0

Madras High Court directed the trail court to consider the petitioners grounds in a case of defamation and Dispose it in 3 months.

blog, Blog , , ,

TITLE. L. Murugan Vs. Murasoli Trust.

Decided On: September 5, 2023.

Criminal Original Petition No.10277 & Crl.M.P.No.6094 of 2022. 

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.  

Facts:

The petitioner is the former State President of the Bharatiya Janata Party and presently, he is the Minister of State in the Central Government. Certain alleged defamatory statements were made by the petitioner when he attended a press meet on 28.12.2020. The Respondent appealed that the statements were made by the petitioner with an ulterior motive to degrade and tarnish the reputation of the Murasoli Trust in the eyes of the general public. After the said statements were made by the petitioner in the press meet and they were published in the newspapers, a legal notice dated 29.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to withdraw the defamatory statements and to tender unconditional apology. The petitioner, in spite of receiving the said legal notice, failed to respond to the same. The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections and 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the petitioner appealed this Court.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioner passed a comment in the press conference that the Murasoli Trust is functioning in the panchami land. The Respondents Stated that the petitioner was again and again trying to project as if the Murasoli Trust is functioning in a property without any right or title and thereby the petitioner was intentionally causing loss of reputation to the Murasoli Trust in the mind of the general public. In an offence of defamation, the statements have to be tested only from the point of view of a common prudent man, who comes across the defamatory statements made. Even if the petitioner thinks that there was no imputation and that he had merely put a question, such statements will be understood by others as if the petitioner is repeatedly questioning the right and title of the property, over which, the Murasoli Trust is functioning and he also wants to drive home the point that it is functioning in the panchami land. That is how the respondent has understood the statements made by the petitioner and even in the complaint, the allegations have been made to the effect that many others had understood it in the same manner and started making enquiries with the respondent. The petitioner made statements during a press meet and they were also published in the newspapers the next day. Hence, there is no difficulty in rendering a finding that the second limb of the ingredients under Section 499 of the IPC is also satisfied.The respondent has taken a very specific stand that the complaint was given against the petitioner to address the legal injury of reputation suffered by the respondent. To substantiate the same, necessary allegations have also been made in the complaint touching upon the intention and motive of the petitioner in making such statements. The Court did not inclined to quash the impugned proceedings at this stage.

Conclusion:

The Court directed the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Court for Trail of cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai to dispose of C.C.No.47 of 2021 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner can raise all the grounds before the Trail Court and the same will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. The observations, if any, contained in this order will not have any bearing on the Trial Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court Ordered Fresh Preliminary Inquiry Against AIADMK general secretary.

blog, Blog , , , , ,

TITLE: RS Bharathi v. The Director of Vigilance, Anti Corruption and anrs.

Decided On: July 18, 2023.

Criminal Original Petition No.20711 of 2018.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

Introduction: 

Dismissing the petition, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the earlier preliminary enquiry conducted by the DVAC, which did not find any materials to proceed against Palaniswami, was not unreasonable to necessitate another preliminary enquiry afresh. “There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the first respondent took a volte-face on account of change of government and things started moving in the year 2023. In none of the communications that was placed before this Court, there is even a reference that the earlier preliminary inquiry report is not in conformity with law or that it is unreasonable or that some new materials have cropped up to order for a fresh inquiry. Hence, this Court holds that the preliminary inquiry has been directed to be held afresh only for the reason that the other political party has come into power. The political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of the rule of law,” the court observed.

Facts:

This petition was disposed of on 12.10.2018 after contest by a learned Single Judge of this Court directing the first respondent to hand over investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and further directing the CBI to conduct the preliminary inquiry within a period of three months. It was made clear in the said order dated 12.10.2018 that if the preliminary inquiry disclosed any cognizable offence, the CBI was further directed to register a case and proceed further in accordance with law. The said order dated 12.10.2018 became the subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1256 and 1257 of 2022. The said criminal appeals, which were filed before the Apex Court by the aggrieved persons namely both the respondents herein, were disposed of by the Apex Court by a common judgment dated 03.8.2022. Pursuant to the said common judgment rendered by the Apex Court, the matter came up for hearing on 06.7.2023, on which date, this Court passed the order. The case was once again posted for hearing on 13.7.2023 and this Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side with respect to the preliminary objection raised by the second respondent regarding the request made by the petitioner for withdrawal of this criminal original petition in view of the subsequent development.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

