SEKAR REPORTER Blog

நீதிபதிகள் மகாதேவன், சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் ஆகியோர் மனுதாரர் போதுமான ஆவணங்கள் மற்றும் விபரங்களின்றி பெரும் நாளிதழ்களின் செய்தியை அடிப்படையாக வைத்து மனு தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளார். எனவே, இந்த மனுவின் மீது எந்த உத்தரவும் பிறப்பிக்கத் முடியாது.  அரசுத் தரப்பில் சட்டத்திற்கு உட்பட்டு மனுவை பரிசீலிக்கலாம் என கூறி மனுவை முடித்து வைத்தனர்

நீதிபதிகள் மகாதேவன், சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் ஆகியோர் மனுதாரர் போதுமான ஆவணங்கள் மற்றும் விபரங்களின்றி பெரும் நாளிதழ்களின் செய்தியை அடிப்படையாக வைத்து மனு தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளார். எனவே, இந்த மனுவின் மீது எந்த உத்தரவும் பிறப்பிக்கத் முடியாது. அரசுத் தரப்பில் சட்டத்திற்கு உட்பட்டு மனுவை பரிசீலிக்கலாம் என கூறி மனுவை முடித்து வைத்தனர்

அரசு போக்குவரத்துக் கழக நஷ்டம் குறித்து ஓய்வு பெற்ற ஐகோர்ட் நீதிபதி தலைமையில் விசாரணை குழு அமைக்க உத்தரவிட கோரிய வழக்கு. மனுதாரர் செய்தித்தாள் வந்த செய்தி அடிப்படையில் வழக்கு தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளார் போதிய ஆவணங்கள் ஏதும் இல்லாததால் எந்த உத்தரவு பிறப்பிக்க முடியாது என உயர்நீதிமன்ற...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Case quashed The Madras High Court had ordered Vijay Sethupathi Film Company, Maithiri Movie Makers who produced the Telugu film, and director Bhujji Babu Sana to respond to the case filed by Prabhu Dalhousie. The case came up for hearing today before Judge C Saravanan. At the time of hearing Narmada Sampath appeared on behalf of Vijay Sethupathi ,moved Application to Strike out the Plaint against Mr.Vijay Sethupathi .she submited as far as his case is concerned , the main contentions were that there is no cause of aution against mr. vijay sethupathi and entire pleadings in the plaint are based on a the news paper report which again reiterates a fact that based on a source it is believed that vijay sethupathi has purchased the copy rights of Tamil version of uppena movie. Apart from that no other material records have been filed to substantiate the claim of the plaint against mr. vijay sethupathi she added. After hearing the submissions judge allowed the strike out petition to strike off the plaint against mr. vijay sethupathi And the case id posted tomorrow for other defendants submission

Case quashed The Madras High Court had ordered Vijay Sethupathi Film Company, Maithiri Movie Makers who produced the Telugu film, and director Bhujji Babu Sana to respond to the case filed by Prabhu Dalhousie. The case came up for hearing today before Judge C Saravanan. At the time of hearing Narmada Sampath appeared on behalf of Vijay Sethupathi ,moved Application to Strike out the Plaint against Mr.Vijay Sethupathi .she submited as far as his case is concerned , the main contentions were that there is no cause of aution against mr. vijay sethupathi and entire pleadings in the plaint are based on a the news paper report which again reiterates a fact that based on a source it is believed that vijay sethupathi has purchased the copy rights of Tamil version of uppena movie. Apart from that no other material records have been filed to substantiate the claim of the plaint against mr. vijay sethupathi she added. After hearing the submissions judge allowed the strike out petition to strike off the plaint against mr. vijay sethupathi And the case id posted tomorrow for other defendants submission

The case against actor Vijay Sethumathi has been quashed after his reply in the Madras High Court that he did not buy the Tamil remake rights of the Telugu film Uppena. Telugu actor Vaishnav...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 658 : Tushar P shah vs IARC p ltd : With regard to powers of Debt recovery tribunal to execute decree where secured assets situated exclusively in another state , decree may be executed either by the court which passed it or by court to which it is sent for execution

Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 658 : Tushar P shah vs IARC p ltd : With regard to powers of Debt recovery tribunal to execute decree where secured assets situated exclusively in another state , decree may be executed either by the court which passed it or by court to which it is sent for execution

[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 658 : Tushar P shah vs IARC p ltd : With regard to powers of Debt recovery tribunal to execute decree where secured assets situated exclusively in another...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Formee Dj Judge Siddarth: Respected Law Secretary Sir as per Hon’ble Supreme Court direction order dt. 27-07-2022 complied in time & issued GO on 10-10-2022 regarding implementation of Second National Judicial Pay Commission.  The Chief Judge Puducherry office received law department order on 10-10-2022 itself. As per above said order, it clearly mentions order will be effective from 01-01-2016 onwards for who are in service from 01-01-2016.

