Follow:
- Next story While responding to the Rajya Sabha Member P.Wilson, Union Law Minister Mr. RS Prasad has stated that there were 398 Judges vacancies in the High Courts across the country, as of September1,2020.
- Previous story [10/6, 18:05] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1313457851008905216?s=08 [10/6, 18:09] Sekarreporter 1: Today the Hon’ble Justice M.S. Ramesh heard applications for rejecting the election petition and striking off the paragraph of election petition filed by the O.P. Ravindranath. Who stated in those applications that election petition is not maintainable for taking trial hence the election petition to be rejected before trial. During March 2020 the Election Petitioner filed counter affidavit against the O.P. Ravindranath applications. Mr. Ravindranath took very long time and longer adjournments citing reason of corona. The Honorable judge gave time and ordered to argue the applications by O.P. Ravindranath Kumar today. Today the Honourable justice took up the application for hearing. On hearing both sides on applications of rejecting the plaint and strike off paragraphs of election petition. After hearing both sides argument,the Hon’ble Justice posted the matter on 16 .10. 2020 for pronouncing order on this applications. V.ARUN (Counsel for Election Petitioner) argued against OPR.
Recent Posts
- CJ Bench 8 WA/175/2026 (Forest) THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND VS SRI KANCHI KAMAKOTI PEETHAM AND 4 OTHERS. STATE GOVERNMENT PLEADER
- No mudslinging against judges’: Madras HC pulls up lawyer in Savukku Shankar case During the bail proceedings, Shankar’s counsel alleged that the judge had exhibited bias by referring to Shankar
- Justice Vijayakumar of the Madras High Court, it observed that since the Censor Board had already granted certification, the court could not interfere. Granting liberty to file a public interest litigation in connection with the issue, the judge disposed of the case with this order.
- Saravanan dmk sanathanam
- Justices G. R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi directed the TNPCB to take action against Madurai Corporation as per Section 48 of the Act that deals with offences by government departments. Earlier, the State government had told
More
Recent Posts
- CJ Bench 8 WA/175/2026 (Forest) THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND VS SRI KANCHI KAMAKOTI PEETHAM AND 4 OTHERS. STATE GOVERNMENT PLEADER
- No mudslinging against judges’: Madras HC pulls up lawyer in Savukku Shankar case During the bail proceedings, Shankar’s counsel alleged that the judge had exhibited bias by referring to Shankar
- Justice Vijayakumar of the Madras High Court, it observed that since the Censor Board had already granted certification, the court could not interfere. Granting liberty to file a public interest litigation in connection with the issue, the judge disposed of the case with this order.
- Saravanan dmk sanathanam
- Justices G. R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi directed the TNPCB to take action against Madurai Corporation as per Section 48 of the Act that deals with offences by government departments. Earlier, the State government had told