General for R1Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Ms.Archana Shankar for R2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.Sundar, J.)Captioned ‘Writ Appeal’ (hereinafter ‘captioned WA’ forthe sake of convenience and clarity) is an intra-court appeal and it is directed against an order dated 15.03.2024 made by Intellectual Property Division of this Court i.e., by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(IPD) No.1 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos.1 and 2thereat.

2024:MHC:1768IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.04.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.A. No.1181 of 2024 andC.M.P.Nos.8549 and 8550 of 2024Ashok Leyland Limited rep. By itsAuthorized Signatory Satish S.M.,No.1, Sardar...

In this context, in order to effectively implement the guidelines, the first respondent shall direct all the District Educational Authorities to constitute Monitoring Committees in each schools headed by the Head of the Institution, parents, teachers, senior students etc., as decided by the Government and such Monitoring Committees shall ensure that the guidelines are implemented scrupulously and any untoward incidents or any different behaviour of the staff members and the children, are brought to the notice of the Authorities, for initiation of remedial measures, the first respondent is directed to issue the guidelines in consonance with the Clauses 7.8 and 7.9 of the Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishment in Schools (GECP).(7) The consolidated Circular/Instructions are directed to be issued, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Uncategorized

In this context, in order to effectively implement the guidelines, the first respondent shall direct all the District Educational Authorities to constitute Monitoring Committees in each schools headed by the Head of the Institution, parents, teachers, senior students etc., as decided by the Government and such Monitoring Committees shall ensure that the guidelines are implemented scrupulously and any untoward incidents or any different behaviour of the staff members and the children, are brought to the notice of the Authorities, for initiation of remedial measures, the first respondent is directed to issue the guidelines in consonance with the Clauses 7.8 and 7.9 of the Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishment in Schools (GECP).(7) The consolidated Circular/Instructions are directed to be issued, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.04.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAMW.P.No.4507 of 2024 Kamatchi Shanker Arumugam,4/16/1, Bharathi Nagar,Bodipatti Post,Udumalpet Taluk,Tiruppur District- 642 154,Phone 8754000313. … Petitioner (R3 to R5 are suo...

Case agains Pension Scheme / HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARW. P.Nos.1661 of 2015 and 19076 and 35462 of 2023andW.M.P.Nos.18326, 18327, 35437 and 35439 of 2023W.P.No.1661 of 2015 dismissed#,#

Uncategorized

Case agains Pension Scheme / HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARW. P.Nos.1661 of 2015 and 19076 and 35462 of 2023andW.M.P.Nos.18326, 18327, 35437 and 35439 of 2023W.P.No.1661 of 2015 dismissed#,#

For Petitioner : Mr.N.ManoharanFor R1 & R5 : Mr.M.SanthanaramanFor R2 & R3 : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Additional Advocate General – I assisted by Mr.P.Hari Babu,Government Advocate &Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi,Special Government PleaderFor R4 : Mr.V.Vijay ShankarC O...

In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void andultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiatedagainst the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424,14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399,17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.(ii) The respective show cause notices/orders issued against the appellants shall stand quashed. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiatefresh proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended, in accordance with law.(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)23.04.2024

Uncategorized

In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void andultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiatedagainst the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424,14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399,17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.(ii) The respective show cause notices/orders issued against the appellants shall stand quashed. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiatefresh proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended, in accordance with law.(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)23.04.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 27.03.2024 DELIVERED ON: 23.04.2024CORAM :THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW. P.Nos.20553, 22931 of 2023; 6667 of 2013; 6561, 6767 of...

[25/04, 11:08] sekarreporter1: ,[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/EqQEISHw-MQ?si=Vx_4sGsqVTaEXeBj[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: [25/04, 10:55] sekarreporter1: Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan recalled an interesting anecdote about former A-G R Krishnamoorthy, a doyen of Madras Bar

Uncategorized

[25/04, 11:08] sekarreporter1: ,[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/EqQEISHw-MQ?si=Vx_4sGsqVTaEXeBj[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: [25/04, 10:55] sekarreporter1: Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan recalled an interesting anecdote about former A-G R Krishnamoorthy, a doyen of Madras Bar

Once he bought from திருநெல்வேலி இருட்டுக்கடை அல்வா from Madurai to impress RK. RK looked at the packet & said: இது திருட்டு கடை அல்வா மாதிரி இருக்கே…[25/04, 10:55] sekarreporter1: He said so because the halwa was...

R Y George Williams requested the first bench CISF extent to entire high court as well as entire judiciary in Tamilnau and further argued that baricaurd between the city court and High court May be removed and it maye be covered to entire campus to avoid multiple bresking to enter the high court premises. CJ informed that direction issued to everywhere. and further RY George Williams argued that high court for got the security of the lower judiciary

Uncategorized

R Y George Williams requested the first bench CISF extent to entire high court as well as entire judiciary in Tamilnau and further argued that baricaurd between the city court and High court May be removed and it maye be covered to entire campus to avoid multiple bresking to enter the high court premises. CJ informed that direction issued to everywhere. and further RY George Williams argued that high court for got the security of the lower judiciary

R Y George Williams requested the first bench CISF extent to entire high court as well as entire judiciary in Tamilnau and further argued that baricaurd between the city court and High court May...