உச்சநீதிமன்றம், உயர்நீதிமன்றங்களில் சமூகநீதி கேள்விக்குறி?* * தமிழ்நாட்டில் பணிமூப்பு, தகுதி-திறமை உள்ளோர் இருந்தும்  எஸ்.சி., பி.சி., மற்றும் பெண்கள் புறக்கணிக்கப்படலாமா?* *🔘 சமூகநீதி கானல் நீர் வேட்டைதானா?* *🔘 தமிழ்நாடு முதலமைச்சர் ஒன்றிய அரசிடம் இதுகுறித்து கோருவது அவசரம் – அவசியம்!*தமிழ்நாட்டைச் சார்ந்த *ஜஸ்டீஸ் திரு.ஆர்.சுப்பையா* அவர்கள் தற்போது சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தின் மூத்த நீதிபதிகளில் முதன்மையானவர். 2008 முதல் 13 ஆண்டுகால நீதிபதியாக பணியாற்றிய பழுத்த அனுபவம் உடையவர். அவருக்கு ஒரு தலைமை நீதிபதி நியமன வாய்ப்போ அல்லது உச்சநீதிமன்ற வாய்ப்போ இன்றுவரை வந்ததாகத் தெரியவில்லை – எந்த குறைபாடுகளும் சொல்ல முடியாத நேர்மைக்குப் பெயர் போனவர்.

By Sekar Reporter 2 hours ago

W.P.No.6591 of 2021 (Through Video Conferencing) N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. This Court, while passing the earlier order on 30.04.2021, directed the Investigation Officer to take effective steps to complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of six weeks —Taking into consideration the Status Report filed by the Investigation Officer and also the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the learned State Public Prosecutor, this Court is inclined to extend the time for filing of the final report. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Investigation Officer to complete the investigation and file the final report before the concerned jurisdictional Court within a period of six weeks from today. Post this case under the caption ‘for reporting compliance’ on 30.07.2021 at 2.15 p.m.

By Sekar Reporter 4 hours ago

Subbya judge farewell function judge speech

By Sekar Reporter 7 hours ago

Full order advt tanuja case -THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on Pronounced on 17.06.2021 18.06.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI CRL. O.P. NO. 10387 OF 2021 1. Tanuja Rajan @ Tanuja Kanthula 2. Preeti Rajan .. Petitioners – Vs – 1. State, rep. By Inspector of Police G-7, Chetpet Police Station Chennai 600 031. 2. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Chennai. .. Respondents (R-2 impleaded vide order of Court dated 15.6.2021) Criminal Original Petition filed u/s 438 Cr.P. C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners/accused on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.192 of 2021 pending investigation before the respondent. For Petitioners : Ms. A.Louisal Ramesh For Respondent : Mr. A.Gopinath, GA (Crl. Side) for R-1 Mr. Haja Mohideen Gisthi for R-2 ORDER Lady Justice is the allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems. Her attributes are a blindfold, a beam balance, and a sword and the balance denotes that justice needs to be delivered with eyes closed and ears open. True to the said analogy, which has been followed time immemorial, the justice delivery system in our country is following the same to deliver impartial justice to one and all without reference to any of their personal traits. —In the result, the following orders are passed in this criminal original petition:- i) This criminal original petition, insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned is dismissed for the reasons aforesaid; ii) Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, this criminal original petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on her surrendering before the respondent police within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the respondent police; iii) The 2nd respondent, in consultation with the Bar Council of India, in the larger interest of the legal fraternity, shall look into the issue of evolving a mechanism for initiation of suo motu proceedings against such of those members, who indulge in activities, which are prejudicial and demeaning the interest of the legal fraternity as a whole; iv) Registry is directed to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, No.214, New Lawyers Chambers, M.C.Setalwad Block, Supreme Court of India Campus, New Delhi 110 001, by issuing statutory notice; v) After issuing statutory notice to the said Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble The Chief Justice for listing the suo motu criminal contempt before the appropriate Bench.

By Sekar Reporter 8 hours ago

Advt danuja ab dismissed her daghter got ab

By Sekar Reporter 9 hours ago

Featured Posts: This is the place at where your descriptive section title displays.

Featured Posts Subtitle: This is the place at where your descriptive section subtitle displays.

உச்சநீதிமன்றம், உயர்நீதிமன்றங்களில் சமூகநீதி கேள்விக்குறி?* * தமிழ்நாட்டில் பணிமூப்பு, தகுதி-திறமை உள்ளோர் இருந்தும்  எஸ்.சி., பி.சி., மற்றும் பெண்கள் புறக்கணிக்கப்படலாமா?* *🔘 சமூகநீதி கானல் நீர் வேட்டைதானா?* *🔘 தமிழ்நாடு முதலமைச்சர் ஒன்றிய அரசிடம் இதுகுறித்து கோருவது அவசரம் – அவசியம்!*தமிழ்நாட்டைச் சார்ந்த *ஜஸ்டீஸ் திரு.ஆர்.சுப்பையா* அவர்கள் தற்போது சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தின் மூத்த நீதிபதிகளில் முதன்மையானவர். 2008 முதல் 13 ஆண்டுகால நீதிபதியாக பணியாற்றிய பழுத்த அனுபவம் உடையவர். அவருக்கு ஒரு தலைமை நீதிபதி நியமன வாய்ப்போ அல்லது உச்சநீதிமன்ற வாய்ப்போ இன்றுவரை வந்ததாகத் தெரியவில்லை – எந்த குறைபாடுகளும் சொல்ல முடியாத நேர்மைக்குப் பெயர் போனவர்.

