SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

Uncategorized

 by · Published June 11, 2025

Accordingly, we call upon the Government of Tamil Nadu to pass necessary Government Orders, with a specific instruction to the Revenue Authorities to positively entertain applications seeking for grant of certificate of “No Caste No Religion”. 11.                 In the light of the above discussions, the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.1290 of 2024 dated 22.01.2024 is set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to forthwith entertain the appellant’s representations dated 25.09.2023 and 15.12.2023 and issue a “No Caste No Religion” certificate to the appellant herein, atleast within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Appeal stands thus allowed. No costs.                  [M.S.R., J]         [N.S., J]        10.06.2025 Index:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes Speaking order hvk To 1.The District Collector, Thirupathur District, Thirupathur. 2.The Tashildar, Thirupathur District, Thirupathur. 3.The Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Revenue Department, Government of Tamilnadu Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, For St.George, Chennai. 4.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench Court Building, Chennai – 104. M.S.RAMESH, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. hvk Pre-delivery order made in W.A.No.401 of 2025 10.06.2025

2025:MHC:1318 Reserved on 29.04.2025 Pronounced on 10.06.2025  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.A.No.401 of 2025           H.Santhosh       …Appellant Vs. 1.The...

Uncategorized

 by · Published June 11, 2025

The judgment of this Court in Vikas Rambal’s case [cited supra] is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cheminova’s case [cited supra].  Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned complaint as against the second accused is liable to be quashed.  It is needless to say that if any evidence is adduced during the course of the trial regarding the involvement of any officers of the Company, it is open to the Court concerned to summon such persons as accused in terms of Section 358 of BNSS (Section 319 of Cr.P.C.). 7. In the result, quash petition filed by the Company in Crl.OP.No.19832 of 2022 is dismissed and the quash petition filed by the second accused in Crl.OP.NO.19643 of 2022, is allowed, for the aforesaid reasons.  Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 14.05.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No ars SUNDER MOHAN, J. ars To 1. The Drug Inspector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 21.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 14.05.2025 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.Nos.19643 & 19832 of 2022 Crl.M.P.Nos.12942, 13038, 13040 and 13041 of...

Uncategorized

 by · Published June 11, 2025

Grsj LNJ bench order நீர் நிலைகளை ஆக்கிரமித்து வசிப்பதை அங்கீகரிக்க முடியாது.

நீர் நிலை ஆக்கிரமிப்புகளை அகற்ற நடவடிக்கை எடுக்காத அதிகாரிகளின் செயலை ஒரு போதும் பொறுத்துக் கொள்ள முடியாது என சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் திட்ட வட்டமாக தெரிவித்துள்ளது சென்னை ராஜா அண்ணாமலைபுரம் சத்யா ஸ்டுடியோ அருகில், நீர் நிலை புறம்போக்கு என வகைப்படுத்தப்பட்ட நிலத்தில் கட்டிடம் கட்டி...

Uncategorized

 by · Published June 11, 2025

4.We place on record the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that they are ready to provide rehabilitation to the petitioner.  Since we are satisfied that the petitioner in occupation in a water body, her possession cannot be recognised. We direct the respondents to forthwith vacate the petitioner and also ensure that there is no re-occupation in future.  In other words, the character of Survey No.3890, Mylapore Taluk as a water body has to be maintained for all times to come.   We notice that the authorities have also been quite inactive in clearing the encroachments in water bodies. Such inaction and indifference will no longer be tolerated.  We direct the first respondent in particular as well as the revenue and corporation officials to enforce the demand set out in the impugned notice.   The petitioner cannot have any cause for grievance as she is not going to be rendered roofless.  She can very well move into a newly constructed tenement.  5.With this observation and direction to the respondents, this writ petition is dismissed.  No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.                    (G.R.S.,J)        &         (V.L.N,J)                   10.06.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 23.05.2025 Pronounced on : 10.06.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.No.18842 of 2025 and WMP Nos.21094 & 21095...

