SC Okays Foreign Travel Pending Departmental Proceeding

Quoting the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3802 of 2019, the High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 28 May 2019, in it's Order has stated that "pendency of departmental proceedings cannot be a ground to prevent the appellant from travelling abroad".

Download High Court Order

HC Dismisses Habeas Corpus Petition, Over Family Dispute

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, on 15 May 2019, dismissed a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the father against his mother over the custody of their minor child.

RDO Reclassifies Natham as Government Land

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 22 May 2015, while dismissing a Writ Petition, has observed that a Revenue Divisional Officer by proceedings, has directed modification of a portion of certain land, classified as Grama Natham, to be registered as Government Poramboke.

The High Court in it's Order has stated stated in it's Order that "the land once classified as Natham cannot be dealt with by the Government ..."
Download HC Order

HC Directs College to Return Original Certificates

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 15 May 2019, directed a college to return all the  original certificates of the candidate as the same "cannot be retained by the institution as if it is a fixed deposit receipt on which the banks claim general lien in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act."
Even if there is any fee to be paid by the petitioner, the Order adds, it can be recovered by the college by instituting appropriate proceedings. The return of certificates has nothing to do with the payment of balance of fee, the Order declares.
Download Order

Writ Not Maintainable Against Cooperative: HC

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 16 May 2019 dismissed a Writ on the ground that it is not Maintainable against Cooperative Societies,

Download Order

Coming Soon: Untrained Teachers to Teach the Young in Anganwadis

Adding that the Teachers are like Gods and they should not question the government, The High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 22 May 2019, rejected the main ground raised by the petitioners, Tamilaga Asiriyar Kootani, The Tamilaga Elementary School Teachers Federation and others, with regard to deployment of surplus Secondary Grade Teachers in the School Education Department  to the Anganwadi Centres to teach LKG/UKG students on the ground that, they do not possess necessary qualification as per the Regulations of the National Council for Teacher Education.

Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, seems to be a produce of a great vision, which in 2009 has foreseen of a situation in 2019 where in there wouldn't be any much teachers to  teach the young! And also in having provided an escape route to the situation, by adding certain provisions, providing for exceptions and relaxations with regard to the minimum qualification required for appointment as teacher.

Why did the government not act upon training as many teachers, while it enacted the Compulsory Education Act in 2009, is a question. Furthermore is the question, what has the government and it's many bodies like the Birth and Death Registries, the Statistical office, the planning commission, the Human Resource departments, the Employment and Training department and the rest doing till 2019? Added to this, is also the question that, what is going to follow and if the bodies are likely to mend themselves.

The Court has, in it's judgement recorded of certain things being clear to it. Such things include, "the State does not have adequate
institutions to offer the Course or training in teacher education or teachers possessing minimum qualification ...." and also of the provision that, in case of the above, "the State Government could appeal to the Central
Government for relaxation."

It is unclear if the state could, beside appealing for relaxation, could also stay without having to plan for something still better.

Also unknown is, if the government not be held responsible and not be reprimanded for having pushed the the young children with no trained teachers to teach them nor any institution to train such teachers, whom the government has foreseen in 2009 or by the notification of the NCTE dated 12.11.2014.

The costs of the risks that the children would undergo in the hands if the untrained, facilitated by the laws enacted by the governments, to favour their inaction and also of the bodies those interpret them, is unknown.

Is complacency ruling, is unknown.

"Teachers are like Gods" the judgement states, and following which is the proposition that "they (The Gods?) cannot question each and every decision taken by the Government ..."

However, the court has recommended to the government that, a six month long in-service bridge course to the Secondary Grade Teachers would empower them to impart Montessori based education to KinderGarten students.

If the in-service training for a six month period would provide the academic rigor as mandated by the NCTE and would the teachers offered with such equivalent certificates, and if the NCTE would agree for extension of such programmes from Colleges of Education to Anganwadis, is not known.

Would all these survive to serve as a precedence,  is also unknown.

