0

Madras High Court Dismisses a writ petition as there are no merits to entertain and says it’s a civil dispute.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Title: R. Geethalakshmi Vs. The Tamil Nadu State.

Decided On: September 13, 2023.

W.P.(MD)No.18184 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.15013 of 2021.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar.

Facts:

The petitioner states that U. Senthilvel the fifth respondent is the tenant under the petitioner from the year 2016 and there was some dispute between them. On 22.08.2020, the fifth respondent along with his friends entered into the house of the petitioner, assaulted her husband and threatened him if he further demands any money, he would be done away. During the last week of October, 2020, the fifth respondent vacated the house, but locked the house and not handed over the key to the petitioner. Further, he failed to pay Rs.40,000/-, being the rental dues. Again, on 06.10.2020 the fifth respondent threatened and abused the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the fourth respondent against the fifth respondent and his mother. The fifth respondent is related to some Police Personnels, who are supporting him and therefore, the fourth respondent has not taken any action against him. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation dated 27.11.2020 to the second respondent. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioner and 5th respondent on an oral agreement of rent and the 5th respondent gave Rs.2,00,000 in advance. The fifth respondent and his mother were residing in the first floor of the petitioner’s house. The fifth respondent’s sister’s daughter used to bring food to his mother. On one such occasion, the petitioner’s husband made sexual torture to his sister’s daughter and also made improper touch, for which, a complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.8 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 9(m), 9(u) and 10 of the POCSO Act has been registered by the All Women Police Station, Manamadurai. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner’s husband in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2020. The petitioner has been adopting all tactics, forcing the fifth respondent to ensure the withdrawal of the POCSO Act case registered against the petitioner’s husband and further informed that unless the POCSO Act case is withdrawn, the lease amount will not be repaid. He further submitted that on the complaint of the fifth respondent, the petitioner and her husband were called for enquiry. Initially, the petitioner herein appeared for enquiry before the third respondent and sought further time and thereafter, they did not appear for enquiry. It is a dispute between the landlord and tenant and hence, the Police getaway further action in this regard.   The petitioner neither participated in the enquiry nor preferred any proceedings before the Rent Control Court or any other civil forum, seeking appropriate remedy. On the other hand, she invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is not permissible in law and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Conclusion:

The petitioner and the fifth respondent had some dispute with regard to tenancy over the property, which can be sorted out between them or through the Civil Court. The respondent Police have rightly kept away from the civil dispute. It is also to be seen that the petitioner’s husband involved in a case relating to POCSO Act and the victim girl is related to the fifth respondent. The Court held Since there are no merits to entertain the present Writ Petition the same is liable to be dismissed.

“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 suggests The National Board of Examination to consider the petitioner in NEET PG 2023 Counselling after obtaining Supreme Court’s Approval.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Title: Dr. Pratheeksha Vs. The National Board of Examination.

Decided On: September 11, 2023.

W.P.No. 26731 of 2023.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Seshasayee.  

Facts:

The petitioner herein had applied for NEET examination for Medicine PG course for the academic year 2023-2024, wherein she had indicated her category as OBC. The cut-off mark prescribed for OBC category is 257, whereas the petitioner has scored 269 marks. However, while registering for counselling, the petitioner has given her category as General, for which the cut-off mark is 291. Now the petitioner seeks an issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the NEET PG 2023 Counselling under the OBC category, as per the order passed in a similar matter in W.P.No.13387 of 2023 dated 28.06.2023, after all rounds of counselling.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

Indisputably the petitioner is at fault. It is her lapse. And none of the respondents before the Court have breached the rule of law in the context, of the procedure prescribed for medical admission. The Court acknowledges its sympathy for the petitioner, but sympathy cannot replace the Constitutional consciousness which the Court is expected to possess and exhibit. It needs to be underscored that even the Courts are bound by the Rule of Law. Therefore, unless this Court considers that it has powers to roam free beyond the bounds of the rule of law, it cannot create a non-existing space for issuing any directions. If this is ignored, then we will have a dual system, one by the rule of law for some, and another, the rule of the Court, for a few. That would be an allergen that ill-suits the health of Constitutional governance. When a procedure is designed, granting equal opportunities to the equally placed, adjusted with necessary reservations, the Court cannot disturb the prospects of anyone who has played the game as per the rule, lest there will be a premium for those who ignore the rules of the game. And it will create a class in itself a class of preferred candidates because the Court has given them a wild card entry.

