The President and Members of the Bar Association, Erode
Cordially invite you to the function to
felicitate
Thiru E.V. VISWANATHAN,
Advocate, Erode
Thiru Ma. SUBRAMANIYAN,
Advocate, Erode
Thiru K. VALLABHDAS,
Advocate, Erode
Thiru V.K. MUTHUSAMY,
Advocate, Erode
On the occasion of the Golden Jubilee year of their Legal Practice
On
10. 04.2010 at 10.30 am
At
Kongu Kalai Arangam
Sampath Nagar,
Erode
Hon’ble Thiru Justice P. SATHASIVAM,
Judge, Supreme Court of India
has consented to be the
CHIEF GUEST
Hon’ble Thiru Justice H.L. GOKHALE,
Chief Justice, High Court, Madras
has consented to preside over the function
In the presence of
Hon’ble Thiru Justice K.N. BASHA,
Judge, High Court, Madras,
Hon’ble Thiru Justice M.M. SUNDRESH,
Judge, High Court, Madras,
and
Hon’ble Selvi. Justice K.B.K. VASUKI,
Judge, High Court, Madras
Thiru L.S. Murugesan
President
Thiru S.Guruswamy
Secretary
Bar Association,
Erode
Programme
Prayer
Welcome Address : Thiru. L.S. MURUGESAN,
President,
Bar Association, Erode
Felicitations : Members, Bar Association, Erode
Felicitation by
Chief Guest: Hon’ble Thiru Justice P. SATHASIVAM,
Judge, Supreme Court of India
Presidential address: Hon’ble Thiru Justice H.L. GOKHALE,
Chief Justice, High Court, Madras
Special address: Hon’ble Thiru Justice K.N. BASHA,
Judge, High Court, Madras
Hon’ble Thiru Justice M.M. SUNDRESH,
Judge, High Court, Madras
Hon’ble Selvi Justice K.B.K. VASUKI,
Judge, High Court, Madras
Felicitation : Thiru K. JAYASANKARAN,
Principal District Judge, Erode
Acceptance speech : Thiru E.V. VISWANATHAN
Thiru Ma. SUBRAMANIAM
Thiru K. VALLABHDAS
Thiru V.K. MUTHUSAMY
Golden Jubilee Advocates
Vote of Thanks: Thiru S. GURUSAMY,
Secretary,
Bar Association, Erode
National Anthem
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
A new notification by Madras HC on Law Firms.
NOTIFICATION NO. 68/2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All the advocates are required to strictly adhere with
Rule 5, 6 and Rule 10 of the Rules (1969) as given below,
framed under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961,
relating to Law Firms, while filling up vakalats and are
requested to make necessary changes in the name of their
partnerships.
Rule 5 : The acceptance of an appointment on behalf
of a firm or partnership of advocates shall be
indicated by a partner affixing his own signature as a
partner on behalf of the firm or partnership of
advocates.
Rule 6 : An advocate at the time of acceptance of his
appointment shall also endorse on it his address which
address shall be regarded as one for service within
the meaning of Rule 5 of Order 3, the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
Provided that where more than one advocate accepts the
appointment, it shall be sufficient for one of them to endorse
his address, which address shall be regarded as one for
service within the meaning of Rule 5 of Order 3, Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
.....
Rule 10 : (a) The appointment of a firm or partnership of
advocates may be accepted by any partner on behalf of the
firm.
(b) No such firm or partnership shall be entitled to appear,
act or plead in any Court unless all the partners thereof are
entitled to appear, act or plead in such Court.
(c) The name of the firm or partnership may contain the names
of the persons who were or are members of the partnership but
of no others.
(d) The words "and company" shall not be affixed to the name
of any such partnership or firm.
(e) The names of all the members of the firm shall be recorded
with the Registrar of High Court and/or the District Judge, as
the case may be, and the State Bar Council, and the names of
all the partners shall also be set out in all professional
communications issued by the partners or the firm.
(f) the firm of advocates shall notify to the Registrar of the
High Court and/or the District Judge, as the case may be, and
the State Bar Council, any change in the composition of the
firm or the fact of its dissolution as soon as may be from the
date on which such change occurs or its dissolution takes
place.
(g) Every partner of the firm of advocates shall be bound to
disclose the names of all the partners of the firm whenever
called upon to do so by the Registrar of the High Court, the
District Judge, the State Bar Council, any Court or any party
for or against whom the firm or any partner thereof has filed
the appointment or memorandum of appearance.
(h) In every case where a partner of a firm of advocates signs
any document of writing on behalf of the firm he shall do so
in the name of the partnership and shall authenticate the same
by affixing his own signature as partners.
(i) Neither the firm of advocates nor any partner thereof
shall advise a party or appear, act or plead on behalf of a
party in any matter or proceedings where the opposite party is
represented by any other partner of the firm or by the firm
itself.
// By Order //
HIGH COURT, MADRAS : S.VIMALA
DATED : 24.03.2010 : REGISTRAR GENERAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All the advocates are required to strictly adhere with
Rule 5, 6 and Rule 10 of the Rules (1969) as given below,
framed under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961,
relating to Law Firms, while filling up vakalats and are
requested to make necessary changes in the name of their
partnerships.
Rule 5 : The acceptance of an appointment on behalf
of a firm or partnership of advocates shall be
indicated by a partner affixing his own signature as a
partner on behalf of the firm or partnership of
advocates.
Rule 6 : An advocate at the time of acceptance of his
appointment shall also endorse on it his address which
address shall be regarded as one for service within
the meaning of Rule 5 of Order 3, the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
Provided that where more than one advocate accepts the
appointment, it shall be sufficient for one of them to endorse
his address, which address shall be regarded as one for
service within the meaning of Rule 5 of Order 3, Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
.....