However the court has given all green direction to the government to "go ahead with the project at the earliest as the academic year is to commence from 1st June, 2019 onwards."

Last but not the least, could the Employment offices tell us of the number of such educated (viz., Diploma in Nursery Teacher Education/ Pre-school /
Early childhood Education Programme (D.E.C.Ed) of duration not less than two years or B.Ed (nursery) from NCTE recognized institution) in it's Registers?

What is the education code for the above qualifications, is also the question directed towards the Employment offices to answer.

Then would we know, the role of the parliamentary, judiciary, and of the executive in preparing and responding the challenges current and forthcoming.

Click to download Madras High Court Order

HC Orders on Scholarship

The Government of Tamil Nadu, with a view to help the students belonging to Adi Dravidar community, issued an order in

G.O.Ms.No.6, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 09 January 2012, provides scholarship for students studying in Government and Aided Institutions.

However, later, there has been a few amendments to the Order, to the effect that the "scholarship would be granted only to the extent of rates fixed by the Fee Structure Committee for the free seats under Government quota with effect from the academic year 2017-2018".

In an Order dated 22 May 2019, the High Court of Judicature at Madras has held that "The government was well within its powers to amend the order.


Click Link for Order Copy

How could NRI buy property in India

https://tnregistry.blogspot.com/2019/05/nri-purchase-property-in-india.html

CBI Sentences Bank Official on Booking Liss

The Special Judge, CBI, Cases, New Delhi, on 07 May 2018, has sentenced a then official of UCO Bank, and five others, on charges of having caused a loss to the Bank.

The charge was that the accused has cleared cheques without sufficient balance and also has failed to reverse a credit entry by a debit entry, upon receiving the outward cheques as unpaid.

Question of Promotion after being Suspended, Revoked, Reinstated and Exonerated.

The Supreme Court, on 10 May 2019, delivered it's judgement on a question if  it could be so that, "an employee who has been
assigned the deemed date of promotion as
per applicable rules and "as such has not
actually worked at all on the promotional
post" ...be said that he has completed as many years of continious service in the feeder cadre, so to qualify him for a promotion.
Download Supreme Court Judgement

Is it OK? Two Suits against Two Sale Deeds among Two Parties

A sells an ancestral property, in two different spells, to B, some time before his demise.
The wife and sons of A (C), has published Prohibition on sale, in a leading daily in advance. Though so, the sale has occurred.
C goes to court challenging the First sale.
Later again, C goes to court challenging the Second sale.
Now, the question before the court is if it was right for C to challenge B, in two different suits.
B holds that, under Rule 2 Order 2 of CPC, C cannot do so
High Court proceeds with the reason based
on Order II Rule 3 and passes it's judgement.
Then, on 10 May 2019, the Supreme Court  pronounced it's judgement on the 1957 issue, setting aside the Judgement of the High Court.
Download Supreme Court Judgement

NO protection for Commercial Consumer under Consumer Protection Act

Supreme Court, on 10 May 2019, delivered a Judgement on the point that hiring or availing services for commercial purposes was NOT covered under Consumer Protection Act, unless it was...
Learn More Download Judgement

The Power of Trial Court wrt Section 319 Cr.P.C under Scanner.

A two member bench at the Supreme Court of India, on 10 May 2019 has directed the Registry to place, before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India for constitution of a
Bench of appropriate strength for considering the questions on the Power of the Trial Court w.r.t. Section 319 of the criminal procedure code.
Download Order of the Supreme Court

Supreme Court gives All Green to Reservation in Promotion

The Supreme Court, on 10 May 2019, decided on the constitutional validity of "Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018.

Download Judgement Copy

Selling Ancestral Property without Consent? Supreme Court Clarifies

The Supreme Court, on 09 May 2019, delivered the Judgement w.r.t. a Property at Pudukkottai, on a situation that the Parent has sold the Ancestral Property, evenwhile his son has lodged an advance protest against a possible sale of the property, at the Sub Registrar Office.
Click to Download High Court Judgement

Click to Download Supreme Court Judgement

Stolen though, is still valid, indicates the Apex Court

Removal of something may not amount to Stealing, if Dishonest Intention unproved, indicates Supreme Court.