In the present case, the High Court had earlier allowed the petition filed by former DMK MP RS Bharathi seeking investigation against the former CM and directed the DVAC to handover the investigation to the CBI. When Palaniswami and the DVAC moved separate appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the order and directed the High Court to consider the matter afresh. The Apex Court had noted that the single judge had not even perused the preliminary report that was submitted by the DVAC nor had the court impleaded Palaniswami before transferring investigation to the CBI. Following this, when the High Court took up the matter, the State Public Prosecutor informed the court that the earlier Preliminary report which was submitted by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption was rejected by the Vigilance Commissioner and a fresh enquiry had been ordered. Though based on this development, Bharathi submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the petition, the same was objected to by Palaniswami who argued that the Supreme Court had specifically directed the High Court to consider the matter afresh and thus there was no scope for permitting withdrawal. It was also argued by Palaniswami that just because a favourable political climate was prevailing in the State, Bharathi should not be allowed to change his stand. He also requested the court to go through the preliminary report and satisfy itself with the reasons assigned for submitting a closure report.

The court, on perusing the preliminary inquiry report, found that the five allegations made against Palaniswami were independently dealt with and based on materials, the Enquiry officer had come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient and tangible evidence to substantiate the allegations and that there was no favouritism or abuse of public office by Palaniswami. The court noted that this preliminary report was initially accepted by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption which was evident from the SLP filed before the Supreme Court. The court noted that the Government had, without assigning any reasons, ordered for a fresh preliminary enquiry. This, according to the court, was only due to a change in the political power in the State.

The court noted that in the present case, the DVAC was an independent body belonging to the Executive organ of the State. However, the only reason why it had taken a different stand and had asked the government regarding action to be taken against Palaniswami was only due to the change in the power dynamics, it added. The court noted that Courts have become playground for political parties to score points. “In cases of this nature, the Court is like a playground where the ruling and opposition party try to score a point for their own political games. Ultimately, the order passed by the Court will only become a subject matter of a talk show in the television channels, which will be discussed with a lot of hue and cry where the participants will scream at the top of their voice supporting one party or the other and ultimately, it will all get consigned to nothing,” the court said. Thus, finding no apparent illegality in the preliminary inquiry report and no reason for conducting another preliminary inquiry afresh, the court dismissed the petition. It further noted that the only appropriate remedy for Bharathi was to approach the Magistrate.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court yesterday ruled that there is no reason for conducting another preliminary inquiry by Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption against former CM Edappadi K. Palaniswami into an alleged State highway tender scam as the earlier report does not suffer from any apparent illegality or unreasonableness. The court said the fresh inquiry has been ordered against the AIADMK general secretary only due to change of government in the State.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0
hammer jugde

Person Forwarding Social Media Message Liable For Its Contents: Madras High Court.

Blog, blog , , ,

TITLE: S. Ve. Shekher Vs. Al. Gopalsamy and Ors.

Decided On: July 14, 2023

Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.11494 & 12163 of 2018, Crl.O.P.Nos.5099 of 2019 & 6211 of 2021 &all connected pending Crl.M.Ps.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

Introduction: 

The Madras High Court has recently refused to quash batch of criminal proceedings initiated against actor and BJP politician S.Ve Sheker for his derogatory remarks against women journalists. The cases were registered after Sheker had forwarded an abusive, derogatory and vulgar comment on his Facebook account in April 2018. Though Shekher claimed that he had merely forwarded the message received from one Mr Thirumalai Sa without reading its contents, and had later removed the derogatory post on the same day and offered apologies, the court noted that these acts would not help Shekher from facing consequences for forwarding a derogatory message. Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that Shekher was a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised more caution while forwarding messages.

Facts:

The petitioner in all these petitions is a past Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Mylapore Constituency during the years 2006-2011. The petitioner is said to have published/circulated an abusive, derogatory and vulgar comment in his facebook account on 19.4.2018. Pursuant to that, a complaint came to be given before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai to take action against the petitioner for having posted such a derogatory comment in his facebook account. Accordingly, a first information report was registered in Cr.No.148 of 2018 for offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(c) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 on the file of theInspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, who is none other than  first respondent in Crl.O.P.No.6211 of 2021. The first information report was investigated by the concerned Inspector of Police and on completion of the investigation, a final report came to be filed before the Assistant Sessions Court, Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai-1 (for short, the Special Court) in C.C.No.62 of 2019 and it has been put to challenge by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6211 of  2021. For the same cause of action, private complaints were filedagainst the petitioner in various parts of Tamil Nadu. The complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karur, which was taken on file in C.C.No.223 of 2018, has been put to challenge in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12163 of 2018. The complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, which was taken on file in C.C.No.154 of 2018, has been challenged in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11494 of 2018. Similarly, The complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, which was taken on file in S.T.C.No.276 of 2018, has been put to challenge in Crl.O.P.No.5099 of 2019

