News Analysis India

Tag: Madras High Court

  • Madras HC orders actress Jayapradha to deposit Rs 20 lakh to seek bail in ESI payment default case

    Express News Service

    CHENNAI: The Madras High Court directed noted veteran film actress and former MP Jayapradha to deposit Rs 20 lakh and approach the principal sessions court in Chennai over the suspension of a sentence of six months imprisonment and bail obtainment. It is related to the non-payment of Employees State Insurance (ESI) funds for the workers employed at a cinema theatre she owned in the city.

    Pronouncing orders on her appeal against the principal sessions court’s refusal to suspend the prison sentence for her and two co-accused in the ESI contribution default case, Justice G Jayachandran directed the petitioners to surrender before the principal sessions court and seek a suspension of the sentence. 

    “The application for the suspension of sentence shall be considered only with the deposit of Rs 20 lakh jointly or severally in the account of the appeal within fifteen days,” the judge said in the order.

    The judge also directed the appellate court to entertain the application for bail and suspension of the prison sentence only if the Rs 20 lakh deposit was paid and the accused petitioner physically appeared before the court.

    Actress Jayapradha, along with Ram Kumar and Raja Babu, who were her partners in Jayapradha Cine Theatre, were convicted and given six months imprisonment and were asked to pay Rs 5,000 each by the trial court, which heard a batch of petitions filed by employees of her theatre over non-payment of the ESI premium amount.

    The principal employer has to pay the amount towards the employer’s and employee’s share of contribution and is entitled to recover the employees’ share of contribution from their wages.

    The management of the now-defunct cinema hall had reportedly deducted the ESI contribution amount from the salaries of the employees but had not been paying it to the state insurance corporation. They had allegedly failed to pay Rs 52,982 for the period April 1, 2003 to September 31, 2003.

    On the basis of the workers’ complaint that the money was not paid, the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) had moved the Egmore court in 2004.

    Jayapradha’s application for suspension of sentence was dismissed by the principal sessions court.

    When the actress’ appeal came up for hearing recently, senior counsel Abdul Hameed, representing her, said that the ESI contribution amount was paid during the pendency of the prosecution but that the court, without considering it, had imposed the sentence and directed her to pay the said amount.

    The Madras High Court’s order is considered to be a big relief for Jayapradha, who was, otherwise, facing arrest and detention.

    (With online desk inputs) Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

    CHENNAI: The Madras High Court directed noted veteran film actress and former MP Jayapradha to deposit Rs 20 lakh and approach the principal sessions court in Chennai over the suspension of a sentence of six months imprisonment and bail obtainment. It is related to the non-payment of Employees State Insurance (ESI) funds for the workers employed at a cinema theatre she owned in the city.

    Pronouncing orders on her appeal against the principal sessions court’s refusal to suspend the prison sentence for her and two co-accused in the ESI contribution default case, Justice G Jayachandran directed the petitioners to surrender before the principal sessions court and seek a suspension of the sentence. 

    “The application for the suspension of sentence shall be considered only with the deposit of Rs 20 lakh jointly or severally in the account of the appeal within fifteen days,” the judge said in the order.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2′); });

    The judge also directed the appellate court to entertain the application for bail and suspension of the prison sentence only if the Rs 20 lakh deposit was paid and the accused petitioner physically appeared before the court.

    Actress Jayapradha, along with Ram Kumar and Raja Babu, who were her partners in Jayapradha Cine Theatre, were convicted and given six months imprisonment and were asked to pay Rs 5,000 each by the trial court, which heard a batch of petitions filed by employees of her theatre over non-payment of the ESI premium amount.

    The principal employer has to pay the amount towards the employer’s and employee’s share of contribution and is entitled to recover the employees’ share of contribution from their wages.

    The management of the now-defunct cinema hall had reportedly deducted the ESI contribution amount from the salaries of the employees but had not been paying it to the state insurance corporation. They had allegedly failed to pay Rs 52,982 for the period April 1, 2003 to September 31, 2003.