Uncategorized

 by · Published June 11, 2025

In the result, these Writ Petitions are ordered on the following terms:         (i) The impugned Government Orders in G.O.(Ms).No.55 Energy (D2) Department, dated 20.10.2021 shall stand quashed;         (ii) The G.O.Ms.No.121 Energy (B1) Department, dated 23.12.2010 shall stand upheld;         (iii) There shall be no order as to costs.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 09.06.2025 Neutral Citation: yes grs To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government,     Energy Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George,     Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government,     Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 3. The Chairman & Managing Director,     Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution     Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),     144, Anna Salai,     Chennai – 600 002. D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Orders reserved on : 20.02.2025 Orders pronounced on : 09.06.2025 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.Nos.4871, 4876, 6917, 6922, 6927, 6980, 7913, 7204, 7201,...

Uncategorized

 by · Published June 11, 2025

One of the sureties (either a relative or a business associate of the petitioner) must possess a valid Indian passport and have traveled abroad at least a couple of times. Since it is submitted that relatives will also travel with the petitioner due to the wedding, the surety mentioned above must deposit a copy of the Indian passport with the CBI; and           (i) The Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the CBI against the petitioner shall be suspended during the period when the petitioner travels to Malaysia in accordance with this order.           13. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 04.06.2025 2/2 Neutral Citation:           Yes nsl Note: A copy of this order shall be marked to the Joint Director, Bank Fraud and Security Zone, New Delhi, for timely supervision to ensure that the investigation is completed at the earliest.                    

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.06.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.13960 of 2025 and  W.M.P.No.15714 of 2025 Karthik Parthiban                                                                              … Petitioner Vs 1.      ...

Uncategorized

 by · Published June 11, 2025

The appellants have relied upon an appellate order dated 04.03.2016 as well as the revisional order passed by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance dated 14.12.2017 to demonstrate that the authorities have taken the view in some cases that gold is not a prohibited item, granting redemption. 73.          We have, in the present order, taken note of the facts and circumstances in a wholistic manner and hence, do not believe that the above order is of any assistance to the appellants. 74.          These appeals are dismissed along with connected Miscellaneous Petitions with no order as to costs.  [A.S.M., J]       [G.A.M., J]                                                                         10.01.2025 Index:Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes sl To 1.Customs, Excise and Service tax Appellate Tribunal,    South Zonal Bench,    Shastri Bhavan Annexe,    1st Floor, 26, Haddows Road,    Chennai 600 006. 2.Commissioner of Customs,    AIR    ACC    Meenambakkam,    Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34 Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J. AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J. sl C.M.A.Nos.3773, 3780, 3774, 3775, 3776, 3785, 3777, 3778, 3779, 3781, 3784, 3786, 3782, 3783, 3787 & 3788 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2010 (16 Nos.) 10.01.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis35 [1]  1983 (13) ELT 1439 (SC) [2]  2003 (155) ELT 423 [3] 1994 (71) E.L.T. 349 (Bom.) [4] 2001 (137) E.L.T. 127 (Tri. – Chennai) [5] 1990 (47) E.L.T. 250 (Bom.) [6] 1992 (61) E.L.T. 172 (S.C.) [7] 1993 (67) E.L.T. 1000 (G.O.I.) [8] 1994 (72) E.L.T. 865 (Tribunal) [9] 1994 (73) E.L.T. 240 (G.O.I.) [10] 1997 (91) E.L.T. 277 (A.P.) [11] 2009 (240) E.L.T. 207 (Bom.) [12] 2011 (263) E.L.T. 685 (Tri. – Mumbai) [13] 2011 (266) E.L.T. 167 (Mad.) [14] 2015 (320) E.L.T. 428 (Del.) [15] 2016 (339) E.L.T. 367 (Mad.) [16] 2009 (247) E.L.T. 21 (Mad.) [17] 2016 (344) E.L.T. 1154 (Mad.) [18] 1981 (8) E.L.T. 153 (Mad.) [19] 2014 (314) E.L.T. 854 (G.O.I.) [20] (2023) 2 Centax 118 (Tri.-Mad) [21] 2000 (120) E.L.T. 322 (Cal.) [22] 1994 (73) E.L.T. 425 (Tribunal) [23] 2007 (212) E.L.T. 202 (Tri.-Chennai) [24] 2007 (213) E.L.T. 555 (Tri.-Chennai) [25] 2009 (248) E.L.T. 127 (Bom.) [26] 2009 (235) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) [27] 2014 (314) E.L.T. 849 (G.O.I.) 28 2017 (353) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis [28] W.P.(C)No.8902 of 2021 dated 21.08.2023 (Delhi High Court) [29] W.P.No.6734 of 2022 dated 19.02.2024 (Madras High Court) [30] SCC OnLine Bom 2296 [31] 2016 (344) E.L.T. 1154 (Mad.) [32] 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1439 (S.C.) [33] 2016 (341) E.L.T. 65 (Mad.) [34] W.P.(C)No.8902 of 2021 dated 21.08.2023 (Delhi High Court) [35] 1992 (61) E.L.T. 172 (S.C.) [36] Foot Note Supra (36

