Posts Tagged Madras High Court
Former PM Rajiv Gandhi’s killer Nalini Sriharan’s premature release
Posted by ganesh in Chennai, Court, Information, Other, government, release on March 11th, 2010
The Madras High Court on Thursday would take up the case of former PM Rajiv Gandhi’s killer Nalini Sriharan’s premature release. The Tamil Nadu government is set to produce the Prison Advisory Board’s recommendations on the convict in court today, reports said.
The Prison Board, which was constituted Nalini’s premature release plea, has submitted its report to the state government. The 43-year old, who is serving a life term, has been in jail for the last 19 years.
Reports said the board has recommended Nalini’s release.
The assasinator had originally been sentenced to death. But that was reduced to a life sentence after Sonia Gandhi intervened and reasonsed that Nalini had a baby daughter.
The state government has indicated that it would consult the Centre before taking any decision on Nalini’s future.
Singamuthu fends off Vadivelu’s charges
Posted by ganesh in Chennai, Communication, Court, Information, Other, businesses, competition, illegal, police on March 2nd, 2010
Professional rivalry has made actor Vadivelu to hurl baseless charges and allegations including murder threat and a cheating case against me, film comedian Singamuthu said today.
Vadivelu had accused his (former) friend and one-time associate Singamuthu, who used to appear with him in comedy tracks, of cheating him of several crores of rupees by forging property documents and threatening him with dire consequences recently.
Vadivelu personally lodged a complaint with Chennai police Commissioner T Rajendran seeking action against Singamuthu and others who had allegedly cheated him in connection with the purchase of land.
Singamuthu, who sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in the case, gave an interview to a Tamil weekly, apparently as a riposte to Vadivelu’s allegations. In turn, Vadivelu sent a legal notice to Singamuthu seeking Rs 25 crore as compensation to the damage caused to his reputation.
Following orders from the Madras High Court, Singamuthu appeared in a court at Saidapet and obtained anticipatory bail. He was interrogated for two hours by Central Crime Branch sub inspector.
Emerging out of the court. Singamuthu said, ‘I have approached the court in the wake of wild allegations made against me by Vadivelu.
‘Fearing arrest following Vadivelu’s complaint, I went into hiding. Today I have appeared before the police and gave explanation to the charges against me and obtained anticipatory bail’.
Denying allegations that he cheated Vadivelu, Singamuthu said, ‘he (Vadivelu) has made charges against me due to professional rivalry. I will fight for justice and emerge victorious’.
‘I am a comedian and if a producer casts Vadivelu and me in a film, I don’t mind sharing the screen with him,’ he added.
Meanwhile, in a case relating to the attack on actor Jayaram’s house, film director and founder of Naam Thamizhar organisation, Seeman appeared before a court in Poonamallee.
Cases were filed against Seeman and 11 others for the attack on Jayaram’s house some days ago. He filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in the High Court. Following court directions, he appeared at a court in Poonamallee and furnished a personal surety for Rs 25,000 and obtained bail.
HC directive to Pondy govt on job quota for women
Posted by ganesh in Court, Information, Other, Public, Puducherry, businesses on March 2nd, 2010
The Madras High Court has directed the Puducherry Government to take a policy decision on providing representation to women in government service in the Union Territory.
In their order on a petition by one M Muniammal, a Division Bench comprising Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and N Paul Vasanthakumar said “we deem it appropriate to direct the (Puducherry) government to take a policy decision and show it on International Women’s Day for giving effective representation to the womenfolk in the government service in the Union territory of Puducherry.”
The Judges said that as the government would have to take a policy decision ‘the grievance of women aspirants for government jobs is bound to be considered by the first respondent (government).
During the course of arguments it was brought to the court’s notice that the Tamil Nadu government and other state government’s reserved certain percentage of posts in jobs in their respective governments as a welfare measure in keeping with Article 15(3A) of the Constitution.
However, noting that the Puducherry Government had appointed the woman, the Judges dismissed the petition as “infructuous”.
The woman had challenged an advertisement and notification issued by the Puducherry Government in November 2002 inviting applications for new recruitment posts of ‘construction helpers’ which did not contain any reservation for women.
High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu to pay a compensation of Rupees a Sri Lankan national
Posted by ganesh in Communication, Court, Death, Departments, Health, Madurai, Other, Public, government, illegal, programme on February 10th, 2010
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Government to pay a compensation of Rupees 10.07 lakh to the family of a Sri Lankan national, who was shot dead by a security guard at Madurai Central Prison complex, two years ago.
A Division Bench, comprising Justices V Ramasubramanian and D Hariparanthaman ordered that the compensation should be disbursed to the victim’s family through the Indian High Commission in Sri Lanka, after deducting an ex-gratia of Rs one lakh, already paid by the State Government.
”An innocent foreign national on a visit to India with a valid visa was shot dead by a security guard. He (Sri Lankan national) neither carried any weapon inside the prison complex nor posed a threat to the security. There was no indication either in the counter affidavit filed by the Government that the victim was at fault in any way,” the court observed last evening, while allowing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, filed by a lawyer on behalf of the wife of deceased W Carnicius Fernando.
