SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

One case quashed [7/29, 21:42] Infant Dinesh Mhc Advt: Justice Shakthi kumar kurup had directed to prosecute Vijay setupathipati for the defamation case filed again him and directed to finish trail within three months Highcourt had declined to quash the case against Vijay setupathi for such offence and ordered the same today advocate Infant Dinesh appeared for Maha Gandhi [7/29, 22:03] Sekarreporter1: ..

Uncategorized

 by · Published July 30, 2022

One case quashed [7/29, 21:42] Infant Dinesh Mhc Advt: Justice Shakthi kumar kurup had directed to prosecute Vijay setupathipati for the defamation case filed again him and directed to finish trail within three months Highcourt had declined to quash the case against Vijay setupathi for such offence and ordered the same today advocate Infant Dinesh appeared for Maha Gandhi [7/29, 22:03] Sekarreporter1: ..

பெங்களூரூ விமான நிலையத்தில் நடைபெற்ற தாக்குதல் சம்பவம் தொடர்பாக நடிகர் விஜய் சேதுபதி மீது தொடரப்பட்ட வழக்கை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் ரத்து செய்து உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.[7/29, 21:42] Infant Dinesh Mhc Advt: Justice Shakthi kumar kurup had directed to prosecute Vijay setupathipati for...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
நீதிபதி கிருஷ்ணகுமார் முன்பு விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. அப்போது, அரசு தரப்பில் கொரோனா காலகட்டத்தில் உயிரிழந்தவர்களின் குடும்பத்தினருக்கு கருணை அடிப்படையில் வேலை வழங்கும்

Uncategorized

 by · Published July 30, 2022

நீதிபதி கிருஷ்ணகுமார் முன்பு விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. அப்போது, அரசு தரப்பில் கொரோனா காலகட்டத்தில் உயிரிழந்தவர்களின் குடும்பத்தினருக்கு கருணை அடிப்படையில் வேலை வழங்கும்

கொரோனாவில் உயிரிழந்த முன்கள பணியாளர்களின் வாரிசுகளுக்கு கருணை அடிப்படையில் வேலை வழக்குவது குறித்த விதிகளை வகுத்து அறிக்கை தாக்கல் செய்ய தமிழக அரசுக்கு சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது. சென்னை ராஜீவ்காந்தி அரசு பொது மருத்துவமனையில் செவிலியராக பணியாற்றிய தங்கலட்சுமி, கொரோனா சிகிச்சைப் பணியில் முன் கள...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
மகாதேவன், ஆதிகேசவலு அமர்வில் இன்று விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. அப்போது, பொன். மாணிக்கவேல் தரப்பில், சிலை கடத்தல் தொடர்பாக அனைத்து வழக்குகளும் சிறப்பு அமர்வுதான் விசாரிக்க வேண்டும், கண்காணிக்க வேண்டும் என்ற நிலையில், தனி நீதிபதி விசாரித்து உத்தரவிட்டது தவறு என்று வாதிடப்பட்டது. அப்போது குறுக்கிட்ட நீதிபதிகள்,.யார் எந்த வழக்கை விசாரிக்க வேண்டும் என்பது குறித்து தலைமை நீதிபதிதான் முடிவெடுப்பார் என்பதால் அவரிடம்தான் முறையீடு செய்ய வேண்டும் என தெரிவித்தனர்.

Uncategorized

 by · Published July 30, 2022

மகாதேவன், ஆதிகேசவலு அமர்வில் இன்று விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. அப்போது, பொன். மாணிக்கவேல் தரப்பில், சிலை கடத்தல் தொடர்பாக அனைத்து வழக்குகளும் சிறப்பு அமர்வுதான் விசாரிக்க வேண்டும், கண்காணிக்க வேண்டும் என்ற நிலையில், தனி நீதிபதி விசாரித்து உத்தரவிட்டது தவறு என்று வாதிடப்பட்டது. அப்போது குறுக்கிட்ட நீதிபதிகள்,.யார் எந்த வழக்கை விசாரிக்க வேண்டும் என்பது குறித்து தலைமை நீதிபதிதான் முடிவெடுப்பார் என்பதால் அவரிடம்தான் முறையீடு செய்ய வேண்டும் என தெரிவித்தனர்.