2025:MHC:578 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:  10.01.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN C.M.A.Nos.3773, 3780, 3774, 3775, 3776, 3785, 3777, 3778, 3779,...

Uncategorized

 by · Published June 11, 2025

      In light of the aforesaid position, both in law, as well as on facts, we are not persuaded to accept the case of R1. If at all R1 is of the view that he has an explanation for the voluminous data supplied by R3 to R6, forming the basis for the offending CIR, nothing prevents him from making an application online seeking alternation of the CIR. 39.                   This Original Side Appeal is allowed in terms of the above order. No costs.                                                         (ANITA SUMANTH, J.)  (C.KUMARAPPAN, J.)                                                              09.04.2025 vs Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras. DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J. vs OSA.No.326 of 2019  09.04.2025 [1] 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 5473 [2] W.P. No. 6409 of 2010 dated 24.11.2010 (Bombay High Court) [3] 2018 SCC Online Hyd 274 [4] (supra foot note 2) [5] (supra foot note 3) [6] (supra foot note 2) [7] (supra foot note 1) [8]  Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.86 of 2022 dated 18.10.2022 (Madras High Court) [9] (supra foot note 8)

2025:MHC:949 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on :  04.02.2025 Pronounced on:    09.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN O.S.A.No.326 of 2019 Reserve Bank of India,...

Uncategorized

 by · Published June 11, 2025

For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to decide these applications and accordingly, O.A.No.414 of 2024, Arb.Appln.No.286 of 2024 and Arb.O.P(Com.Div.) No.537 of 2024 are dismissed.  However, liberty is granted to the applicant to approach Mumbai Courts if they so desire for redressal of their grievance against the respondent.  09.06.2025 Index: Yes / no Neutral citation : Yes / no rkm ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. rkm O.A.No.414 of 2024 and Arb.Appln.No.286 of 2024 and Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.537 of 2024 09.06.2025

2025:MHC:1305 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS   Reserved on     :  04.06.2025    Pronounced on :    09.06.2025 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE O.A.No.414 of 2024 and Arb.Appln.No.286 of 2024 and...

Uncategorized

 by · Published June 11, 2025

Contract and Specific Relief – Arbitration Clause – Interpretation –* Arbitration clause referring to both Mumbai and Chennai as jurisdictional forums – Applicability of contra proferentem rule – Held, where ambiguity exists in jurisdiction clause, it must be construed against the party that drafted the contract – Reference to Chennai courts, when inconsistent with factual matrix and other clauses, is to be treated as repugnant and void *Practice and Procedure – Jurisdiction –*

[11/06, 08:07] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx-4u0maMTh7J6E-jwuAOqljAavq75ICDk?si=rl4x7MEaWobkx4qk [11/06, 08:07] sekarreporter1: *Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Ss. 9, 11 and 42 –* Territorial jurisdiction – Determination of seat vs. venue – Conflict in jurisdiction clause – Seat...

CALL ME
Exit mobile version