You may also like...
Follow:
- Next story Honourable the Chief Justice has directed that the hearing of cases in the Principal Seat of Madras High Court and in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court will only be through Virtual/ Hybrid mode, i.e., Law Officers of Central and State Governments and Standing Counsel for Public Sector Undertakings may appear through physical mode by strictly following the COVID-19 Protocols, and all other Advocates/parties-in-person shall appear only through Video Conferencing, with effect from Monday, the 8th March, 2021, until further orders.
- Previous story [3/6, 10:14] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1368056826613231616?s=08 [3/6, 10:14] Sekarreporter1: Railways cannot deny compensation to those who fall from overcrowded trains: HC: https://t.co/FaoDHBqiDT https://t.co/wxkq4nP33l
Recent Posts
- Temple land order judge velmurugan for Petitioner : Mr.M.RamamoorthiFor R1 to R5 : Mr.A.SelvendranSpecial Government PleaderFor R6 : Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar andMr.Aditya Chandramouli SC for CMDA
- Admk flag symbol order judge Sathikumar //For Applicant : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.GowthamkumarFor Respondent : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, Senior Counsel in O.A.Nos.787 & 788 of 2023for Mrs.P.RajalakshmiMr.Abdul Saleem, Senior Counsel in O.A.No.789 of 2023for Mrs.P.RajalakshmiCOMMON ORDER
- Petitioner : Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi Senior CounselFor Mr.L.PalanimuthuFor R1 & R2 : Mrs.S.Premalatha, Junior St.CounselMr.R.S.BalajiSenior Standing CounselFor R3 : Mr.J.C.DurairajAddl.Govt.PleaderFor R4 : Mrs.Sameer BhuvaneshwariParty in person O R D E R The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the second respondent/the Tax Recovery Officer-III under Rule 11(1) of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769897257468625220?t=5og8-IWC85zuTzMpAeMv6Q&s=08[19/03, 06:53] sekarreporter1: Aa[18/03, 18:00] sekarreporter1: Contempt plea against ‘Savukku’ Shankar | Madras High Court judge kumaresh babu directs him to submit explanation https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/contempt-plea-against-savukku-shankar-madras-high-court-directs-him-to-submit-explanation/article67963548.ece[18/03, 18:21] sekarreporter1: “
- SM subramaniyam judge and Rajasekar judge full order ////// Finally, regarding the quantum of punishment, we are of the opinion that the Judicial Officers are expected to maintain high level of integrity and in the present case, the charge Nos.1 and 4 against the writ petitioner, were held proved. The proved charges, viz., charge Nos.1 and 4 are grave in nature, touching upon the integrity and honesty of the Judicial Officer. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service, cannot be construed as disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Consequently, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
More
Recent Posts
- Temple land order judge velmurugan for Petitioner : Mr.M.RamamoorthiFor R1 to R5 : Mr.A.SelvendranSpecial Government PleaderFor R6 : Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar andMr.Aditya Chandramouli SC for CMDA
- Admk flag symbol order judge Sathikumar //For Applicant : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.GowthamkumarFor Respondent : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, Senior Counsel in O.A.Nos.787 & 788 of 2023for Mrs.P.RajalakshmiMr.Abdul Saleem, Senior Counsel in O.A.No.789 of 2023for Mrs.P.RajalakshmiCOMMON ORDER
- Petitioner : Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi Senior CounselFor Mr.L.PalanimuthuFor R1 & R2 : Mrs.S.Premalatha, Junior St.CounselMr.R.S.BalajiSenior Standing CounselFor R3 : Mr.J.C.DurairajAddl.Govt.PleaderFor R4 : Mrs.Sameer BhuvaneshwariParty in person O R D E R The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the second respondent/the Tax Recovery Officer-III under Rule 11(1) of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1769897257468625220?t=5og8-IWC85zuTzMpAeMv6Q&s=08[19/03, 06:53] sekarreporter1: Aa[18/03, 18:00] sekarreporter1: Contempt plea against ‘Savukku’ Shankar | Madras High Court judge kumaresh babu directs him to submit explanation https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/contempt-plea-against-savukku-shankar-madras-high-court-directs-him-to-submit-explanation/article67963548.ece[18/03, 18:21] sekarreporter1: “
- SM subramaniyam judge and Rajasekar judge full order ////// Finally, regarding the quantum of punishment, we are of the opinion that the Judicial Officers are expected to maintain high level of integrity and in the present case, the charge Nos.1 and 4 against the writ petitioner, were held proved. The proved charges, viz., charge Nos.1 and 4 are grave in nature, touching upon the integrity and honesty of the Judicial Officer. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service, cannot be construed as disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Consequently, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.