    On the basis of the workers’ complaint that the money was not paid, the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) had moved the Egmore court in 2004.

    Jayapradha’s application for suspension of sentence was dismissed by the principal sessions court.

    When the actress’ appeal came up for hearing recently, senior counsel Abdul Hameed, representing her, said that the ESI contribution amount was paid during the pendency of the prosecution but that the court, without considering it, had imposed the sentence and directed her to pay the said amount.

    The Madras High Court’s order is considered to be a big relief for Jayapradha, who was, otherwise, facing arrest and detention.

    (With online desk inputs) Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

  • No plans to change names of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta High Courts: Centre

    By Online Desk

    There are no plans to change the names of the Madras, Bombay and Calcutta High Courts, the Centre told Parliament on Thursday. The was stated in response to a question by Rajya Sabha MP from Tamil Nadu CV Shanmugam. 

    Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal recalled the history of the proposal in his reply. 

    Under the Madras (Alteration of Name) Act, 1996, the city of Madras was renamed as Chennai. Following this, the Tamil Nadu government sent a proposal to change the name of the Madras High Court to the High Court of Chennai in 1997, said Meghwal.

    The names of Bombay and Calcutta had also changed by that time. The government thus brought a legislation titled “High Courts (Alteration of Names) Bill, 2016” to change the names of the Bombay, Calcutta and Madras High Courts to the Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai High Courts respectively. This was introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 19, 2016, said the minister. 

    Meanwhile the name of Orissa had changed to Odisha and Gauhati to Guwahati. Consultations were then carried out with the concerned state governments and high courts, said Meghwal, but there was a mixed response. 

    The Maharashtra government and Bombay High Court agreed to the proposal to change the name to Mumbai High Court.

    The Orissa High Court and Odisha government as well as Gauhati High Court and Assam government also conveyed no objection to the proposal to change the names of the respective High Courts.

    The Tamil Nadu government suggested that the name of the Madras High Court be changed to High Court of Tamil Nadu. The Madras High Court, however, did not agree to the proposal. 

    The Calcutta High Court and West Bengal government also did not agree to the proposal. 

    The bill was not taken any further and lapsed due to the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha, he said. 

    Later, VP Patil had filed a petition in the Supreme Court to rename the Bombay High Court as High Court of Maharashtra and other high courts as per their current state/city names. But the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in 2022, noted Meghwal.

    At present, there is no proposal to bring legislation on this subject, said the Law Minister in his written reply.

    There are no plans to change the names of the Madras, Bombay and Calcutta High Courts, the Centre told Parliament on Thursday. The was stated in response to a question by Rajya Sabha MP from Tamil Nadu CV Shanmugam. 

    Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal recalled the history of the proposal in his reply. 

    Under the Madras (Alteration of Name) Act, 1996, the city of Madras was renamed as Chennai. Following this, the Tamil Nadu government sent a proposal to change the name of the Madras High Court to the High Court of Chennai in 1997, said Meghwal.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The names of Bombay and Calcutta had also changed by that time. The government thus brought a legislation titled “High Courts (Alteration of Names) Bill, 2016” to change the names of the Bombay, Calcutta and Madras High Courts to the Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai High Courts respectively. This was introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 19, 2016, said the minister. 

    Meanwhile the name of Orissa had changed to Odisha and Gauhati to Guwahati. Consultations were then carried out with the concerned state governments and high courts, said Meghwal, but there was a mixed response. 

    The Maharashtra government and Bombay High Court agreed to the proposal to change the name to Mumbai High Court.

    The Orissa High Court and Odisha government as well as Gauhati High Court and Assam government also conveyed no objection to the proposal to change the names of the respective High Courts.

    The Tamil Nadu government suggested that the name of the Madras High Court be changed to High Court of Tamil Nadu. The Madras High Court, however, did not agree to the proposal. 

    The Calcutta High Court and West Bengal government also did not agree to the proposal. 

    The bill was not taken any further and lapsed due to the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha, he said. 