By Sekar Reporter 2 hours ago

W.P.No.6591 of 2021 (Through Video Conferencing) N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. This Court, while passing the earlier order on 30.04.2021, directed the Investigation Officer to take effective steps to complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of six weeks —Taking into consideration the Status Report filed by the Investigation Officer and also the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the learned State Public Prosecutor, this Court is inclined to extend the time for filing of the final report. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Investigation Officer to complete the investigation and file the final report before the concerned jurisdictional Court within a period of six weeks from today. Post this case under the caption ‘for reporting compliance’ on 30.07.2021 at 2.15 p.m.

By Sekar Reporter 4 hours ago

Subbya judge farewell function judge speech

By Sekar Reporter 7 hours ago

Full order advt tanuja case -THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on Pronounced on 17.06.2021 18.06.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI CRL. O.P. NO. 10387 OF 2021 1. Tanuja Rajan @ Tanuja Kanthula 2. Preeti Rajan .. Petitioners – Vs – 1. State, rep. By Inspector of Police G-7, Chetpet Police Station Chennai 600 031. 2. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Chennai. .. Respondents (R-2 impleaded vide order of Court dated 15.6.2021) Criminal Original Petition filed u/s 438 Cr.P. C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners/accused on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.192 of 2021 pending investigation before the respondent. For Petitioners : Ms. A.Louisal Ramesh For Respondent : Mr. A.Gopinath, GA (Crl. Side) for R-1 Mr. Haja Mohideen Gisthi for R-2 ORDER Lady Justice is the allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems. Her attributes are a blindfold, a beam balance, and a sword and the balance denotes that justice needs to be delivered with eyes closed and ears open. True to the said analogy, which has been followed time immemorial, the justice delivery system in our country is following the same to deliver impartial justice to one and all without reference to any of their personal traits. —In the result, the following orders are passed in this criminal original petition:- i) This criminal original petition, insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned is dismissed for the reasons aforesaid; ii) Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, this criminal original petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on her surrendering before the respondent police within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the respondent police; iii) The 2nd respondent, in consultation with the Bar Council of India, in the larger interest of the legal fraternity, shall look into the issue of evolving a mechanism for initiation of suo motu proceedings against such of those members, who indulge in activities, which are prejudicial and demeaning the interest of the legal fraternity as a whole; iv) Registry is directed to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, No.214, New Lawyers Chambers, M.C.Setalwad Block, Supreme Court of India Campus, New Delhi 110 001, by issuing statutory notice; v) After issuing statutory notice to the said Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble The Chief Justice for listing the suo motu criminal contempt before the appropriate Bench.

By Sekar Reporter 8 hours ago

[12/4, 10:44] Sekarreporter: [12/4, 10:43] Sekarreporter: SC grants bail to former finance minister P Chidambaram in a money laundering case lodged by Enforcement Directorate in INX Media case. [12/4, 10:43] Sekarreporter: SC grants bail to former finance minister P Chidambaram in a money laundering case lodged by Enforcement Directorate in INX Media case. [12/4, 10:49] Sekarreporter: #INXMediacase: Chidambaram to execute Bailbond of Rs. 2 lakh and also produce two sureties. Chidambaram cannot leave country without permission by special judge. He should not attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, holds Supreme Court.

By Sekar Reporter 2 years ago

[12/4, 10:44] Sekarreporter: [12/4, 10:43] Sekarreporter: SC grants bail to former finance minister P Chidambaram

Chennai: The Madras high court has held that those government servants /employees, who are freshly appointed on or after April 1, 2003, are not entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by G.O dated August 6, 2003. The Full Bench comprising Justices R.Subbiah, P.T.Asha and C.Saravanan gave the ruling while answering the reference made to it on a batch of petitions and appeals from individual employees and state government. The Full bench said such reference came to be made by the division bench on noticing that there were two conflicting decisions rendered by the division benches of this court. In one of the judgments, it was held that persons who were absorbed and/or regularized to service after April 1, 2003 were not entitled to count half of the past service rendered by them for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits along with the service rendered by them after regularization. Another division bench held that such persons, whose service came to be regularized after April 1, 2003 were entitled and/or eligible to count half of the services rendered by them on daily wage basis prior to their regularization, for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits. Thus, this contrary view taken by two division bench of this court has led to the present reference to this Full bench, the Full bench added. The Full Bench held that those government servants/employees appointed prior to April 1, 2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis in terms of Rule 10 (a) (1) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. In case, a government employee/servant had also rendered service in non-provincialised service, or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis and if such services were regularized before April 1, 2003, half of service rendered shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits, the Full Bench added. The Full Bench said those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before the cut off date and later appointed under Rule 10 (a) (1) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and absorbed into regular service after April 1, 2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension. Those government servants, who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before April 1, 2003 but were absorbed in regular service after April 1, 2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension, the Full Bench added.

By Sekar Reporter 2 years ago

Chennai: The Madras high court has held that those government servants /employees, who are freshly appointed

lawyer Rajeev Dhavan:

By Sekar Reporter 2 years ago

[12/3, 16:49] Sekarreporter: Sacked from Babri case, says lawyer Rajeev Dhavan: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sacked-from-babri-case-says-lawyer-rajeev-dhavan/article30146663.ece [12/3, 16:49] Sekarreporter:

Call Now ButtonCALL ME