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The court noted that in the present case, the message forwarded by Shekher caused an insult to journalists, and more particularly to women journalists which also resulted in a demonstration in front of his house and violence. Thus, the court noted that all the ingredient necessary to satisfy the offence of S.504 IPC (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) existed and the offence was made out. The court added that the message forwarded by Shekher induced commission of an offence against public tranquility since there was a hue and cry across the State immediately after the incident. Thus the court noted that the offence under S.505(1)(c) IPC was also made out. Since the message posted by Shekher virtually outrages the modesty of woman and since it also contained indecent and vitriolic attack on a particular woman and other women Press reporters, the offences under S. 509 IPC and S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002 were also attracted. The court added that a person forwarding a message must be construed to acknowledge the contents of the message. The court said that when a person got a dopamine high by looking at the likes for the forwarded message, he should be equally prepared to face the consequence, if that message had derogatory content. The court also noted that since a large body was affected due to the act of the petitioner, he could not be let away just because he tendered an apology. The court added that of such a route was allowed, any person could make such statements and subsequently apologise and get away.

“However, in the instant case, it is not a dispute between two individuals and the act of the petitioner has virtually painted the entire Press and more particularly the women Reporters with vulgar comments and when such a large body is affected due to the act of the petitioner, he cannot be let away just because he tendered an apology. if such an easy route is adopted, anyone can make such statements, cause damage, subsequently apologize for his act and get away from the action taken against him,” the court noted.

Conclusion:

The court observed that Shekher’s apology could not be acted upon and the criminal proceedings against him could not be quashed on that ground alone. So, the court refused to quash the proceedings against Shekher and dismissed the petition. However, noting that Shekher could not be made to move from one court to another to face proceedings vasted on the very same cause of action, the court transferred all the criminal proceedings to the Special Court, Singaravelar Maligai.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras HC Directs the Endowment Department to Appoint the next male descendant to hold the post of Trusteeship.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:   C.V. Chandrasekaran                                    … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

The Joint Commissioner, and Ors                                      … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Reserved on 28.06.2023.

                              Pronounced On 03.07.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH.

Citation: W.P.Nos. 14663, 14142 and 14150 of 2023.

Introduction:

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned order Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3300 of 2021 A1 dated –/4/2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR and CE, Kanchipuram – the 1st respondent herein and quash the same. The suspended hereditary trustee of Collah Singanna Chetty Charities (hereinafter called the trust) has filed this writ petition assailing the order passed by the first respondent through proceedings (i) framing charges against the petitioner; (ii) suspending the petitioner pending enquiry under Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, and (iii) appointing a fit person to administer the trust.

Introduction:

The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the trust from the year 1997 after the demise of his father. He was holding the complete administration and management of the trust and running the trust in line with the object, for which, it was established. (ii) Earlier also, the petitioner was suspended from the office of the hereditary trustee by the first respondent through proceedings dated 13.10.2008 on the ground that the petitioner was attempting to sell the properties belonging to the trust. The petitioner challenged the earlier order of suspension dated 13.10.2008 before this Court in W.P. No.25511 of 2008. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court by an order dated 05.11.2019. (iii) Aggrieved by the said order of this Court dated 05.11.2019, the petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.185 of 2020. A Division Bench of this Court, by a judgment dated 22.9.2020, allowed the said writ appeal by setting aside the earlier order of suspension dated 13.10.2008 passed by the first respondent and further directed the first respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months. The Division Bench further continued the interim order that was granted in favour of the petitioner till the matter was finally decided by the first respondent.
(iv) After the Division Bench remanded the matter back to the file of the first respondent, the impugned proceedings came to be issued by framing 26 charges against the petitioner and an enquiry was initiated under Section 53 of the Act. Pending the enquiry, the petitioner was suspended under Section 53(4) of the Act and the fit person was appointed to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

Issues:

  • Whether thenature of an endowment is that it has to maintain the properties to carryout the objectives of the trust?
  • Whether there was financial loss has been caused to the trust and
    that the objectives of the trust were not properly performed?

Legal Analysis:

In the instant case, the trust in question is more in the nature of an endowment and it has to maintain the properties to carry out the objectives of the trust. A careful reading of the charges framed against the petitioner shows that the properties belonging to the trust have been allegedly alienated without getting any permission, that, in addition, some of the properties were allowed to be taken away by third parties, who had encroached upon those properties, that a huge financial loss has been caused to the trust and that the objectives of the trust were not properly performed.