    Later, VP Patil had filed a petition in the Supreme Court to rename the Bombay High Court as High Court of Maharashtra and other high courts as per their current state/city names. But the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in 2022, noted Meghwal.

    At present, there is no proposal to bring legislation on this subject, said the Law Minister in his written reply.

  • Madras, Allahabad High Courts get four advocates as additional judges

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Central government on Thursday notified the elevation of four advocates as additional judges of Allahabad and Madras High Court. Prashant Kumar, Manjive Shukla and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal were appointed as additional judges of Allahabad HC, while Venkatachari Lakshminarayanan additional judge of Madras HC.

    Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju while taking to Twitter said, “As per relevant provisions under the Constitution of India, the following Advocates have been appointed as Additional Judges of Allahabad High Court and Madras High Court. I extend my best wishes to all of them.”

    Venkatachari’s name was recommended by the Supreme Court collegium in its meeting dated January 17, 2023 along with the elevation of advocates Victoria Gowri, Pillaipakkam Bahukutumbi Balaji, Ramaswamy Neelakandan and Kandhasami Kulandaivelu Ramakrishnan.

    The government had cleared Gowri’s name on February 6, 2023, but kept back Venkatachari’s name, which was cleared on Thursday. Names of Prashant Kumar, Manjive Shukla and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal were recommended by the SC collegium also on January 17, 2023, along with other six names.

    The Madras High Court has been working at a strength of 57 judges against a sanctioned strength of 75. With the addition of Justice Lakshminarayanan, the number of Madras HC judges will rise to 58. Rijiju recently said that the government was committed to filling up vacancies expeditiously. He also said that while the process was continuous, integrated and collaborative, it, however, required consultation and approval from various constitutional authorities.

    NEW DELHI: The Central government on Thursday notified the elevation of four advocates as additional judges of Allahabad and Madras High Court. Prashant Kumar, Manjive Shukla and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal were appointed as additional judges of Allahabad HC, while Venkatachari Lakshminarayanan additional judge of Madras HC.

    Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju while taking to Twitter said, “As per relevant provisions under the Constitution of India, the following Advocates have been appointed as Additional Judges of Allahabad High Court and Madras High Court. I extend my best wishes to all of them.”

    Venkatachari’s name was recommended by the Supreme Court collegium in its meeting dated January 17, 2023 along with the elevation of advocates Victoria Gowri, Pillaipakkam Bahukutumbi Balaji, Ramaswamy Neelakandan and Kandhasami Kulandaivelu Ramakrishnan.

    The government had cleared Gowri’s name on February 6, 2023, but kept back Venkatachari’s name, which was cleared on Thursday. Names of Prashant Kumar, Manjive Shukla and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal were recommended by the SC collegium also on January 17, 2023, along with other six names.

    The Madras High Court has been working at a strength of 57 judges against a sanctioned strength of 75. With the addition of Justice Lakshminarayanan, the number of Madras HC judges will rise to 58. Rijiju recently said that the government was committed to filling up vacancies expeditiously. He also said that while the process was continuous, integrated and collaborative, it, however, required consultation and approval from various constitutional authorities.

  • SC okays EPS as AIADMK interim general secretary

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by embattled AIADMK leader O Panneerselvam (OPS) challenging a Madras High Court order that effectively upheld the appointment of his rival Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) as the party’s interim general secretary. The SC’s order is seen as a boost to EPS’ efforts to assume sole charge of the party. It has enthused his supporters ahead of the bypoll to the Erode East Assembly seat on February 27. 

    A bench of justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy affirmed an order of a HC division bench dated September 2, 2022, and made permanent its July 6, 2022 order staying a HC order restraining the AIADMK general council from amending its by-laws during its meeting. However, the apex court clarified that its verdict would have no bearing on the merits of the civil suits pending. 

    Authoring the 80-page verdict, Justice Maheshwari said the court was restraining itself from dealing with the contentions regarding the resolutions that were adopted in the July 11, 2022 meeting. EPS was appointed interim general secretary through a resolution at that meet and OPS was expelled from the party. 