குற்ற விசாரணை முறை தொடர்புடைய வழக்கில் சிபிஐ விசாரணைக்கு உத்தரவிட்டதை எதிர்த்த வழக்கை எப்படி விசாரிக்க முடியுமென சிலை கடத்தல் தடுப்பு பிரிவு முன்னாள் சிறப்பு அதிகாரி பொன் மாணிக்கவேலுக்கு சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்ற சிறப்பு அமர்வு கேள்வி எழுப்பியுள்ளது. சிலைக் கடத்தல் தடுப்பு தொடர்பான வழக்குகளை...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
W.P.No.5537 of 2022 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. The Writ Petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground based on the press announcement No.048 dated 22.04.2020 made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, announcing that if any Government front-line

Uncategorized

 by · Published July 29, 2022

W.P.No.5537 of 2022 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. The Writ Petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground based on the press announcement No.048 dated 22.04.2020 made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, announcing that if any Government front-line

W.P.No.5537 of 2022 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. The Writ Petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground based on the press announcement No.048 dated 22.04.2020 made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, announcing that...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
W.P.No.5537 of 2022 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. The Writ Petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground based on the press announcement No.048 dated 22.04.2020 made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, announcing that if any Government front-line workers, who died due to Covid-19, apart from the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- already announced by the Central Government, the Government of Tamil Nadu will pay the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- which was increased from Rs.10,00,000/- and government job will be provided to their family members of the deceased depending upon their qualification. 2. The petitioner’s wife, namely Tmt.K.Thangalakshmi, Staff Nurse who worked in Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, was affected by Covid-19 while serving in the Corona Ward and she died on 14.06.2020 at the age of 53 years, leaving behind the petitioner and her two daughters as her legal heirs. As per the aforesaid announcement made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner has obtained ex-gratia compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the Central Government and the petitioner has approached the State Government for providing job under compassionate ground. The State Government has considered the request of the petitioner, however issued the appointment letter to the petitioner in a private concern. Challenging the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has made a clear announcement that one of the legal heirs of the deceased /front line workers, who lost their lives during the pandemic period, are entitled for exgratia compensation as well as the employment in Government service, but the respondents has denied employment to the petitioner’s younger daughter, who is a Law Graduate and the said action of the respondents is totally arbitrary and illegal. 4. Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and would contend that the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has made a press statement by giving ex-gratia payment to the family of the deceased frontline workers and incentives for the Doctors, Nurses and Paramedical Staff. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is the legal heir of the deceased, had received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the Central Government, but as far as providing of employment in Government service on compassionate ground is concerned, the respondents has relied upon G.O.(Ms.)No.18, Labour and Employment Department dated 23.01.2020 and in the light of the said Government Order, the petitioner is not eligible to be considered. According to the respondents, there is no guidelines or instructions for providing job under compassionate ground under special circumstances and therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered and further, as per G.O.(Ms)No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020, the family of the deceased should be under indigent circumstance, but in the case on hand, the petitioner’s family is not under indigent circumstance and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment under compassionate ground. 5. This Court has pointed out that the aforesaid Government Order in G.O.(Ms.)No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020 will apply to all the Government servants, who died in harness, while they were in service and by the announcement of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu dated 12.05.2021, special concession has been given by the Hon’ble Chief Minister to give job to front line workers/staff during the pandemic period. The respondents have not placed any material to show that the said press announcement will apply only to those who have satisfied the eligibility criteria as per G.O.(Ms.)No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020 and there is no clarification or guidelines / instructions has been issued by the Government so far. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been paid ex-gratia compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- by the Central Government. According to the respondents, as per G.O.(Ms) No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020, the family of the deceased is not under indigent circumstance and therefore, the petitioner becomes ineligible. In the absence of any clarification or guidelines / instructions by the Government that the said press announcement will apply only to those who have satisfied the eligibility criteria as per G.O.(Ms.)No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020, this Court is of the view that the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be countenanced. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the judgement of the Delhi High Court dated 22.07.2021 in W.P.(C)No.8956 of 2020 [Najma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi], wherein the facts of the said case would disclose that the petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 6 therein are daily wage labourers/workers, who claim to be tenants, who are unable to pay their monthly rent and the CM of Delhi gave a press conference on 29.03.2020 in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, in which he requested all landlords to postpone the demand/collection of rent from those tenants who are poor and poverty stricken. In the said decision, the Delhi High Court was of the opinion that promise/assurance /representation given by the CM clearly amount to an enforceable promise, the implementation of which ought to be considered by the Government, good governance requires that promises made to citizens, by those who govern, are not broken, without valid and justifiable reasons. Challenging the said order, writ appeal has been preferred in LPA.No.349 of 2021 and the same is pending. 8. In the present case on hand, as per the announcement made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 12.05.2021 ex-gratia compensation has already been paid to the petitioner’s family, but employment was denied by citing G.O.(Ms.)No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020. 9. The Hon’ble First Bench of this Court in the order dated 27.05.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.9540 of 2021 [Jalaludeen v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 and another], with regard to prayer made in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 therein to give compensation to all the Doctors, Nurses and Sweepers, who died in Covid-19 on the basis of their representation dated 11.05.2021 has observed as under: “2. There are certain schemes that have been announced by the State and in several cases, ad hoc compensation has also been awarded. It is a matter of policy that the State needs to decide on and there can be no general direction issued by the Court. 3. It is hoped that the matter will receive a sympathetic consideration of the State, particularly in case of the needy families who lost their bread-earners. Both compensation and compassionate appointments may be considered by the State and appropriate rules or a scheme be framed in such regard.” 10. In compliance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court, so far no guidelines or scheme has been framed by the State Government. Therefore, the respondents shall frame necessary guidelines as observed by the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court and file a report before this Court on the next hearing date. Post the matter on 10.08.2022 at 2.15 p.m. 25.07.2022 Jvm D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. Jvm W.P.No.5537 of 2022 25.07.2022

