Topic: REFERENCE, REVIEW, REVISION  BY  V.Balamurugan Time: May 6, 2020 07:00 PM India Join Zoom Meeting https://us04web.zoom.us/j/5047811321?pwd=UlJ4aHkraW8yVkpibnRXWUc5SFBEUT09 Meeting ID: 504 781 1321 Password: 5RkygL

by Sekar Reporter · May 6, 2020

Topic: REFERENCE, REVIEW, REVISION  BY  V.Balamurugan
Time: May 6, 2020 07:00 PM India

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us04web.zoom.us/j/5047811321?pwd=UlJ4aHkraW8yVkpibnRXWUc5SFBEUT09

Meeting ID: 504 781 1321
Password: 5RkygL

You may also like...

• 

  சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற நீதிபதி ( ஓய்வு) அரிபரந்தாமன் அவர்கள் இல்லத் திருமணம் நேரடி ஒளிபரப்பு

  April 26, 2020

   by Sekar Reporter · Published April 26, 2020

• 

  Today in OBC reservation case Mr P. Wilson submitted that the Central government in its short counter affidavit at paragraph 11 has admitted the possibility of reservation in State surrendered seats for OBC. He submitted that the quota proposed by central government is as per Central Act and not as per TN Act and therefore the cap of 50% fixed is not acceptable. In so far as Saloni Kumar case is concerned the Supremecourt permitted writ petitioners to move High Coùrt even when it was brought to the notice of Hon’ble sc about pendency Of Saloni Kumari case before SC. This there is no legal bar for hearing of the case. He further submitted that issue in Saloni Kumar has become infructious as Saloni kumari which was filed in 2015 reservation was sought after Sc quashed in 2013 the 2010 NEET regulations which provided reservations. However in 2016, the Sc recalled the judgment and therefore from 2016 valid MCI regulations relating to Reservations have come in to force. Hence Saloni kumari case has in fact become a non issue. He also pointed out that when Central government gave EWS reservations in All India Quota , they never approached the SC . Therefore there cannot be one law for EWS and one law for OBC. The central government never approached sc when it decided to give reservation to OBC in central educational

  June 22, 2020

   by Sekar Reporter · Published June 22, 2020

• 

  Tenant case s vaithiyanathan judge full orderRegistry is directed to send a copy of this order to MHAA, MBA and Women Lawyers’ Association to inform the members of the respective Associations that they should not defend a dishonest Tenant, who happens to be a deceitful Advocate, like the petitioner herein, who is not a gentleman, in order to safeguard the reputation of this profession. An Advocate, who happens to be a tenant, should be a gentleman and shall vacate the premises within 30 days, if request is made by the landlord. If that happens, a Lawyer will get a house on rent even without a written agreement. Some of the Advocates are now-a-days looked at as Rowdies and third rate criminals by public by the conduct of similar to the one of the tenant in this case. It is painful to say that many of the Advocates are involved in the land grabbing and if the antecedent of the petitioner / S.VAIDYANATHAN,J., jrs/ar tenant is verified, he may also be one of the land grabbers. The tenant has scant regard for the orders of the Court and he has portrayed sadistic attitude. With the above observations and directions, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 03.02.2021

  March 30, 2021

   by Sekar Reporter · Published March 30, 2021