    On August 17, the order of a single judge of the HC had nullified the events of the July 11 meeting and ordered status quo ante as on June 23 when OPS was party coordinator and EPS joint coordinator. This order was set aside by a HC division bench on September 2. The division bench had said the single judge’s order had created a functional deadlock in the AIADMK.  

    Concurring, the SC said if the order as passed by the single judge was to remain in force until decision of suits “it would have been drastically detrimental to the interest of political party in question.” The single judge had proceeded contrary to sound and applicable judicial principles, it said. 

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by embattled AIADMK leader O Panneerselvam (OPS) challenging a Madras High Court order that effectively upheld the appointment of his rival Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) as the party’s interim general secretary. The SC’s order is seen as a boost to EPS’ efforts to assume sole charge of the party. It has enthused his supporters ahead of the bypoll to the Erode East Assembly seat on February 27. 

    A bench of justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy affirmed an order of a HC division bench dated September 2, 2022, and made permanent its July 6, 2022 order staying a HC order restraining the AIADMK general council from amending its by-laws during its meeting. However, the apex court clarified that its verdict would have no bearing on the merits of the civil suits pending. 

    Authoring the 80-page verdict, Justice Maheshwari said the court was restraining itself from dealing with the contentions regarding the resolutions that were adopted in the July 11, 2022 meeting. EPS was appointed interim general secretary through a resolution at that meet and OPS was expelled from the party. 

    On August 17, the order of a single judge of the HC had nullified the events of the July 11 meeting and ordered status quo ante as on June 23 when OPS was party coordinator and EPS joint coordinator. This order was set aside by a HC division bench on September 2. The division bench had said the single judge’s order had created a functional deadlock in the AIADMK.  

    Concurring, the SC said if the order as passed by the single judge was to remain in force until decision of suits “it would have been drastically detrimental to the interest of political party in question.” The single judge had proceeded contrary to sound and applicable judicial principles, it said. 

  • Law sacrosanct entity, must not be used to harass accused: Supreme Court

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Terming the law as a sacrosanct entity that exists to serve the ends of justice, the Supreme Court held that criminal complaints should only be initiated to meet the ends of justice and law should not be used to harass the accused. 

    Quashing a complaint filed against a trader of raw material chemicals used in food, food supplements, and medicinal preparations, a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and SR Bhat said, “While it is true that the quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases, it is still the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice. The law is a sacrosanct entity that exists to serve the ends of justice, and the courts, as protectors of the law and servants of the law, must always ensure that frivolous cases do not pervert the sacrosanct nature of the law.”

    The court also said, “While this court does not expect a full-blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, in such cases where the accused has been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it is only reasonable for the court to expect bare-minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities.”

    The top court’s ruling came in a plea assailing Madras HC’s order dated August 23, 2021, wherein the HC had refused to quash a complaint. The complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector against the proprietor of a company that traded raw materials alleging that a bulk quantity of pyridoxal-5-phosphate was broken up and sold to different distributors. While dismissing the plea, HC opined that a trial was necessary to ascertain the facts of the case and had passed an order for expediting the trial. 

    NEW DELHI: Terming the law as a sacrosanct entity that exists to serve the ends of justice, the Supreme Court held that criminal complaints should only be initiated to meet the ends of justice and law should not be used to harass the accused. 

    Quashing a complaint filed against a trader of raw material chemicals used in food, food supplements, and medicinal preparations, a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and SR Bhat said, “While it is true that the quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases, it is still the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice. The law is a sacrosanct entity that exists to serve the ends of justice, and the courts, as protectors of the law and servants of the law, must always ensure that frivolous cases do not pervert the sacrosanct nature of the law.”

    The court also said, “While this court does not expect a full-blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, in such cases where the accused has been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it is only reasonable for the court to expect bare-minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities.”

    The top court’s ruling came in a plea assailing Madras HC’s order dated August 23, 2021, wherein the HC had refused to quash a complaint. The complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector against the proprietor of a company that traded raw materials alleging that a bulk quantity of pyridoxal-5-phosphate was broken up and sold to different distributors. While dismissing the plea, HC opined that a trial was necessary to ascertain the facts of the case and had passed an order for expediting the trial. 