The first respondent, before taking a decision to appoint the fit person, ought to have first considered the appointment of the male descendant to hold the post of trusteeship as per the scheme decree. Upon such consideration, if the male descendant is found to be unfit and hence, the first respondent decides to appoint the fit person, the same should have been mentioned in the impugned proceedings. To arrive at a conclusion that the male descendant is unfit to hold the post of trusteeship is not a subjective satisfaction and it has to be considered objectively by assigning reasons. This is in view of the fact that the male descendant, as a matter of right, can hold the post of trusteeship and if it is sought to be denied, the same must be supported by reasons and it should be stated in the proceedings. Only then, the Court can satisfy itself as to whether the decision arrived at by the Authority concerned is reasonable.

In the instant case, there is nothing available in the impugned proceedings to show that the first respondent had first considered the appointment of the male descendant to hold the post of trusteeship, found him to be unfit for any reasons and thereafter appointed the fit person to administer the trust. The impugned proceedings of the first respondent can be tested only from what is stated in the order and not from what is attempted to be improved during the course of proceedings.

Judgement:

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, partly allowed the writ petition in following terms :
(a) The order placing the petitioner under suspension and framing the charges against him is upheld and the Competent Authority namely the first respondent is directed to proceed further with the enquiry into the charges and pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(b) The order of appointment of the fit person is set aside and the first respondent is directed to independently consider the right of the next male descendant to hold the post of trusteeship during the period of suspension of the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(c) The male descendant, who is next in the line of succession, shall be permitted to temporarily administer the trust till a decision is taken by the first respondent as directed in clause (b) and it is made very clear that none of the properties belonging to the trust shall be dealt with or encumbered till the completion of the enquiry against the petitioner. The income derived by the trust shall be properly accounted and it shall be used only for fulfilling the objectives of the trust.

Conclusion:

In the light of the above discussions, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent is liable to be quashed only to the limited extent of appointing the fit person without considering the right of the male descendant to hold the post of trusteeship during the period of suspension of the petitioner.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Govt agencies should pay their contractors on time Says Madras High Court.

blog, Blog , ,

Case Title:              Mr. M. Prakash          …. Petitioner

                                                .Vs.

                    The State of Tamil Nadu and Anrs     …. Respondents

Date of Decision: 20.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Citation: W.P.No.14931 of 2023

Introduction

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 4th respondents to settle the bill amounts of the petitioner meant for the periods from 09.10.2019 to 21.01.2022 to the tune of Rs.1,47,13,958.10/-

The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus from the court directing the Board to settle the bills. The Board has not yet settled the bills.  A writ of mandamus is a court order that requires a public official to perform a legal duty. In this case, the petitioner is asking the court to order the Board to settle the bills that are due to him.

Facts

Mr. M. Prakash is a contractor who has worked for the Chennai Metro-Water and Sewerage Board since 2019. He has submitted bills for the work he has done for the Board in the period from 09.10.2019 to 21.01.2022, totaling Rs. 1,47,13,958.10/-. The Board has not yet settled the bills, even though Mr. Prakash has made a representation to the Board asking for settlement. The Board has acknowledged the representation, but has not yet settled the bills.

Mr. Prakash has filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the Chennai Metro-Water and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) to pay the amount that is due and payable against the various works done by him.

Issues

Whether the CMWSSB has a legal duty to settle the bills that are due to Mr. Prakash?

Whether the CMWSSB has given any reason for not settling the bills?

Case analysis

The area engineer of the CMWSSB has submitted a report. The report shows that the petitioner has already been paid Rs.1,03,37,377/- for the work they have done. The department is in process of verifying the relevant records for the pending bills. Once the claim made by the petitioner is ascertained, the amounts will be settled to them. The CMWSSB has a legal obligation to pay Mr. Prakash for the work he has done. The CMWSSB has acknowledged that Mr. Prakash is entitled to be paid, by accepting his bills. The CMWSSB has not given any reason for not paying Mr. Prakash.

Judgement

The Madras High Court has issued a writ of mandamus directing the CMWSSB to pay the amount that is due and payable to Mr. M. Prakash. The court found that the CMWSSB had a legal duty to settle the bills that were due to Mr. Prakash, and that Mr. Prakash was suffering financial hardship because the CMWSSB had not settled the bills. In response to the stance taken by the CMWSSB, the court stated there will be an instruction given to the respondent parties involved to address the petitioner’s claim. Any undisputed amounts will be settled in favor of the petitioner. However, for disputed amounts, they will need to be resolved through the appropriate legal channels. In any case, the respondent parties are required to complete this process within twelve weeks from the receipt of this order. Consequently, this writ petition is concluded according to the terms mentioned above.

Conclusion

The court’s decision is a win for Mr. Prakash, and it reminds government agencies that they have a legal obligation to pay their contractors on time. The decision also shows that the Madras High Court is willing to take action to protect the rights of contractors.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

1 2 3