Rule 10 : (a) The appointment of a firm or partnership of
advocates may be accepted by any partner on behalf of the
firm.
(b) No such firm or partnership shall be entitled to appear,
act or plead in any Court unless all the partners thereof are
entitled to appear, act or plead in such Court.
(c) The name of the firm or partnership may contain the names
of the persons who were or are members of the partnership but
of no others.
(d) The words "and company" shall not be affixed to the name
of any such partnership or firm.
(e) The names of all the members of the firm shall be recorded
with the Registrar of High Court and/or the District Judge, as
the case may be, and the State Bar Council, and the names of
all the partners shall also be set out in all professional
communications issued by the partners or the firm.
(f) the firm of advocates shall notify to the Registrar of the
High Court and/or the District Judge, as the case may be, and
the State Bar Council, any change in the composition of the
firm or the fact of its dissolution as soon as may be from the
date on which such change occurs or its dissolution takes
place.
(g) Every partner of the firm of advocates shall be bound to
disclose the names of all the partners of the firm whenever
called upon to do so by the Registrar of the High Court, the
District Judge, the State Bar Council, any Court or any party
for or against whom the firm or any partner thereof has filed
the appointment or memorandum of appearance.
(h) In every case where a partner of a firm of advocates signs
any document of writing on behalf of the firm he shall do so
in the name of the partnership and shall authenticate the same
by affixing his own signature as partners.
(i) Neither the firm of advocates nor any partner thereof
shall advise a party or appear, act or plead on behalf of a
party in any matter or proceedings where the opposite party is
represented by any other partner of the firm or by the firm
itself.
// By Order //
HIGH COURT, MADRAS : S.VIMALA
DATED : 24.03.2010 : REGISTRAR GENERAL
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Spouse’s silence may amount to cruelty - SC
Spouse’s silence may amount to cruelty, says apex court Silence is golden. But married couples shouldn’t take it literally. For, the Supreme Court has said silence of a partner could amount to cruelty, which, under the Hindu Marriage Act, is a ground for divorce.
Section 13 of the Act says a person can move a divorce petition if he or she has been treated with cruelty by the spouse or has been deserted for a continuous period of not less than two years.
Delivering its judgement in a matrimonial case, a bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and Ashok Kumar Ganguly said: “At times, it (cruelty) may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed.”
That is why, the court said, the Act deliberately did not define ‘cruelty’. “In a matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour which can be termed cruel,” it said.
Violence may be a predominant form of cruelty in the Indian context, but it could be as bad in other forms, even the indignant silence of a partner, said Justice Ganguly writing the judgment for the bench. This judgment came in a case where the husband after forcing the wife to live separately because of his illtreatment moved the court for divorce saying she had treated him with cruelty by deserting him. Strangely, the Mandi district magistrate granted divorce terming the desertion as cruelty on her part.
But the Himachal Pradesh High Court saw through the design by noticing that the couple’s daughter was unambiguous in her statement that her father used to beat her mother and that was the reason she left her matrimonial home. Dismissing husband Ravi Kumar’s appeal against the HC judgment, the bench said: “The child has clearly stated the cruelty of husband towards his wife. Therefore, there is sufficient reason for the wife to stay apart. Under such circumstances, one cannot say the wife is guilty of either cruelty or desertion.”
It said whether a husband or wife was cruel to the other partner had always to be ascertained and judged taking into account the facts and circumstances of a given case and not by any pre-determined formula.
Section 13 of the Act says a person can move a divorce petition if he or she has been treated with cruelty by the spouse or has been deserted for a continuous period of not less than two years.
Delivering its judgement in a matrimonial case, a bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and Ashok Kumar Ganguly said: “At times, it (cruelty) may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed.”
That is why, the court said, the Act deliberately did not define ‘cruelty’. “In a matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour which can be termed cruel,” it said.
Violence may be a predominant form of cruelty in the Indian context, but it could be as bad in other forms, even the indignant silence of a partner, said Justice Ganguly writing the judgment for the bench. This judgment came in a case where the husband after forcing the wife to live separately because of his illtreatment moved the court for divorce saying she had treated him with cruelty by deserting him. Strangely, the Mandi district magistrate granted divorce terming the desertion as cruelty on her part.
But the Himachal Pradesh High Court saw through the design by noticing that the couple’s daughter was unambiguous in her statement that her father used to beat her mother and that was the reason she left her matrimonial home. Dismissing husband Ravi Kumar’s appeal against the HC judgment, the bench said: “The child has clearly stated the cruelty of husband towards his wife. Therefore, there is sufficient reason for the wife to stay apart. Under such circumstances, one cannot say the wife is guilty of either cruelty or desertion.”
It said whether a husband or wife was cruel to the other partner had always to be ascertained and judged taking into account the facts and circumstances of a given case and not by any pre-determined formula.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Offence under section 138 of the NI Act is compoundable under sec.147 of the said Act.
whether an offence of cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C?
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held, it is compoundable.
To read full judgment use the following link:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVD7MZ_yKj7ZZGM4czQya3BfNDFnZDd3cnpmcg&hl=en
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held, it is compoundable.
To read full judgment use the following link:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVD7MZ_yKj7ZZGM4czQya3BfNDFnZDd3cnpmcg&hl=en
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Cheque dishonour case - power agent can depose on behalf of complainant - SC.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a private complaint filed by a power of attorney of the complainant, the power agent can be examined if he knows the facts of the transactions between the parties.
To read the complete judgment go to:-
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVD7MZ_yKj7ZZGM4czQya3BfMzlnN3NtbjVmcg&hl=en
To read the complete judgment go to:-
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVD7MZ_yKj7ZZGM4czQya3BfMzlnN3NtbjVmcg&hl=en
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)