Formee Dj Judge Siddarth: Respected Law Secretary Sir as per Hon’ble Supreme Court direction order dt. 27-07-2022 complied in time & issued GO on 10-10-2022 regarding implementation of Second National Judicial Pay Commission. The Chief Judge Puducherry office received law department order on 10-10-2022 itself. As per above said order, it clearly mentions order will be effective from 01-01-2016 onwards for who are in service from 01-01-2016.

  [12/19, 11:03] Formee Dj Judge Siddarth: Respected Law Secretary Sir as per Hon’ble Supreme Court direction order dt. 27-07-2022 complied in time & issued GO on 10-10-2022 regarding implementation of Second National Judicial...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1604511679936884738?t=QQbwqbkxLm_CeB7sZV4foA&s=08 [12/18, 21:49] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*  *M. Fredrick Monika Vs. The Inspector General of Registration & 2 Ors.* W.P. No. 32582 of 2022 Dated: 05.12.2022  *HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN* dismissed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Marriage – Solemnized – Valid”*, and further observed and held as follows:

sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1604511679936884738?t=QQbwqbkxLm_CeB7sZV4foA&s=08 [12/18, 21:49] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *M. Fredrick Monika Vs. The Inspector General of Registration & 2 Ors.* W.P. No. 32582 of 2022 Dated: 05.12.2022 *HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN* dismissed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Marriage – Solemnized – Valid”*, and further observed and held as follows:

[12/18, 21:49] sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1604511679936884738?t=QQbwqbkxLm_CeB7sZV4foA&s=08 [12/18, 21:49] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *M. Fredrick Monika Vs. The Inspector General of Registration & 2 Ors.* W.P. No. 32582 of 2022 Dated: 05.12.2022 *HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
2.It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with the 3rd  respondent was solemnized on 12.10.2022 without her consent in the 2nd respondent Church therefore, the same should not be registered.  I do not think such a mandamus could be issued.  Once the marriage is solemnized, de hors registration, is by itself valid. It can be dissolved only by a decree of Court.  The Registration by itself does not add to the sanctity of the marriage, which according to the petitioner was done without her consent.  3.Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the  petitioner to approach the Civil Court or the appropriate forum seeking a declaration that the marriage is invalid.  No costs.  05.12.2022  kkn  Internet:Yes/No  Index:Yes/No  Speaking/Non-speaking order   R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.  KKN  To:-  1.The Inspector General of Registration,    No.100, Santhome High Road,    Chennai – 28.  W.P.No.32582 of 2022  05.12.2022. For Petitioner     : Mr.M.Pandian                                   For Respondents       : Mr.M.Muthusamy    Government Advocate for R1  O R D E R The prayer in the Writ Petition reads as follows:directing the 1st respondent not to register the marriage which was solemnized on 12.11.2022 before the 2nd respondent church without the petitioner’s consent to the 3rd respondent by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 28.10.2022 and dispose of the same within the time limit that may be stipulated.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with the 3rd respondent was solemnized on 12.10.2022 without her consent in the 2nd respondent Church therefore, the same should not be registered.  I do not think such a mandamus could be issued.  Once the marriage is solemnized, de hors registration, is by itself valid. It can be dissolved only by a decree of Court.  The Registration by itself does not add to the sanctity of the marriage, which according to the petitioner was done without her consent. 3.Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court or the appropriate forum seeking a declaration that the marriage is invalid.  No costs. 05.12.2022 kkn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. KKN To:- 1.The Inspector General of Registration,    No.100, Santhome High Road,    Chennai – 28. W.P.No.32582 of 2022 05.12.2022. For Petitioner     : Mr.M.Pandian                                  For Respondents       : Mr.M.Muthusamy   Government Advocate for R1 O R D E R The prayer in the Writ Petition reads as follows:directing the 1st respondent not to register the marriage which was solemnized on 12.11.2022 before the 2nd respondent church without the petitioner’s consent to the 3rd respondent by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 28.10.2022 and dispose of the same within the time limit that may be stipulated.

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.12.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN W.P.No.32582 of 2022 M.Fedrick Monika          …Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration,    No.100, Santhome High Road,    Chennai – 28. 2.The...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Exit mobile version