You may also like...
-
Follow this link to join my WhatsApp group: https://chat.whatsapp.com/CYKycw99tjoCee7drN3vm8
by Sekar Reporter · Published November 15, 2022
-
[1/30, 13:30] sekarreporter1: Supreme Court stays HC proceedings on plea challenging Kanimozhi’s election as MP in 2019: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-stays-hc-proceedings-on-plea-challenging-kanimozhis-election-as-mp-in-2019/article30690693.ece [1/30, 13:30] sekarreporter1: The Thoothukudi MP in her appeal said the High Court erroneously banked on a petition which was at best ‘vague and without material facts’ The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Madras High Court proceedings on a plea challenging DMK MP M.K. Kanimozhi’s election as the parliamentarian from the Thoothukudi constituency in 2019. A Bench led by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde froze the High Court proceedings on an appeal filed Ms. Kanimozhi against the High Court decision to examine a petition filed by A. Santhana Kumar challenging her election as the Thoothukudi MP. [1/30, 13:30] sekarreporter1: In her appeal, Ms. Kanimozhi, represented by senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, P. Wilson and Joseph Aristotle, said the High Court erroneously banked on a petition which was at best “vague and without material facts”. PAN number of spouse The High Court proceeded on the notion that Ms. Kanimozhi refused to disclose the PAN number of her spouse. Ms. Kanimozhi’s Form 26, submitted with her nomination papers, clearly states that her husband does not have a PAN card in the first place. “The petitioner (Kanimozhi) has clearly mentioned that her spouse does not have a PAN number. If the first respondent (Kumar) herein contends that this statement is wrong, he ought to substantiate the allegation that the statement is incorrect. Without these averments, the bald and vague statement that petitioner has not provided her spouse’s PAN cannot be maintained in an election petition in light of several judgments of the Supreme Court,” the petition said. Ms. Kanimozhi had asked whether it was justified on the part of the High Court to add averments in the election petition as regards the petitioner’s husband’s income tax reference number? “When even the election petitioner does not make an averment that the petitioner’s spouse possesses a PAN card or any such card in Singapore, whether it was correct on part of the High Court to frame such an allegation?” the petition said. Mr. Kumar, in his election petition, had not brought even a single material fact to substantiate his case that Ms. Kanimozhi’s nomination was improper. In fact, Ms. Kanimozhi said his election petition contained hollow allegations chanted over and over like a mantra. Ms. Kanimozhi’s appeal in the Supreme Court had urged for a stay of the High Court proceedings, saying she would otherwise be “forced to face the rigours of trial, which will not only hamper the work of the petitioner as the elected candidate of the people but also cause severe hardships to the petitioner, who will be forced to constantly be in Chennai instead of attending to her official work in Delhi and constituency work in Thoothukudi”.
by Sekar Reporter · Published January 30, 2020
-
6 சட்ட சிக்கல் டிக் டிக் பதில் by. R.S.M.J,] [V.L.N.J,] j THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN and THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN COMP.A.Nos.470 to 473 of 2007 in C.P.No.57 of 1988 In all Company Applications. Question No.6 Whether the Company Court has the jurisdiction to determine question of title of land falling outside jurisdiction of this Court in view of Clause 12 of Madras High Court Letters Patent? Answer: The answer to this question lies under Section 10 of the Companies Act of 1956. If a Company is registered within the jurisdiction of a High Court exercising its jurisdiction under the Companies Act of 1956, then necessarily by virtue of Section 10 of the Act, the Company Court has the power to determine the title of the land of properties falling outside the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of the Court. We have to note that Letters Patent has been treated as a parliamentary statute and it is held to be in force till it is replaced by another parliamentary statute. Companies Act of 1956 is a parliamentary statute and it has conferred the power on the company courts under section 10 of the Companies Act. Therefore, we hold in this case, though the properties in this case are situated in the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, as the company was registered within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Company Court has the jurisdiction to deal with the said issues. 32.The answers to the reference having been given by us, the matter will now be placed before the Learned Single Judge in order to proceed in accordance with law. [R.S.M.J,] [V.L.N.J,] 22.08.2023 nst Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No To: 1.The Commissioner Of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Official Liquidator, 2nd Floor, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. 3.SRO, Badvel Kadapa district, Andhra Pradesh. 4.Mandal Revenue Officer Porumammila Mandal Kadapa district Andhra Pradesh. SUBRAMANIAN,J. and V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. nst Pre-Delivery Order In COMP.A.Nos.470 to 473 of 2007 in C.P.No.57 of 1988 and O.S.A.Nos.181, 182 & 183 of 2012 and O.S.A.Nos.315, 316, 317 and 318 of 2013 .08.2023
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 17, 2023