Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Madras High Court found the refusal for admission to child suffering from mild autism spectrum disorder to be distressing and violating the child’s fundamental right to education.
In 2012, Pondicherry District Collector had initiated inquiry against the Aurobindo Ashram Trust following allegations of sexual harassment, suicide of inmates and serious malpractices in the functioning of the school run by the Ashram, made by an inmate, Vishnu Lalit Singh, and a then MLA Ashok Anand.
Madras High Court held that the wife is entitled to institute and maintain matrimonial proceedings, DVC proceedings and any other proceedings under the relevant Statutes in Indian Courts having jurisdiction for appropriate reliefs.
Madras High Court held that that the order passed in writ petition had been fundamentally modified by the order passed in the contempt petition, the effect of which resulted in a veiled attempt to sit in judgment/appeal over the order passed in the writ petition, which is not permissible in law.
The President is pleased to appoint Shri Venkatachari Lakshminarayanan, Advocate as an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court for a period
Madras High Court said that there are instances of human rights violation in police stations, but every instance of a casual police enquiry cannot be termed as human rights violation.
The practice and procedure, both pre and post GST are consistent and involve participation of the officer of the DGGI in issuance of show cause notices.
Madras High Court upheld the right of the UGC to impose Regulation for territorial jurisdiction referring to the primacy given to the UGC under the UGC Act, 1956, as well as Entry 66 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule.
Madras High Court said that Rule 55-A is delegated legislation which cannot go beyond the scope of the Parent Act viz., the Registration Act as well the Transfer of Property Act which is the substantive law governing the transfer of immovable properties. Hence, it is held that the first proviso is clearly ultra vires and unconstitutional.
Madars High Court said that truth will come out only when the petitioner appears before the respondent pursuant to the summons received by him and not otherwise. Further, held that if it is the same subject matter, the State Authority cannot prosecute the petitioner once again as the Central Authority has already initiated action against the petitioner in respect of the very same subject matter
Madras High Court reiterated that wearing “gown” is only optional and not mandatory before any Courts other than the Supreme Court or the High Courts. Thus, it held that the order of the National Company Law Board imposing a dress code for Advocates for appearance before the Tribunal is without authority and hence, illegal.
Supreme Court said that the conduct of the judge and her/his decisions must reflect and show independence, adherence to the democratic and constitutional values. This is necessary as the judiciary holds the centre stage in protecting and strengthening democracy and upholding human rights and the Rule of law.
In petitions challenging the premature release of 13 life convicts by the State Government, the Madras High Court held that there is no reason to infer that the State has failed to consider relevant materials or passed the order of premature release for extraneous considerations.
The High Court of Madras recognised the foreign arbitration award pronounced by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (‘SIAC’) and found that the respondents have failed to establish any ground for refusing the recognition of foreign award.
Madras High Court said that the High Court cannot issue directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification or acceptable reason for issuing any such directions. The Court concerned is expected to regulate its own procedures in respect of the cases for effective disposal.
Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by lawyers from Madras HC alleging that Gowri is disqualified from being appointed a judge of a Constitutional Court, as there was no fruitful consultation between the executive and the collegium regarding her antecedents that could reveal her biasness against the minorities in the country.
The President has appointed following as the Additional Judges of Madras High Court in that order of seniority, for a period of
Madras High Court stated that the expression “person suffering from multiple disability” under 1999 Act will be equivalent in meaning to “person with benchmark disability” under Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Thus, allowed the petitioner to be appointed as a guardian to her sister, suffering from schizophrenia.
Madras High Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to join respondents 3 to 5 as parties to arbitral proceedings, as they do not qualify as “alter egos” of the first respondent or as successors-in-interest.