Follow:
- Next story We leave it for the government to take a decision in coordination with all other stake holders. We make it clear that the government must respond,” a first bench of Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad said while disposing off the plea.
- Previous story The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Monday said that it will consider re-framing the issues on essential religious practices, interplay between faith and fundamental rights, and extent of judicial review on religious practices which were referred in the Sabarimala review order passed by a 5-judge bench on November 14, 2019. The CJ-led bench has asked the Secretary General of the Supreme Court to convene a meeting of all lawyers involved in the case on January 17 for this purpose. The meeting will decide the points of : 1. Reframing or addition of issues. 2. Allocation of issues among lawyers. 3. Division of time between lawyers. The bench comprises CJI S A Bobde, Justice R Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice L Nageswara Rao, Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar, Justice S Abdul Nazeer, Justice R Subhash Reddy, Justice B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant.
Recent Posts
- Order setaside THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW. P.No. 25446 of 2021andW.M.P.No.26886 of 2021Dhanraj Baid Jain College,(Institution of Tamil Nadu Educational & Medical Trust),
- THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.27875 of 2024& W.M.P.No.30397 of 2024/Upon production of proof with regard to the payment as stated above, the concerned Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law, by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, without pressing for limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
- this year, Srinivasan filed a civil suit against the Madras Music Academy,
- vacation bench of Justice PB Balaji and Justice G Arul Murugan heard the PIL moved by T Vennila, from Chennai. The petitioner contended that in the past four years unskilled field workers have lost their lives in Tangedco solely because they were made to perform tasks that they were neither recruited for nor trained to do the tasks. Apart from these 70 fatalities, there have been recurrent life-altering accidents, wherein over a 100 victims have been physically disabled, she said.
- The Madras High Court presided over by Justice Lakshminarayanan ruled in favour of Sindhuja setting aside the earlier order of the Family Court. The High Court directed the family welfare court to determine appropriate compensation for Sindhuja, emphasising that under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, the victim’s protection must come first.
More
Recent Posts
- Order setaside THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW. P.No. 25446 of 2021andW.M.P.No.26886 of 2021Dhanraj Baid Jain College,(Institution of Tamil Nadu Educational & Medical Trust),
- THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.27875 of 2024& W.M.P.No.30397 of 2024/Upon production of proof with regard to the payment as stated above, the concerned Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law, by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, without pressing for limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
- this year, Srinivasan filed a civil suit against the Madras Music Academy,
- vacation bench of Justice PB Balaji and Justice G Arul Murugan heard the PIL moved by T Vennila, from Chennai. The petitioner contended that in the past four years unskilled field workers have lost their lives in Tangedco solely because they were made to perform tasks that they were neither recruited for nor trained to do the tasks. Apart from these 70 fatalities, there have been recurrent life-altering accidents, wherein over a 100 victims have been physically disabled, she said.
- The Madras High Court presided over by Justice Lakshminarayanan ruled in favour of Sindhuja setting aside the earlier order of the Family Court. The High Court directed the family welfare court to determine appropriate compensation for Sindhuja, emphasising that under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, the victim’s protection must come first.