SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

Chief justice gankapurwala and judge baratha chakravarthy i) In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void and ultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiated against the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424, 14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399, 17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.

Uncategorized

Chief justice gankapurwala and judge baratha chakravarthy i) In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void and ultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiated against the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424, 14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399, 17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 27.03.2024 DELIVERED ON: 23.04.2024 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.Nos.20553, 22931 of 2023; 6667 of 2013; 6561,...

In the result, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, on the following terms,(i) Sections 4 and 4A of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017) are read down to restrict their operation only for the purposes of the Act (Tamilnadu Act 42 of 2017) as delineated in paragraph 15.2 supra ;(ii) The rest of the provisions of the impugned enactment are declared to be valid.(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.4728, 8860 of 2020; 16530, 18266, 22579, 22582, 22588, 22590, 26521, 26523, 27596, 27597, 28342, 28519, 28525 of 2021; 7703, 7708, 1731, 16864, 23302, 23303, 23304 of 2022; 991 and 1718 of 2023 are closed.

Uncategorized

In the result, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, on the following terms,(i) Sections 4 and 4A of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017) are read down to restrict their operation only for the purposes of the Act (Tamilnadu Act 42 of 2017) as delineated in paragraph 15.2 supra ;(ii) The rest of the provisions of the impugned enactment are declared to be valid.(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.4728, 8860 of 2020; 16530, 18266, 22579, 22582, 22588, 22590, 26521, 26523, 27596, 27597, 28342, 28519, 28525 of 2021; 7703, 7708, 1731, 16864, 23302, 23303, 23304 of 2022; 991 and 1718 of 2023 are closed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Orders reserved on: 11.03.2024 Orders pronounced on: 23.04.2024 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.Nos.3985 and 7400 of 2020;15611, 21340,...

Cmda 2nd master plan order setaside அதிரடி உத்தரவு நீதிபதிகள் எஸ்.எஸ்.சுந்தர் மற்றும் என்.செந்தில்குமார் அடங்கிய அமர்வு, மிகப்பெரிய நிலப்பரப்பை நீர்பிடிப்பு பகுதி என அறிவித்தது அரசியல் சட்டத்துக்கு எதிரானது என உத்தரவிட்டது.

Uncategorized

Cmda 2nd master plan order setaside அதிரடி உத்தரவு நீதிபதிகள் எஸ்.எஸ்.சுந்தர் மற்றும் என்.செந்தில்குமார் அடங்கிய அமர்வு, மிகப்பெரிய நிலப்பரப்பை நீர்பிடிப்பு பகுதி என அறிவித்தது அரசியல் சட்டத்துக்கு எதிரானது என உத்தரவிட்டது.

சென்னை பெருநகர இரண்டாவது முழுமைத் திட்டத்தின் (மாஸ்டர் பிளான்) அடிப்படையில், புறநகர் பகுதியில் உள்ள 27 கிராமங்களில் உள்ள 13 ஆயிரத்து 720 ெஹக்டேர் நிலப்பரப்பை செங்குன்றம் ஏரி நீர்பிடிப்பு பகுதி என அறிவித்து சென்னை பெருநகர வளர்ச்சிக் குழுமம் பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவை அரசியல் சட்டத்துக்கு விரோதமானது...

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.

Uncategorized

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.

[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...

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.

Uncategorized

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.04.2024CORAM :THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASADW.P.No.1680 of 2022A.Balaguru .. PetitionerVs. (S.V.G., CJ.) (J.S.N.P., J.)24.04.2024Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation :...

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.

Uncategorized

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.

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICEANDD.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ORDERS RESERVED ON: 02.04.2024ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON: 23.04.2024CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Writ Petition No.23527...

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARANW. P.Nos.32765 & 32766 of 2014andW.M.P.No.11454 of 2017Muthulakshmi … Petitioner in both W.Ps’Vs1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004.

Uncategorized

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARANW. P.Nos.32765 & 32766 of 2014andW.M.P.No.11454 of 2017Muthulakshmi … Petitioner in both W.Ps’Vs1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASOrders reserved on21.04.2022 Orders pronounced on20.07.2022CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARANW. P.Nos.32765 & 32766 of 2014andW.M.P.No.11454 of 2017Muthulakshmi … Petitioner in both W.Ps’Vs1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil...

Today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2011 (5) SCC 708 : sushil suri vs CBI : In a cheating case initiated by the bank , a person cannot be exonerated from criminal liabilty merely because dues of bank have been paid up[02/05, 11:20] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) All india criminal LR ( cal ) 451 : keshab naskar vs state : As far as section 326 IPC is concerned , corporal punishment of imprisonment is mandatory , a sentence of mere fine is not permissible

Uncategorized

Today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2011 (5) SCC 708 : sushil suri vs CBI : In a cheating case initiated by the bank , a person cannot be exonerated from criminal liabilty merely because dues of bank have been paid up[02/05, 11:20] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) All india criminal LR ( cal ) 451 : keshab naskar vs state : As far as section 326 IPC is concerned , corporal punishment of imprisonment is mandatory , a sentence of mere fine is not permissible

Vinothpandian: 2011 (5) SCC 708 : sushil suri vs CBI : In a cheating case initiated by the bank , a person cannot be exonerated from criminal liabilty merely because dues of bank have...