The Madras High Court on Wednesday ushered in a groundbreaking era for legal proceedings involving incarcerated individuals. In a decision that marks a significant shift in how courts handle appeals from convicts, the court granted permission to R. Subramanian, a convict, to argue his own case through video conferencing. Madras High Court Makes Landmark Decision: Convict to Argue Case Through Video Conference A Desire for Self-Representation In November 2023, Subramanian, former promoter of several financial institutions, got convicted. He received a 20-year imprisonment term for an economic offence. Despite this, he filed a writ petition. He wanted to actively engage in his legal proceedings. Consequently, this petition, heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, presented a compelling argument for allowing Subramanian to argue his appeals without the need for physical presence in court (Convict to Argue Case). The petition stemmed from Subramanian’s wish to represent himself in some of his pending cases before the High Court. This request highlighted a growing trend of convicts seeking a more active role in their legal battles. A Balanced Approach While acknowledging the merits of Subramanian’s petition, the court recognized the need for a nuanced approach. Chief Justice Gangapurwala emphasized the importance of considering the specifics of each case. A blanket order granting Subramanian permission to argue all his cases without a lawyer wouldn’t be prudent, he explained. To ensure a balanced and well-informed decision, the court directed Subramanian’s counsel to submit a comprehensive list of […]
News Tags: Legal Proceedings
Navigating the intricacies of legal proceedings can often feel like deciphering a complex puzzle. Understanding terms like “Pending CAV” and grasping the nuances of case status can be daunting for anyone facing legal challenges. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll break down the meaning of “Pending CAV” and provide valuable insights into the progression of your case. Let’s unravel the mysteries of legal jargon together, empowering you to navigate the legal landscape with confidence and clarity. Deciphering Legal Jargon: Understanding Pending CAV & Case Status Navigating legal proceedings can be daunting, especially when faced with unfamiliar terms like “Pending CAV” and questions about case status. Here’s a breakdown to demystify the process: Navigating Legal Jargon: Empowering Understanding and Engagement Understanding legal jargon like “Pending CAV” can alleviate anxiety during court proceedings. Stay informed, stay engaged, and trust in the legal process. Read More In conclusion, while the legal process may seem daunting, understanding terms like “Pending CAV” empowers individuals to actively engage with their case. By maintaining open communication with your lawyer and staying informed about case proceedings, you can navigate the legal system with confidence. Remember, clarity and proactive involvement are key to advocating for your rights effectively.
In the intricate world of legal jurisdiction and patent disputes, the Madras High Court’s recent ruling has brought clarity to the concept of forum conveniens. Rejecting an appeal that challenged the territorial jurisdiction based on the location of a “convenient patent office,” the court asserted its authority when a portion of the cause of action arises within its territory. This landmark decision, explored in-depth in this article, not only navigates the complex legal dynamics surrounding patent disputes but also underscores the evolving impact of technology on legal proceedings, urging a recalibration of traditional notions for a fair and just legal landscape. When Cause Of Action Partly Arose In Chennai, HC Has Territorial Jurisdiction Irrespective Of Location Of “Convenient Patent Office”: High Court Court Rejects Forum Conveniens Appeal in IPR Jurisdiction Dispute In a recent development, the Madras High Court emphatically rejected an appeal centered on the concept of forum conveniens. The court, consisting of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, asserted that regardless of the location of the appropriate patent office, the High Court retains territorial jurisdiction if even a fraction of the cause of action transpires within its territory. Here’s a breakdown of the court’s key observations and the intricacies of the case: 1. Context of the Dispute The court was addressing an appeal lodged by Canada-based company University Health Network against a single judge’s order rejecting a preliminary objection related to the place of suing. The appellant contended that since the patent application and opposition both […]
In a recent legal development, a city civil court in Chennai has ruled against Education Loan Default, mandating the repayment of ₹2.9 lakh to the State Bank of India (SBI). This court order is related to a loan sanctioned in April 2013 for the educational pursuit of the son, Vignesh Kumar, aiming to undertake a postgraduate degree in computer science. Background and Loan Agreement The court’s directive requires both Vignesh Kumar and his father, Muniraj, to repay the original loan amount along with accrued interest. The court has imposed an interest rate of 9% from the date of filing the suit until the decree date. Subsequently, an interest rate of 6% starts from the decree date until the actual realization of the suit amount. Agreement Terms and Education Loan Default The State Bank of India had sanctioned a loan of ₹1.6 lakh, and an agreement was reached in June 2016 between the bank and the borrowers for the repayment schedule. The borrowers committed to repaying the loan in 60 EMIs of ₹3,679 each. Additionally, they agreed to pay interest on floating rate loans and any other debits raised in the account, including charges and fees, in instalments from June 2016 onwards. Despite the agreed-upon terms, no payments have been made by the borrowers to date, prompting the State Bank of India to file a suit in 2021. Court’s Ruling and Implications on Education Loan Default Assistant Judge S Priya delivered a decisive ruling, declaring that a total of ₹2.9 lakh […]
In a groundbreaking decision, Justices R. Subramanian and N. Senthil Kumar of the Madras High Court have delivered a verdict with significant implications. The court ruled that, as per the Indian Succession Act of 1925, a mother is not entitled to her son’s assets if he dies intestate, leaving behind a widow and children. On fact, This pivotal judgment, part of a case involving a Christian family, is supported by a precedent set in 2021. Moreover, It sheds light on the intricacies of inheritance law and challenges a district court’s order that allocated a portion of the deceased husband’s properties to his mother. The court’s meticulous consideration of the Indian Succession Act’s provisions and the appointment of an amicus curiae underscore the significance of this legal precedent. Mother Denied Entitlement to Son’s Intestate Assets as per Indian Succession Act: HC Verdict Madras High Court Rules on Christian Family Case Under Indian Succession Act Justices R. Subramanian and N. Senthil Kumar Uphold Decision Based on Precedent The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, declared that the mother of a person who dies intestate is not entitled to claim any rights over the properties left behind. Justices R. Subramanian and N. Senthil Kumar delivered this verdict while addressing the case of a Christian family governed by the Indian Succession Act of 1925. Concordance with Prior Order The judges based their decision on a similar order issued by the High Court in 2021, supporting the legal stance taken in the present case. […]
