Why are you bothered about AMMK?’: by Sekar Reporter · Published December 6, 2019 · Updated December 6, 2019 [12/6, 07:24] Sekarreporter: ‘Why are you bothered about AMMK?’: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/why-are-you-bothered-about-ammk/article30199476.ece [12/6, 07:25] Sekarreporter: Pugazhendi files a case in HC The Madras High Court on Thursday questioned the locus standi of Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) leader T.T.V. Dhinakaran’s former supporter V. Pugazhendi to file a case against the proposed registration of the party with the Election Commission. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan wondered why was the petitioner bothered about the registration of the party when it was his case that he had walked out of it though the party as such was yet to expel him officially. [12/6, 07:25] Sekarreporter: The judge was concerned that the litigant should not end up using the court to settle scores. When the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that his client had submitted an affidavit along with 99 others before the EC, supporting the registration of AMMK, the judge said he could have simply asked the EC to ignore that affidavit at the time of considering the AMMK’s plea for registration. Later, the judge granted time for ECI’s counsel to obtain instructions and adjourned the hearing to Monday. He further rejected a plea by Tamil Maran of Puducherry to get himself impleaded in the writ petition filed by Mr. Pugazhendi in order to support the prayer sought for by the petitioners. Stating that no person could be made a respondent to support the cause of a writ petitioner, the judge said Mr. Maran would have to file a separate writ petition if he desired to do so.Why are you bothered about AMMK?’: [12/6, 07:24] Sekarreporter: ‘Why are you bothered about AMMK?’: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/why-are-you-bothered-about-ammk/article30199476.ece [12/6, 07:25] Sekarreporter: Pugazhendi files a case in HC The Madras High Court on Thursday questioned the locus standi of Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) leader T.T.V. Dhinakaran’s former supporter V. Pugazhendi to file a case against the proposed registration of the party with the Election Commission. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan wondered why was the petitioner bothered about the registration of the party when it was his case that he had walked out of it though the party as such was yet to expel him officially. [12/6, 07:25] Sekarreporter: The judge was concerned that the litigant should not end up using the court to settle scores. When the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that his client had submitted an affidavit along with 99 others before the EC, supporting the registration of AMMK, the judge said he could have simply asked the EC to ignore that affidavit at the time of considering the AMMK’s plea for registration. Later, the judge granted time for ECI’s counsel to obtain instructions and adjourned the hearing to Monday. He further rejected a plea by Tamil Maran of Puducherry to get himself impleaded in the writ petition filed by Mr. Pugazhendi in order to support the prayer sought for by the petitioners. Stating that no person could be made a respondent to support the cause of a writ petitioner, the judge said Mr. Maran would have to file a separate writ petition if he desired to do so.
Madras high court orders feb 23:ஐகோர்ட் உத்தரவுகள் பிப் 23 February 24, 2022 by Sekar Reporter · Published February 24, 2022
நீதிபதி ஜி.சந்திரசேகரன் முன்பு இன்று விசாரணைக்கு வந்தபோது, அதிமுக சார்பில் ஆஜரான வழக்கறிஞர் அய்யப்பராஜ், பொள்ளாச்சி திருவள்ளுவர் திடலில் முப்பது ஆண்டுகளாக மொழிப்போர் தியாகிகளுக்கு மரியாதை செலுத்தும் பொதுக்கூட்டம் நடத்தி வருவதாகவும், இந்தாண்டு கூட்டம் நடத்த காவல்துறை அனுமதி வழங்கவில்லை என கூறினார். January 25, 2023 by Sekar Reporter · Published January 25, 2023
[2/9, 08:20] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: , today law notes [2/9, 08:30] Sekarreporter1: [2/9, 08:19] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 09.02.2021: K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv – The Principles of Judicial Review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by the Government or its instrumentalities, in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. It’s decision to grant contracts/licenses to private bodies can be questioned in any one of the following grounds: (1) Bad faith; (2) Based on irrational or irrelevant consideration; (3) non compliance with prescribed procedure; (4) violation of any constitutional or statutory provisions; (5) collateral purposes; (6) ulterior motive; (7) Favouritism, Malice or Malafide Delhi Scientific Forum Vs. Union of India [AIR 1996 SC 1356] Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] Union of India Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation [(2001) 8 SCC 491] [2/9, 08:30] Sekarreporter1: ☘️☘️ February 9, 2021 by Sekar Reporter · Published February 9, 2021