The Court held that this court therefore, can only suggest to the respondents that, subject to the approval of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a window may be opened for all those candidates, who might have missed an opportunity due to certain inadvertent faults such as the one occasioned to the petitioner, grant them an opportunity to correct them after the conclusion of the stray-counselling, and to prepare a rank list for these candidates, and to try accommodating whoever who is willing to join the unfilled up seats. Instead of letting some medical seats lapse, an attempt may be made to fill them up.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that playing within the bounds of law and summoning its sense of equity and justice, the Court merely makes a suggestion to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner after all the rounds of counselling, if some seats still remain vacant, but only after obtaining necessary approval for the same from the Hon’ble Supreme 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 directs The Superintendent of police to settle all consequential service and monetary benefits to the Suspended Head Constable.

Blog, blog , , , ,

Title: S. Gunasekaran Vs. The Superintendent of Police.

Decided On: September 12, 2023.

W.P.No. 18423 of 2013.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan.  

Facts:

The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable in Police Department on 17.05.1976 and he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable on 09.08.1980. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 19.02.1993. While he was serving as Head Constable in Avinashi Police Station, Coimbatore District, on 15.01.2002 when he was on duty, he found that the liquor shops were open and the salesmen were selling liquor. The Government of Tamil nadu has declared the said day as holiday and there was total prohibition of selling liquor in force. When the petitioner questioned about the selling of liquor, they admitted the sale of liquor. On their admission, the salesmen were brought to the police station for the purpose of taking appropriate action against them. However, the Superintendent of Police did not accept for registering case and turned the entire case against the petitioner as if he demanded illegal gratification and on their refusal, he brought the salesmen to the police station. On the said charge, the petitioner was suspended from service on 16.02.2002 and he was issued charge memo dated 07.02.2002. The disciplinary authority passed final order thereby imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service by an order dated 26.05.2005.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

There was no evidence to show that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification from the liquor shop owners. Even according to the charges, the petitioner had demanded from the liquor shop owners long back. There was no complaint immediately after the alleged demand of illegal gratification. When the liquor shop owners were caught red handedly for running the shops on holiday i.e. on Thiruvalluvar day and the salesmen who were running the liquor shops were brought to the police station by the petitioner, a new theory of demanding illegal gratification from them was put against the petitioner by the liquor shop owners. Therefore, in order to escape from the illegal opening and sale of liquor, the petitioner was charged with false charges. It is very unfortunate to state that those who opened the shops and sold liquor on a holiday were let off without any case. Whereas the person who did not commit any fault was proceeded with departmental action and major punishment was imposed on him. The petitioner being a Head Constable, has got right to enter liquor shop when it was run on holiday. Further, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is excessive, exorbitant and disproportionate to the nature of the delinquency.  The disciplinary authority is duty bound to discuss the points based upon the enquiry officer’s report and explanation submitted by the petitioner. As per Rule 3 sub-class (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called as TNPSS(D&A) Rules), further representation should be considered before rendering a decision. The disciplinary authority did not even meet those grounds raised by the petitioner. Mere proving of charge is not sufficient to hold the delinquent guilty of charges. After enquiry, though the petitioner had raised so many legal issues and factual issues, none of the grounds raised by the petitioner were considered before holding that the charges have been proved against him. The appellate authority mechanically dismissed the appeal without any speaking order and it is in violation of Rule 6(3) of TNPSS(D&A) Rules. The appellate authority owes a duty to go into the merits of the charges to find out whether the facts have been established for arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of charges. The petitioner had put in more than 29 years of service and he was not served with any memo so far and no punishment was imposed against the petitioner. Therefore, the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner is excessive and it cannot be sustained. Since the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, there is no chance of reinstatement. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential service and monetary benefits. Therefore, the respondents are directed to settle all consequential service and monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

“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 directs, The Inspector of Police to recover the money and gold and hand over to the petitioner even there are pending cases.

Blog, blog , , ,

TITLE: C. Sivaraja Vs. The Superintendent of Police.

Decided On: September 11, 2023.

Writ Petition (MD) No.18635 of 2021.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Nirmal Kumar.