Uncategorized

 by · Published July 29, 2022

W.P.No.5537 of 2022 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. The Writ Petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground based on the press announcement No.048 dated 22.04.2020 made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, announcing that if any Government front-line workers, who died due to Covid-19, apart from the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- already announced by the Central Government, the Government of Tamil Nadu will pay the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- which was increased from Rs.10,00,000/- and government job will be provided to their family members of the deceased depending upon their qualification. 2. The petitioner’s wife, namely Tmt.K.Thangalakshmi, Staff Nurse who worked in Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, was affected by Covid-19 while serving in the Corona Ward and she died on 14.06.2020 at the age of 53 years, leaving behind the petitioner and her two daughters as her legal heirs. As per the aforesaid announcement made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner has obtained ex-gratia compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the Central Government and the petitioner has approached the State Government for providing job under compassionate ground. The State Government has considered the request of the petitioner, however issued the appointment letter to the petitioner in a private concern. Challenging the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has made a clear announcement that one of the legal heirs of the deceased /front line workers, who lost their lives during the pandemic period, are entitled for exgratia compensation as well as the employment in Government service, but the respondents has denied employment to the petitioner’s younger daughter, who is a Law Graduate and the said action of the respondents is totally arbitrary and illegal. 4. Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and would contend that the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has made a press statement by giving ex-gratia payment to the family of the deceased frontline workers and incentives for the Doctors, Nurses and Paramedical Staff. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is the legal heir of the deceased, had received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the Central Government, but as far as providing of employment in Government service on compassionate ground is concerned, the respondents has relied upon G.O.(Ms.)No.18, Labour and Employment Department dated 23.01.2020 and in the light of the said Government Order, the petitioner is not eligible to be considered. According to the respondents, there is no guidelines or instructions for providing job under compassionate ground under special circumstances and therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered and further, as per G.O.(Ms)No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020, the family of the deceased should be under indigent circumstance, but in the case on hand, the petitioner’s family is not under indigent circumstance and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment under compassionate ground. 5. This Court has pointed out that the aforesaid Government Order in G.O.(Ms.)No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020 will apply to all the Government servants, who died in harness, while they were in service and by the announcement of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu dated 12.05.2021, special concession has been given by the Hon’ble Chief Minister to give job to front line workers/staff during the pandemic period. The respondents have not placed any material to show that the said press announcement will apply only to those who have satisfied the eligibility criteria as per G.O.(Ms.)No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020 and there is no clarification or guidelines / instructions has been issued by the Government so far. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been paid ex-gratia compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- by the Central Government. According to the respondents, as per G.O.(Ms) No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020, the family of the deceased is not under indigent circumstance and therefore, the petitioner becomes ineligible. In the absence of any clarification or guidelines / instructions by the Government that the said press announcement will apply only to those who have satisfied the eligibility criteria as per G.O.(Ms.)No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020, this Court is of the view that the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be countenanced. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the judgement of the Delhi High Court dated 22.07.2021 in W.P.