![[7/15, 18:23] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1283382798879870976?s=08 [7/15, 18:23] Sekarreporter 1: #BREAKING : கொரோனா நிவாரண நிதியாக பெறப்பட்ட நன்கொடை எவ்வளவு ? * நன்கொடை விவரங்களை தெரிவிப்பதில் அரசுக்கு என்ன சிரமம் ? – உயர்நீதிமன்றம் கேள்வி * கொரோனா நிவாரண நிதி விவரங்களை வெளியிட கோரிய வழக்கு நாளை ஒத்திவைப்பு https://t.co/i2xQdq3JVz](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story _’Celibacy’ Or ‘Matrimony’ Is One’s Choice; Madras HC Directs Chennai Corporation To Compensate Man Forced To Remain Unmarried Due To An Accident[Read Judgment]_ https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/celibacy-or-matrimony-is-ones-choice-madras-hc-150228
- Previous story பாராட்டுக்கள் குவிந்த orderIn a sharp blow to the Corporation of Chennai, the Madras High Court directed it to pay compensation worth Rs. 63,26,000 with interest to a 26 yrs old man, for depriving him of marital pleasure, in addition to other grievances, by rendering him physically disabled in an accident.
Recent Posts
- Mr. V. Ramasubramanium, Judge, Supreme Court of India Hon’ble Justice Mr. M.M. Sundaresh, Judge, Supreme Court of India Schedule of events commemorating the 80th Birthday of Shri. V.T. Gopalan Sunday, 26th September 2021 At 11:00 am via Microsoft TEAMS Please join using the link – https://bit.ly/vtg80bday Welcome address by Mr. P.Wilson, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, Sr. Advocate, Madras High
- Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu said they could take judicial notice of drivers of vehicles fitted with crash guards and bull bars behave like “bullies” on roads, especially on the State and national highways.
- Former Principal District Judge T. Ponprakash has moved the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court against his dismissal from service
- Madras high court news
- W.A.No.177 of 2021 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. (Order of the court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.) The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated —–) under what authority the impugned order was passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, when the said authority is only an appellate authority and the power only vests with the Tahsildhar, as per Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. (ii) The reason for not summoning the Company for enquiry, when the first respondent-Company had sent a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer asserting their ownership much before the impugned order effecting name change in patta was issued. (iii) when and where all the original files were placed/misplaced, since the then RDO asserted that on the date when he passed the order impugned in the writ petition, they were very much available ; and (iv) the further course of action that is proposed to be taken against the errant officials in this regard.
More
Recent Posts
- Mr. V. Ramasubramanium, Judge, Supreme Court of India Hon’ble Justice Mr. M.M. Sundaresh, Judge, Supreme Court of India Schedule of events commemorating the 80th Birthday of Shri. V.T. Gopalan Sunday, 26th September 2021 At 11:00 am via Microsoft TEAMS Please join using the link – https://bit.ly/vtg80bday Welcome address by Mr. P.Wilson, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, Sr. Advocate, Madras High
- Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu said they could take judicial notice of drivers of vehicles fitted with crash guards and bull bars behave like “bullies” on roads, especially on the State and national highways.
- Former Principal District Judge T. Ponprakash has moved the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court against his dismissal from service
- Madras high court news
- W.A.No.177 of 2021 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. (Order of the court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.) The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated —–) under what authority the impugned order was passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, when the said authority is only an appellate authority and the power only vests with the Tahsildhar, as per Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. (ii) The reason for not summoning the Company for enquiry, when the first respondent-Company had sent a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer asserting their ownership much before the impugned order effecting name change in patta was issued. (iii) when and where all the original files were placed/misplaced, since the then RDO asserted that on the date when he passed the order impugned in the writ petition, they were very much available ; and (iv) the further course of action that is proposed to be taken against the errant officials in this regard.