Facts:

The marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent was solemnized on 25.01.2021 at Nilakottai. The marriage was initiated by his wife’s family. Prior to the marriage, there were frequent meetings between them. During one such meeting, the third respondent informed that her parents were unable to arrange for money to celebrate the marriage function and hence, requested the petitioner to assist by giving Rs.5,00,000/-, which was received by the respondents 5 and 6 on 02.12.2020. After receipt of Rs.5,00,000/-, the marriage was solemnized on 25.01.2021. At that time, the petitioner’s father. given 10 sovereigns of gold chain and ½ sovereign of Mangalsutra to the third respondent and the petitioner’s father incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,62,000/-. Three days after the marriage, the third respondent went to her house for writing B.P.Ed. Examination and informed that she would return back within few days. On the contrary, the third respondent and her family members lodged a false complaint against the petitioner suppressing the real facts. Hence, the petitioner sent a petition, regarding the false complaint lodged by the third respondent.

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to take action against the respondents 3 to 7, who are his wife and in-laws, for threatening and cheating him and his parents, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 ½ sovereigns of gold chain and to recover the same from them, based on his complaint, dated 26.04.2021.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The Cases are pending on both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the cases in Crime Nos. 10 of 2022 and 16 of 2022 had been registered against both of them and their family members. Now, investigation has been completed. Crime No.10 of 2022 registered against the petitioner and four of his family members for the offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(ii) I.P.C., is taken on file as C.C.No.597 of 2022, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. Crime No. 16 of 2022 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. against the respondents 3 to 7 is taken on file as C.C.No.402 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate,   Nilakottai. Both the cases are pending trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. The 3rd respondent filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2022 for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul and the same is pending.

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to take action against the respondents 3 to 7 for threatening and cheating the petitioner and his parents a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 ½ sovereigns of gold chain and further direction to the second respondent to recover the same from them and hand over it to the petitioner, based on his complaint date 26.04.2021, which is much prior to the registration of the criminal cases against both the groups. The court left it open to the parties to put forth their contentions before the Trial Court in the pending cases.

Conclusion:

Even though there are pending cases before the trail court the Madras High Court directed, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nilakottai to recover the  Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 ½ sovereigns of gold chain and hand over it to the petitioner as the petitioner complained prior to filing a case.

“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 Says the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over a company case as per Sections 242(2)(i) and Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013.

blog, Blog , , , ,

TITLE:    K. Prabhu Vs.  G. Reghukumaran.

Decided On: September 11, 2023.

C.R.P.(MD)No.535 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Vijayakumar.

Facts:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of money from a Managing Director on the allegation of misappropriation of funds. According to the O.S.No.32 of 2014 the plaintiff is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. As per the allegations in the plaint, the first defendant, namely, K.Prabhu, had officiated as a Managing Director of the plaintiff Company between 20.09.2010 and 13.09.2011. The plaintiff has contended that the first defendant, while officiating as the Managing Director of the Company, has misappropriated the funds of the Company and helped the third defendant to get rid of the financial constraints under the guise of entertaining a fake transaction of running a mineral water plant.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The plaintiff has contended that the Managing Director had caused a huge financial loss to the plaintiff Company, while he was dealing with the funds generated from the general public. The plaintiff Company had relied upon the auditor’s report relating to the misappropriation alleged to have been done by the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant was actively assisted by other defendants in the misappropriation. A careful perusal of the plaint allegations would reveal that a sum of Rs.89,02,461/- is sought to be recovered only on the basis that the first defendant, while officiating as the Managing Director of the plaintiff Company, has misappropriated the Company’s funds, for which, the other defendants have assisted.

Section 242(2)(i) of the Companies Act, 2013 Company Law Tribunal has got jurisdiction to recover any undue gains made by any Managing Director during the period of appointment.

Section 430 of Companies Act, 2013 to impress upon the Court that the Civil Court shall not have any jurisdiction to entertain any matter which the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine by or under this Act.

After a combined reading of Sections 242(2)(i) and Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 it clearly reveals that the present suit for recovery of money is solely based upon the allegations that the first defendant has misappropriated the funds of the plaintiff/Public Limited Company, while he was officiating as the Managing Director. Therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. In view of the said deliberations, the plaint in O.S.No.32 of 2014 on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai, is hereby struck off. However, the plaintiff/Public Limited Company is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief, if they are so advised. 

Conclusion:

The court concludes that after looking carefully into Sections 242(2)(i) and Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 says that the suit is solely related to recovery of money and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the issue and the company may approach the appropriate forum.

“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 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 12