![https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1401378455124512773?s=1006 [6/6, 08:52] Sekarreporter1: [6/6, 08:04] Sekarreporter1: https://www.taxscan.in/service-tax-not-applicable-on-food-served-as-take-away-or-parcels-madras-high-court/117315/?amp [6/6, 08:24] Sekarreporter1: W.P. Nos.13469 of 2020, 28789 & 28095 of 2019 and 1748 & 5935 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story UPDATES’Do You Want To Make This Country An Open Jail’ : Justice (Retd) Chandru Speaks Against CAA-NRC
- Previous story [12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1211605395753463809?s=08 [12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: [12/30, 16:25] Karventhan Vidurhaisiruthai: The Opposition parties DMK, VCK and others filed a batch of writ petitions seeking for video coverage of counting of votes in local bodies elections through out tamilnadu and a direction to comply with rules 60 to 69 of TN Panchayat Elections Rules 1996, based on the representations sent by the opposition parties to State Election Commission. All the writ petition came up for hearing before the Honble Vacation Bench of Madras High Court today. The Opposition Parties were represented by various counsels under the lead of Senior Counsel Mr.N.R.Elango, on behalf of DMK’s party functionary Mr.R.S.Bharathi, MP, Rajya Sabha and Ms.S.Deepika, Counsel representing VCK Legal wing Secretary Mr.D.Parventhan. whereas State Election Commission was represented by Senior Counsel Mr.Ar.L.Sunderesan. it was represented by State Election Commission that when they are strictly following the chapter VI (Rules 60 to 69) of TN Panchayat Rules, there is no question of directing them by way of mandamus sought by the Petitioners. In the course of arguement and in the Counter Affidavit filed by Commission, it was informed that the Returning Officers are instructed to install CCTV Cameras in counting booths and the coverage would not be only focussing the ballot papers which was vehemently opposed by all the Petitioner Counsels and district wise malpractices and incidents were reported before the court. Quiet interestingly, the State Government And Election Commission submitted that the Writ Petitions are merely based and presumptions and apprehensions and no past history was recorded. Whereas the same was countered by Petitioner’s Counsel that their (commission) own circular admitted about the past history of malpractices and booth capturing etc., Ultimately the Election Commission conceded to the fact that they would delete the line mentioning about the ” recording would not cover ballot papers ” in their circular dated 13.12.2019. Recording their ( State Election Commission) submission that the counting process would be videographed in the presence of candidates and their agents, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. [12/30, 16:26] Sekarreporter 1: 👍
Recent Posts
- First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer to respond to the contempt plea by July 2, 2026. They, however, dispensed with his personal appearance before the court for now.
- Counsel for Appellants: Mr. R. Palaniandavan Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Perumpulavil Radhakrishnan, Mr.P.T.Perumal Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 Case No: AS No. 971 of 2015
- Defamation case orderTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU AS No. 971 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 Sun TV Network Limited Rep By its Authorized Signatory 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Amended vide Court order dated 27.04.2022 made in CMP No. 7151 of 2022 in A.S. No. 971 of 2015] ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Ms. R. Sukanya 2. Mr. Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal 3. Mr. Veerappan ..Respondent(s)
- TN Governor clears ED plea to prosecute Senthil Balaji in cash-for-jobs scam case In its complaint against Senthil Balaji, the ED alleged that he had indulged in money laundering after collecting cash from job aspirants in the Transport Department during his tenure as a minister in the AIADMK government between 2011 and 2016.
- G.O. granting promotion to seven IAS officers to Chief Secretary grade challenged before Madras High Court Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan wonder how a public interest litigation petition can be filed in a government service related matter Published – June 07, 2026 11:38 am
More
Recent Posts
- First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer to respond to the contempt plea by July 2, 2026. They, however, dispensed with his personal appearance before the court for now.
- Counsel for Appellants: Mr. R. Palaniandavan Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Perumpulavil Radhakrishnan, Mr.P.T.Perumal Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 Case No: AS No. 971 of 2015
- Defamation case orderTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU AS No. 971 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 Sun TV Network Limited Rep By its Authorized Signatory 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Amended vide Court order dated 27.04.2022 made in CMP No. 7151 of 2022 in A.S. No. 971 of 2015] ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Ms. R. Sukanya 2. Mr. Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal 3. Mr. Veerappan ..Respondent(s)
- TN Governor clears ED plea to prosecute Senthil Balaji in cash-for-jobs scam case In its complaint against Senthil Balaji, the ED alleged that he had indulged in money laundering after collecting cash from job aspirants in the Transport Department during his tenure as a minister in the AIADMK government between 2011 and 2016.
- G.O. granting promotion to seven IAS officers to Chief Secretary grade challenged before Madras High Court Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan wonder how a public interest litigation petition can be filed in a government service related matter Published – June 07, 2026 11:38 am