Follow:
- Next story 8.In view of the fact that, the petitioner has made an attempt to abuse judicial process of law, this Court is inclined to impose cost on the present writ petitioner. 9.Accordingly, the writ petition is declared as frivolous and stands dismissed with the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). The cost amount is directed to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority on or before 22.08.2023. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10.Post the matter on 22.08.2023 for ‘reporting compliance’. 11.08.2023 sha/pal Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order To 1.The District Collector, Chennai District, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600001. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai District, Anna Nagar Wester Extension, Chennai 600040. 3.The Thasildar, Ayanavaram Taluk, Ayanavaram, Chennai 600023. 4.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Park Town, Chennai 600003. 5.The Chariman and Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Rd, Chintadripet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600031. S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. sha/pal W.P.No.12370 of 2021 11.08.2023
- Previous story [8/18, 11:50] sekarreporter1: [8/18, 11:48] sekarreporter1: [8/18, 11:47] sekarreporter1: item 24 hrnc appeal cj sta [8/18, 11:47] sekarreporter1: cj status co ordered cj bench [8/18, 11:48] sekarreporter1: temple case [8/18, 11:48] sekarreporter1: SGP arun natarajan [8/18, 11:48] sekarreporter1: sj order to grant noc hrnc appeal [8/18, 11:56] sekarreporter1: google disny case p chithambaram arguing cj bench [8/18, 11:57] sekarreporter1: [8/18, 11:56] sekarreporter1: google disny case senior adv p chithambaram , sriram panchu, sathis parasaran arguing cj bench [8/18, 11:56] sekarreporter1: ..
Recent Posts
- 02/05, 20:55] sekarreporter1: [02/05, 20:54] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1786054176918983158?t=Ddx5oTIw64NGjlJ1kp1BcQ&s=08[02/05, 20:55] sekarreporter1: [02/05, 20:19] Prabakaran Advt: In Jaffer Sadiq case co-accused A4 one Mr. Sadhanantham was in illegal custody for 9 days and medical certificate was given that he was unfit for remand but it was suppressed and with fake medical certificate the NCB had remanded sathanantham.
- Temple order /THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASADW.P.No.1680 of 2022A.Balaguru .. PetitionerVs.
- Chief justice and Baratha Chakravarthy order/ In view thereof, it is no longer possible for any State Government or Union of India to appoint anybody else, more specifically Deputy Labour Commissioner etc., as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal. Thus, it can be seen that virtually the impugned clauses in Section 7 or 7-A cannot be operated anymore. Thus, both the provisions that are challenged at present remain dead letters in the statute book, only to be repealed by an appropriate repeal act.
- Tamil Nadu Recognized Aided Private vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 9 March, 2023
- Today law tips /DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: In Prabhakara Adiga vs Gowri And Ors (2017) 4 SCC 97, the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 25 held as under:-
More
Recent Posts
- 02/05, 20:55] sekarreporter1: [02/05, 20:54] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1786054176918983158?t=Ddx5oTIw64NGjlJ1kp1BcQ&s=08[02/05, 20:55] sekarreporter1: [02/05, 20:19] Prabakaran Advt: In Jaffer Sadiq case co-accused A4 one Mr. Sadhanantham was in illegal custody for 9 days and medical certificate was given that he was unfit for remand but it was suppressed and with fake medical certificate the NCB had remanded sathanantham.
- Temple order /THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASADW.P.No.1680 of 2022A.Balaguru .. PetitionerVs.
- Chief justice and Baratha Chakravarthy order/ In view thereof, it is no longer possible for any State Government or Union of India to appoint anybody else, more specifically Deputy Labour Commissioner etc., as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal. Thus, it can be seen that virtually the impugned clauses in Section 7 or 7-A cannot be operated anymore. Thus, both the provisions that are challenged at present remain dead letters in the statute book, only to be repealed by an appropriate repeal act.
- Tamil Nadu Recognized Aided Private vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 9 March, 2023
- Today law tips /DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: In Prabhakara Adiga vs Gowri And Ors (2017) 4 SCC 97, the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 25 held as under:-