SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

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

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 19, 2022

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.

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 19, 2022

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:

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 18, 2022

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.

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 18, 2022

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
In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed, the FIR in Crime No.696 of 2018 is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15.11.2022 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No mka To: 1.The Inspector of Police,    Kattoor Police Station,    Coimbatore City, 2.The Public Prosecutor,    High Court, Madras. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J. mka CRL.O.P.No.17074 of 2019 and Crl.MP. Nos.8603 and 8604 of 2019 15.11.2022. For Petitioner         : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For Respondent 1  : Mr.N.S.Suganthan   Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondent 2 : No appearance

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 18, 2022

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed, the FIR in Crime No.696 of 2018 is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15.11.2022 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No mka To: 1.The Inspector of Police,    Kattoor Police Station,    Coimbatore City, 2.The Public Prosecutor,    High Court, Madras. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J. mka CRL.O.P.No.17074 of 2019 and Crl.MP. Nos.8603 and 8604 of 2019 15.11.2022. For Petitioner         : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For Respondent 1  : Mr.N.S.Suganthan   Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondent 2 : No appearance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.11.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN CRL.O.P.No.17074 of 2019 and Crl.MP. Nos.8603 and 8604 of 2019 M/s.Ver se Innovation Private Limited, Represented by its...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
வழக்கை விசாரித்த நீதிபதிகள் பி.என்.பிரகாஷ் மற்றும் டீக்காராமன் அடங்கிய அமர்வு, மூர்த்தி மற்றும் முருகவேல் ஒன்றாக தான் மது அருந்த சென்ற நிலையில்,முருகவேல் மட்டும் தனியாக வெளியே வந்ததாக சாட்சிகள் தெரிவித்துள்ளதைச் சுட்டிக்காட்டி, முருகவேல் தான் கொலை செய்திருக்கிறார் என காவல் துறை சந்தேகத்திற்கு இடமின்றி நிரூபித்துள்ளதாக கூறி, முருகவேலுக்கு விதிக்கப்பட்ட ஆயுள் தண்டனையை உறுதி செய்து தீர்ப்பளித்ததுadd pp babu muthumeeran .

Uncategorized

 by · Published December 18, 2022

வழக்கை விசாரித்த நீதிபதிகள் பி.என்.பிரகாஷ் மற்றும் டீக்காராமன் அடங்கிய அமர்வு, மூர்த்தி மற்றும் முருகவேல் ஒன்றாக தான் மது அருந்த சென்ற நிலையில்,முருகவேல் மட்டும் தனியாக வெளியே வந்ததாக சாட்சிகள் தெரிவித்துள்ளதைச் சுட்டிக்காட்டி, முருகவேல் தான் கொலை செய்திருக்கிறார் என காவல் துறை சந்தேகத்திற்கு இடமின்றி நிரூபித்துள்ளதாக கூறி, முருகவேலுக்கு விதிக்கப்பட்ட ஆயுள் தண்டனையை உறுதி செய்து தீர்ப்பளித்ததுadd pp babu muthumeeran .

மதுபானம் பங்கிட்டுக் கொள்வதில் ஏற்பட்ட தகராறில் நண்பர் தலையில் கல்லைப் போட்டு கொலை செய்தவருக்கு விதிக்கப்பட்ட ஆயுள் தண்டனையை உறுதி செய்து சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் தீர்ப்பளித்துள்ளது. பூந்தமல்லி பேருந்து நிலையத்தில் தங்கியிருந்து அப்பகுதிகளில் குப்பை சேகரித்து வந்த மூர்த்தி மற்றும் முருகவேல் ஆகியோர்,கடந்த 2014ம் ஆண்டு...

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