Stolen goods not forbidden from bearing evidence.

Documents obtained from "illegal search and seizure", the Supreme Court has said "cannot be shut out from consideration as long as they are relevant to the matters in issue."

In a case involving Birla Corporation, Birla Buildings Limited, Govind Promoters Pvt Limited, Adventz Investment and Holdings Limited and others, the Supreme Court on 09 May 2019 held that "no “dishonest intention” or "wrongful gain” could be attributed" and that there was neither any “wrongful loss” to the appellants so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 378 and 380 IPC.

The intention, said the judgement, under Section 24 IPC “dishonestly” must be to
cause “wrongful loss” to the other or to have “wrongful gain” for oneself.

"In determining whether a person has acted dishonestly or not, it is the intention which has to be seen." the judgement adds.

"... merely because documents have
been produced from one source or other, it cannot be said that documents have been dishonestly removed to obtain “wrongful
gain” to the respondents and cause “wrongful loss” to the appellant" the judgement reads.
Download Judgement Copy

Supreme Court Records of a "Whistle blower"

In a non-reportable judgement, delivered in the Supreme Court of India on 08 May 2019, citing ease in procuring illegal arrest warrants in Gujarat, is stated of the Appellant being both "a whistle blower and an aggrieved person."

The Whistler blower is recorded to have stated that it was easy to get illegal arrest warrants in Gujarat and that, there were many cases filed at the High Court in the name of fictitous complainants or those who have denied having filed any case at all.
Download Judgement Copy

Is Commissioner a Court, Supreme Court Clarifies.

In a Judgement delivered on 03 May 2019, the Supreme Court stated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable as per the scheme of Hindu Religious endowment
charitable Act, 1959.

Stating that the Courts in India were established by Legislative enactments, the court has also clarified if the Commissioner was a Court, though empowered to decide an appeal.
Download Judgement

Supreme Court defines "Preference" in Selection of Candidates.

Supreme Court, on 03 May 2019, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court favouring MPSC, drawing attention to the terms, "manufacture" and "preference", in the course of eligibility for the candidates to
the posts of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors.
Download Judgement Copy

Supreme Court dismisses FOGSI writ against Prohibition of Sex Selection.

The Supreme Court on 03 May 2019, dismissed a Writ filed by Federation of
Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) on the ground that "no case is made out for striking downt theproviso to Section 4(3), provisions of Sections 23(1), 23(2) or to read down Section 20 or 30 of the Act" (Pre­conception and Pre­natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994). Complete contents of Form ‘F’ are held to be mandatory, Supreme Court added.
Download Judgement Copy

To Err is Human HC says to TNPSC

Discounting an inadvertent mistake done by an applicant while applying online, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on 27 April 2019, passed an order to the TNPSC, to consider the appointment of the candidate, in the relevant category.

Download Judgement Copy

Fill all the Vacancies, High Court directs TNPSC

Responding to a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has, on 29 April 2019, directed the TNPSC directing the ninth "to appoint the petitioner in appropriate post for the
vacancies that have arisen due to nonjoining/joining and leaving of selected
candidates in pursuance of Notification No.1/2014, dated 06.02.2014 and
Supplement Notification No.9/2014 dated 16.04.2014.

The Honourable Mr.Justice.R.Mahadevan at the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, directed the TNPSC that it should. before the publication of next notification, "publish the reserve list, as mandated" and that "all the vacancies as per the earlier notification should be filled up." The order further makes it clear that, "if the present mode continues and if any deviation is found in future, it will be viewed very seriously."

"Taking note of the hurdles faced by the petitioner in the recruitment process and having regard to the fact that since he is reaching the maximum age, his chance of getting job would be bleak, this Court deems it fit to issue appropriate directions, to the ninth respondent", (TNPSC), the judgement states.
Download Judgement Copy