”The deceased was a leader of a Sri Lankan fishermen association and owned several fishing vessels and was also a prominent person in his country.” ”Considering above facts, the death of such a person at the hands of another who wielded official authority needs to be compensated,” the court said.
Fernando was shot dead by a security guard over his suspicious movement at the entrance of the main gate of the prison complex on October five, 2007.
Fernando had come to Tamil Nadu to make arrangements for the release of some Sri Lankan fishermen, arrested on the charges of illegal poaching in Indian waters.
A Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) enquired into the incident and indicted the warder and a few other prison officials.
Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Government accepted the findings of the RDO and ordered prosecution of the warder and departmental proceedings against the erring officials.
Jangid alleged that Mani Madras HC fines Tamil magazine
Posted by ganesh in Chennai, Communication, Court, Health, Information, Other, illegal, police on February 10th, 2010
The Madras High Court has directed A S Mani, editor and owner of Tamil magazine Naveena Netrikkan to pay Rs 10 lakh towards damages to S R Jangid, the city’s suburban police commissioner.
Justice V Periya Karuppiah, who gave the direction on Monday, also restrained Mani permanently from publishing, printing or editing any news about Jangid that was untrue or defamatory.
Jangid alleged that Mani — against whom several cases are pending — had blackmailed him.
The publication of the defamatory material had been only to blackmail Jangid to either withdraw or close the cases pending against Mani. These untrue allegations would cause mental torture to a public officer and spoil his image. Such acts should be curbed, the judge said.
Triple murder case in Ashok Nagar to transfer the CB CID
The Madras High Court on Monday said it was of the view that if the Chennai Police is not able to solve a triple murder case in Ashok Nagar within four weeks, the Commissioner of Police will request the State Government to transfer the case to the CB CID.
The crime relates to the murder of Saravanan, his wife Kasturi and a female domestic worker , Anbarasi, in November 2008.
The First Bench comprising Chief Justice H.L. Gokhale and Justice K.K. Sasidharan passed the order while disposing of a petition by S.D.S. Rajadhevan, a city advocate. The petition had been filed in public interest to bring to light the number of murders that had occurred in Ashok Nagar here.
The petitioner, a retired Superintendent of Police, CB CID, said as a resident of Ashok Nagar he was rudely shocked and affected seeing the sorry state-of-affairs of the police, particularly in the investigation of murder cases which remained unresolved.
Despite the infrastructure and manpower, the police were unable to put in their best to protect the public and bring the culprits to book immediately. There was little or no coordination, supervision or detection of property cases and grave crimes.
His main prayer was a direction to the authorities to transfer all the murder cases of Chennai Police for further investigation by CB CID or CBI so as to ensure proper investigation and to restore public confidence.
The Government Pleader had earlier filed a report pointing out how security arrangements in the locality (Ashok Nagar) had been enhanced.
It was also stated that though there were 19 murders in the area since 2008, 18 had been promptly detected. It was only one case of triple murder which remained unsolved.
The Commissioner of Police in his affidavit submitted that 10 special teams had been formed to look into the case and it was hoped that investigation would move towards its logical conclusion and that the accused would be arrested.
On the prayer to transfer the case to CB CID, it was stated in the counter that if there was any difficulty in solving the case, the Commissioner would not hesitate to request the government to hand over the case to CB CID.
The Bench said, however, no time limit had been specified for completing this exercise. It was quite natural it would be difficult to specify any time limit in this regard. At the same time, there was justification in the petitioner’s anxiety for early action. The triple murder case had remained unresolved for more than a year now.
The court said the petitioner may assist the authorities in the matter of investigation of the case.
HC dismisses petitions against land acquisition for SIPCOT
Posted by ganesh in Chennai, Communication, Culture, Others, Public, government, illegal on February 2nd, 2010
The Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the acquisition of land for Tamil Nadu’s industrial expansion scheme at Sriperumbudur near here.
The petitions related to acquisition proceedings in respect of land at Pillaipakkam, Vengadu, Navalur and Irumbedu villages for State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) for its Irungattukottai Expansion Scheme Unit IV.
Pointing out that in all the cases notice had been issued and objections called for, Justice P Jyothimani said the objections had been considered by the District Collector.
He said in such cases where the larger interest of the State was involved the objections raised by individual owners would only thwart the very object of legislation.
He, however, said it was also incumbent on the government to consider any legitimate claim by the petitioners for allotment of alternative sites for establishing their industries.
Certainly such genuine claims by the individual petitioners should be considered in the proper perspective, the Judge said. – Agencies
CBI filed the chargesheet accusing 31 advocates, a law student & 5 police personnel
Posted by ganesh in Attack, Chennai, College, Communication, Court, Departments, Other, Public, government, illegal, police, student on January 18th, 2010
A week after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet in connection with the bloody clash between police and advocates on the Madras High Court premises in February last year a Magisteral Court today commenced the trial, even as advocates lodged their protest, stating it was a ‘defective chargesheet’.