(C)No.8956 of 2020 [Najma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi], wherein the facts of the said case would disclose that the petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 6 therein are daily wage labourers/workers, who claim to be tenants, who are unable to pay their monthly rent and the CM of Delhi gave a press conference on 29.03.2020 in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, in which he requested all landlords to postpone the demand/collection of rent from those tenants who are poor and poverty stricken. In the said decision, the Delhi High Court was of the opinion that promise/assurance /representation given by the CM clearly amount to an enforceable promise, the implementation of which ought to be considered by the Government, good governance requires that promises made to citizens, by those who govern, are not broken, without valid and justifiable reasons. Challenging the said order, writ appeal has been preferred in LPA.No.349 of 2021 and the same is pending. 8. In the present case on hand, as per the announcement made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 12.05.2021 ex-gratia compensation has already been paid to the petitioner’s family, but employment was denied by citing G.O.(Ms.)No.18, L&E Department dated 23.01.2020. 9. The Hon’ble First Bench of this Court in the order dated 27.05.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.9540 of 2021 [Jalaludeen v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 and another], with regard to prayer made in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 therein to give compensation to all the Doctors, Nurses and Sweepers, who died in Covid-19 on the basis of their representation dated 11.05.2021 has observed as under: “2. There are certain schemes that have been announced by the State and in several cases, ad hoc compensation has also been awarded. It is a matter of policy that the State needs to decide on and there can be no general direction issued by the Court. 3. It is hoped that the matter will receive a sympathetic consideration of the State, particularly in case of the needy families who lost their bread-earners. Both compensation and compassionate appointments may be considered by the State and appropriate rules or a scheme be framed in such regard.” 10. In compliance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court, so far no guidelines or scheme has been framed by the State Government. Therefore, the respondents shall frame necessary guidelines as observed by the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court and file a report before this Court on the next hearing date. Post the matter on 10.08.2022 at 2.15 p.m. 25.07.2022 Jvm D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. Jvm W.P.No.5537 of 2022 25.07.2022

W.P.No.5537 of 2022   D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.   The Writ Petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground based on the press announcement No.048 dated 22.04.2020 made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu,...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
O.P.NO.118 OF 2022   KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., order.  Regarding inter-country adoption of minor child. When this Court is the final authority to nod for inter-country adoption, virtually, it has become the guardian of the child and thereby, a duty is

Uncategorized

 by · Published July 29, 2022

O.P.NO.118 OF 2022   KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., order.  Regarding inter-country adoption of minor child. When this Court is the final authority to nod for inter-country adoption, virtually, it has become the guardian of the child and thereby, a duty is

 order.  Regarding inter-country adoption of minor child. When this Court is the final authority to nod for inter-country adoption, virtually, it has become the guardian of the child and thereby, a duty is cast...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether the FIR in this case discloses any offence under Section 306 of the IPC, since the High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised. The appeals are allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court are set aside.  The observations made in this judgment are not to be construed as any observation on the merits of the contentions of the respective parties. ……………………………………,J.               [INDIRA BANERJEE] ……………………………………,J                              [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN]        NEW DELHI; JULY  29, 2022.

Uncategorized

 by · Published July 29, 2022

It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether the FIR in this case discloses any offence under Section 306 of the IPC, since the High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised. The appeals are allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court are set aside.  The observations made in this judgment are not to be construed as any observation on the merits of the contentions of the respective parties. ……………………………………,J.               [INDIRA BANERJEE] ……………………………………,J                              [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN]        NEW DELHI; JULY  29, 2022.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. ………….. OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022) DAXABEN                                                                                               ….Appellant Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT...

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