Madras High Court is the highest Court in the state of Tamil Nadu, exercising Original Jurisdiction over the City of Madras. Although the name of the city was changed from Madras to Chennai in 1996, the court as an institution did not follow suit and retained the name as the Madras High Court. More
The Vaiko-led party said the directives and guidance of the Madras High Court in this case have given confidence that the guilty would be punished.
Earlier this year, the state government and a Basmati growers association lost two separate cases in the Madras high court filed in 2016, challenging the exclusion of 13 districts of the state from a map submitted by the Agriculture and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) for GI tags.
Petitioner-advocate AP Suryaprakasam submitted that thousands of migrant labourers are without food and shelter and they are loitering in the railway stations and so, they should be provided with food, shelter and medical facilities.
With regard to self acquisitions of Jayalalithaa, the petitioner and the respondent are the legal heirs as per Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956.
SFI, referring to a news report saying the Centre had said the exam centres cannot be set up in containment zones, submitted that it would be difficult for students from containment zones to attend the exams.
The court on its own impleaded the Union housing and finance ministries as party respondents. It has directed them to answer a series of questions including as to how many families have basic amenity of housing in India as well as in Tamil Nadu, population and housing ratio in the country and in the state, when 'Housing for All' mission of the central government would be achieved.
The court said it was reluctant to interfere with the religious functions and ceremonies of temples, unless a strong case had been made out and established that religious practices were violative of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant took note of the submissions of the DMK leader's lawyer and stayed the ongoing proceedings before the Madras High Court.
Justice M Sundar, before whom the petition by Karti and his wife, seeking to stall the proceedings before the special court constituted to hear cases related to MPs and MLAs came up for hearing, granted an interim injunction till January 27.
If the AIADMK-led state government does not firmly stand for their release, the seven convicts would soon commence their fourth decade behind bars.
Concluding the hearing of arguments after 39 days, a special bench of Justices TS Sivagnanam and V Bhavani Subbaroyan said on Wednesday it would try to deliver the order as expeditiously as possible.
A division bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and P Velmurugan passed the order while expanding the scope of the plea moved by Fourrts (India) Labs Pvt Ltd a pharmaceutical company challenging its income tax assessment.
The matter relates to the alleged non-disclosure of Rs 1.35 crore received by Karti, son of former union minister P Chidambaram, and his wife Srinidhi in cash for sale of land at Muttukadu near here.
It gave the interim direction late Sunday night on PILs opposing the rally after the Tamil Nadu government counsel informed that police have denied permission for the protest as there was no firm commitment from the organisers on owning responsibility in case of any violence and damage to property.
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, provides for reconstituting the state into two Union territories -- Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
The co-location facility allowed brokers to take on rent specific racks and co-locate their servers and systems within the exchange premises.
The court had banned hoardings along the road and it recently pulled up the government for not effectively implementing its order following the death of a woman techie.
The state made the submissions on the plea moved by Vedanta challenging the government order directing closure of its unit.
Justice K Kalyanasundaram granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) within two weeks.
A vacation bench comprising Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna fixed the appeal of the central government against the April 8 order of the high court for hearing on June 3 after the counsel said that the plea was of utmost importance.
Allowing his plea, the judge said the court was inclined to grant bail as the election process was still pending and he was the leader of a registered political party.
The Madras High court had laid down very clearly that the Lt Governor had no powers to act independently and that she must work "in tandem with the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers."
Why the Madras High Court’s actions against Tik-Tok are not in keeping with available legislation and case law.
The incident pertains to a a gang allegedly trying to strip a 19-year-old woman inside a car near Pollachi, a town near Coimbatore, recording the act and blackmailing her using the visuals.
Earlier this month, the court in Tamil Nadu ordered the central government to prohibit TikTok downloads, saying the app was encouraging pornography.