After the CBI filed the chargesheet on January 12, accusing 31 advocates, a law college student and five police personnel, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Killivalvan took cognisance of the same and commenced trial, amid protest by the advocates.
When the case came up for hearing, the Madras High Court Advocates Association and Tamil Nadu Advocates Association filed petitions stating that the chargesheet was one-sided and the Court should not accept it.
The Magistrate ordred issuance of notice to the CBI and adjourned the case for tomorrow.
Madras High Court Advocates Association President R C Paul Kanagaraj, appearing before the court on behalf of the accused laweyrs, said the CBI had filed the chargesheet without proper investigation.
It was a defective chargesheet as the investigating agency had not conducted proper investigation before arraigning 31 advocates in the case, he said and pointed out that the CBI had accused only five police personnel, while requesting departmental action against 22 police personnel.
If departmental action was recommended against the 22 other policemen, it meant they erred in their duty and in that case, why they were not included as accused in the chargesheet, Mr Kanagaraj asked.
When the CBI itself said they committed excesses, why they were not included as accused, he also contended.
CBI charge sheets were filed against 31 advocates, about 10 police personnel and one Law College student
Posted by ganesh in Chennai, Communication, Court, Departments, Uncategorized, illegal, police on January 13th, 2010
In this February 19, 2009 file photo, lawyers hurl stones at policemen on the premises of the Madras High Court.
The Central Bureau of Investigation on Tuesday filed charge sheets in the case pertaining to violent incidents on the Madras High Court campus here on February 19, 2009.
According to sources in the agency, charge sheets were filed against 31 advocates, about 10 police personnel and one Law College student under various provisions of the IPC and Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. Departmental action was recommended against 22 police personnel.
The CBI made no comments on the role, conduct and culpability of former Chennai Police Commissioner, K. Radhakrishnan, former Additional Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) A.K. Viswanathan, former Joint Commissioner of Police (North) M. Ramasubramaniam and former Deputy Commissioner of Police (Flower Bazaar) Prem Anand Sinha, as the matter was pending in the Supreme Court.
The case pertains to the clash between police and advocates on the Madras High Court premises in which many advocates, police personnel, journalists and one High Court Judge Arumuga Perumal Adityan were injured. A police station and scores of vehicles were damaged in fire and pelting of stones.
The Madras High Court ordered a probe by the CBI in the case. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the CBI Director to investigate the cases. The agency filed six charge sheets in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
During investigation, the SIT interviewed two Madras High Court Judges and examined 653 persons, including 197 advocates, 245 policemen, 81 court staff members and 27 persons from the media. Original recordings relating to the incidents were arranged from television channels and sent for forensic examination to ascertain authentication.
The guidance of the retired Supreme Court Judge B.N. Srikrishna was sought by the CBI during investigation and for finalising its recommendations. On the basis of material evidence collected during the investigation, the charge sheets were filed.
The charges against the police and advocates include offences of criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly, causing simple/grievous hurt, causing simple/grievous hurt to deter the public servant from discharge of his duty, mischief by fire, criminal trespass in order to commit offence and causing damage to public/private properties,
HC comes to the rescue of conductor
Posted by ganesh in Chennai, Communication, Court, Departments, Transport, government, illegal on January 9th, 2010
The Madras High Court has come to the rescue of a State Transport Corporation conductor, from whose salary Rs 10,187, the face-value of the unsold tickets, was recovered for losing the bag containing the unsold tickets.
N Palaniswamy kept his bag containing unsold ticket bundles on the dash-board in front of the bus driver and got down along with passengers to guide the driver to park the bus at the parking bay of the Erode bus stand on February 4, 2001. When he returned after the bus was parked, he found the bag missing. He lodged complaints with the Erode bus stand outpost police and the Erode town police.
The transport corporation issued a charge-memo dated March 7, 2001, stating that Rs 10,187, the value of the unsold tickets bundles, would be recovered from his salary in four equal monthly installments.
In his writ petition, Palaniswamy contended that the recovery was made without notice and without holding an inquiry.
Also, six years before this incident, a settlement had been arrived at by the management and workers of the State Transport Corporation with regard to similar circumstances, on August 28, 1995 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which states that no deduction is to be made for the loss of ticket leaves if they are stolen.
Allowing the petition, Justice M Venugopal said that as per Rule 16(k) of the Model Standing Orders under Schedule I to the TN Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, it could, by no stretch of imagination, be held that the loss of the bag amounted to negligence or neglect of work.
Further, when there was a settlement arrived at between the workers and the management to the effect that no recovery proceedings could be initiated against a conductor for loss due to theft, riot or accident, the amount debited from the petitioner’s salary was certainly not a valid one.
The action of the transport corporation was not in accordance with law, the judge said, quashing the charge-memo, and directed the employer to refund the money recovered from petitioner’s salary.
Recent Comments