SEKAR REPORTER Blog

By placing this issue before your Lordship, we sincerely hope that the grievances of the Advocates will be taken into consideration and suitably resolved  Yours faithfully,   (G.MOHANAKRISHNAN) Ex-PRESIDENT MADRAS HIGHCOURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION. [17/03, 10:45] sekarreporter1

By placing this issue before your Lordship, we sincerely hope that the grievances of the Advocates will be taken into consideration and suitably resolved Yours faithfully, (G.MOHANAKRISHNAN) Ex-PRESIDENT MADRAS HIGHCOURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION. [17/03, 10:45] sekarreporter1

[17/03, 10:45] sekarreporter1: To Hon’ble Chief Justice of Madras High Court, Madras High Court. Hon’ble Lordship, The Department of Legal Affairs Notary Cell vide their order dated 12.03.2026 had appointed 3416 Advocates as Notary...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Nskj bench Further, Rules 8(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, deals with only when the punishment involves in a serious crime and the conviction for the serious crime, which would amount to grave misconduct. Therefore, the said Rule cannot be applicable for the conviction for the offence regarding the commercial transaction. In such view of the matter, the Authorities cannot withhold or stop the pension on the strength of Rules 8(b) of the Pension Rules. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.03.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.A(MD)No. 250 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD) No.2721 of 2026 1. The Director,...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
[17/03, 10:12] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2033763822817972675 [17/03, 10:12] sekarreporter1: SupremeCourt constitution bench to start hearing on the correctness of the definition of “industry” given by then Justice VR Krishna Iyer in the 1978 decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa. [17/03, 10:12] Meta AI: SC constitution bench will revisit the Bangalore Water Supply test for “industry” in Rajappa case.

[17/03, 10:12] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2033763822817972675 [17/03, 10:12] sekarreporter1: SupremeCourt constitution bench to start hearing on the correctness of the definition of “industry” given by then Justice VR Krishna Iyer in the 1978 decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa. [17/03, 10:12] Meta AI: SC constitution bench will revisit the Bangalore Water Supply test for “industry” in Rajappa case.

[17/03, 10:12] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2033763822817972675 [17/03, 10:12] sekarreporter1: SupremeCourt constitution bench to start hearing on the correctness of the definition of “industry” given by then Justice VR Krishna Iyer in the 1978 decision in Bangalore...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
கபாலீஸ்வரர் கோயிலுக்கு செலுத்த வேண்டிய ஒன்பது கோடி வாடகை பாக்கிய செலுத்த இந்து அறநிலையத்துறை உத்தரவிட்டது எதிர்த்து தாக்கல் செய்த வழக்கு தள்ளுபடி

கபாலீஸ்வரர் கோயிலுக்கு செலுத்த வேண்டிய ஒன்பது கோடி வாடகை பாக்கிய செலுத்த இந்து அறநிலையத்துறை உத்தரவிட்டது எதிர்த்து தாக்கல் செய்த வழக்கு தள்ளுபடி

[17/03, 10:08] sekarreporter1: கபாலீஸ்வரர் கோயிலுக்கு செலுத்த வேண்டிய ஒன்பது கோடி வாடகை பாக்கிய செலுத்த இந்து அறநிலையத்துறை உத்தரவிட்டது எதிர்த்து தாக்கல் செய்த வழக்கு தள்ளுபடி வலி நிவாரணிக்கு பெயர் பெற்ற அம்ருதாஞ்சன் நிறுவனம் சென்னை மயிலாப்பூர் கபாலீஸ்வரர் கோவிலுக்கு சொந்தமான லஸ் சர்ச் சாலையில்...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Judge kumarappan /dearness allowances in family pension based on the G.O.No.112, Finance (Pension) department dated 24.03.2008 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. I state that above said G.O. relied by the petitioner would applicable only to the family pensioners of government department. I state that the petitioner is also receiving family pension along with dearness allowance from the Government for the service render by her husband in the transport department.”

2026:MHC:836 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 05-02-2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 27 – 02- 2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN WP No. 36589 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015 1. Tmt.P.Vanajakshi...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Judge dandabani/Before parting with the case, this Court hastens to add that this is a classic case of abuse of the benevolent provisions of the SC/ST Act by the member of the said community, which Act was enacted with the aim of safeguarding the interests of the SC/ST community people from the clutches of the other members of the citizenry, but definitely not to be used as a tool against the very same citizenry by the members of the SC/ST community. It has now come to the notice of the Courts and has also been lamented by the Apex Court that the provisions of the SC/ST Act are more misused rather than being used for legitimate and genuine instance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.11.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. NO. 30536 OF 2025 and W.M.P. NOS.34229 & 34253 OF 2025 1.V.Varun Kumar 2.Yasmin...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking the constitution of a Legal Education Commission consisting of eminent jurists to review and reform the legal education framework, including the duration and syllabus of law courses

[17/03, 08:03] Meta AI: Supreme Court said it can’t impose views on legal education, listing Ashwini Upadhyay’s PIL on reducing LL.B. to four years for April 2026. [17/03, 08:03] sekarreporter1: The Supreme Court on Monday...

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