Lordship s Vaithiyanathan j peculiar order in divorce case direction to registry by Sekar Reporter · December 21, 2019 [12/21, 09:28] Sekarreporter 1: C.M.P.No.26266 of 2019 in C.M.S.A.SR.No.107052 of 2019 1/10 C.M.P.No.26266 of 2019 in C.M.S.A.SR.No.107052 of 2019 Reserved on Pronounced on 09.12.2019 20.12.2019 Petitioner Respondent PU.VENKATESAN NO.7/227, (NEAR VELAMMAL SCHOOL) MOGAPPAIR WEST, CHENNAI 37. P.G.EGAVALLI NO.3/96, SEVINDIAMMAN KOIL ST, VANGANOOR PO, PALLIPAT TK, TIRUVALLUR DT. SMT. DEEPTHI ARIVUNIDHI I ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUVALLUR COIMBINED COURT. Petitioner Counsel Respondent Counsel PU.VENKATESAN P Subject NOT available District TIRUVALLUR Presentation Date 01/10/2019 Prayer To accept the cause title for adding Judge Smt Deepthi Arivunidhi as Respondent 2 in the above Case and thus render justice. S.VAIDYANATHAN,J. The Petitioner / Party-in-Person has come forward with the present petition, seeking to accept the cause title for adding the I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur, namely, Smt.Deepthi Arivunidhi as Respondent No.2 in the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, which is in SR stage. For the sake of brevity, the parties would be referred to as per their nomenclature in the present petition as “Petitioner” and “Respondent No.1 / Wife, namely, P.G.Egavalli”. [12/21, 09:31] Sekarreporter 1: C.M.P.No.26266 of 2019 in C.M.S.A.SR.No.107052 of 2019 8/10 the execution of any warrant or order, which he would be bound to execute, if within the jurisdiction of the person issuing the same.” In addition to the above, there is one more act, called The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, to secure additional protection for Judges and others acting judicially and relevant section of the Act is extracted hereunder: “3. Additional protection to Judges.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.” It is pertinent to state here that if a decision rendered by the Lower Forum is found to be wrong, in the appeal, the Appellate Court can rectify the same and rewrite the judgment. Likewise, if a decision is rendered based on any extraneous consideration, then the Higher Forum will suo motu take action against the Subordinate Judicial Officers. But, the averments made in the present case on hand are not germane and it is not known as to why Registry had not listed the matter for maintainability before numbering the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I find that there is no [12/21, 09:32] Sekarreporter 1: C.M.P.No.26266 of 2019 in C.M.S.A.SR.No.107052 of 2019 9/10 ground made out to accept the case of the Petitioner so as to amend the cause title by adding the name of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur therein. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. It is open to the Registry to scrutinize the papers and number the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, provided the same is in order. It is further directed that before numbering the CMSA, Registry must ensure that the name of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur does not find place anywhere in the petition, typeset, etc., including the cause title and if it is found, the same needs to be struck off / deleted by the Registry, by duly endorsing the order passed in this petition today. 20.12.2019
bench of Justices SS Sundar and N Senthil Kumar granted three months to the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to investigate the assets of police and Revenue personnel posted in Thoothukudi in 2018 at the time of the police firing at the Sterlite copper plant there that killed 13 unarmed people July 30, 2024 by Sekar Reporter · Published July 30, 2024
Judge baratha chakrawarthy/ reading of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inVirudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and othersVs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Others and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others it can be seen that the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has jurisdiction to nip at the bud any vexatious plaint or where the process is a gross abuse of process of law. But at the same time, not in every such case, the Court would exercise its jurisdiction, there must be compelling reasons to strike off the plaint by considering the urgency involved or by considering that even relegating the parties to contest the matter before the Court itself would be injustice to the parties. In other cases, when alternative remedy is available, this Court will not interfere in exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. September 3, 2024 by Sekar Reporter · Published September 3, 2024
தற்கொலை செய்து கொண்ட சின்னத்திரை நடிகை சித்ராவின் கணவர் ஹேம்நாத்துக்கு நிபந்தனை ஜாமீன் February 15, 2021 by Sekar Reporter · Published February 15, 2021