  • SC deprecates ‘dilatory tactics’ adopted by parties in death penalty case

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday strongly deprecated the “dilatory tactics” adopted by the parties and their advocates for “deflecting the course of justice” in a murder case, where seven of the convicts have been awarded death sentence.

    The top court dismissed an appeal filed by a convict challenging the Madras High Court order in which it had refused to wait for the documents relied upon in the investigation, which they had sought from the investigating officer of the case and asked the parties to proceed with the hearing.

    A bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat said, “We are of the opinion that the circumstances in which the request was made through the letter after appeal was set down for hearing despite repeated opportunities was not justified.” 

    “The appellant could have sought recourse by filing an appropriate application, in accordance with the procedures set out, well in time. We, therefore, agree that the appeal made at this late stage appears to be to prolong the hearing. In these circumstances, the court declines to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed,” the bench said.

    Justice Bela M Trivedi, who was also part of the bench, took a strict view and said, “Such a dilatory tactics adopted by the parties and their advocates and thereby deflecting the course of justice in the cases like the present one, where some of the appellant-accused are facing the death penalty and some sentence of life imprisonment are strongly deprecated.” 

    Justice Trivedi, in a separate but concurring order, stated that it is needless to say that the death penalty cases referred by the sessions courts to the high court have to be given utmost priority and should be heard and completed by the high court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months.

    She said that from the observations made by the high court in the impugned order, which have remained unchallenged before this court, it was only because of the non-cooperation on behalf of the counsels appearing for the accused, the high court was not able to hear the reference case.

    “The court may not have to remind the senior advocates of their duties to assist the courts for the cause of justice, and not to indulge into dilatory tactics and hamper the cause of justice,” Justice Trivedi said.

    The bench recorded the sequence of event, noting that City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 109, 341, 302 read with section 34 of IPC had awarded death penalty to seven convicts and one was awarded life sentence.

    The sessions court had referred its judgement and order to the high court for confirmation of the death penalty awarded to some of the accused under Section 366 CrPC. The accused also had filed separate nine appeals before the high court challenging the judgement and order passed by the sessions court in the said case.

    The apex court said that the high court after ascertaining the convenience of all the advocates appearing for the parties had fixed the date for final hearing on June 15, 2022 vide the order dated April 27, 2022.

    Justice Trivedi said, “On September 14, though the state public prosecutor was ready to argue, one of the senior advocates from Delhi appeared before the high court and requested the court to adjourn the hearing.” 

    She noted that at that time, the state public prosecutor drew the attention of the high court to a letter dated September 5, 2022 sent by advocate G Sriram appearing for the accused addressed to the Inspector (Law and Order) Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai, asking him to produce certain documents, stating therein inter-alia that the said documents were required for fair adjudication of their case in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision (in case of Manoj and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh, May 20, 2022).

    Justice Trivedi said, “The said letter was placed on record by the state public prosecutor. On the said date i.e., September 14, 2022, the senior advocate who had come from Delhi assured the court that she had discussed with all the counsels who were appearing for the appellants and that all had assured her that they would proceed with the hearing on October 17, 2022.” 

    The bench noted that the high court apprised her (senior advocate from Delhi) that the case pertained to the sentence of death penalty, which had to be completed within six months and that for the last one year there was no progress in the case on account of non-cooperation of the accused.

    “However, she (lawyer from Delhi) repeatedly assured the court that no one would seek adjournment on October 17, 2022, and therefore the high court out of sheer courtesy and respect for the senior advocate adjourned the case to October 17, 2022,” it said.

    The bench said that despite such assurance having been given by the senior advocate and all other advocates, including other senior advocates appearing for the other accused, to the high court to proceed with the hearing of the reference case and the appeals, the appellant rushed to this court to hamper the hearing fixed before the high court on October 17, 2022.

    “In the aforesaid premises, the attempt made on behalf of the appellant-accused and the other accused to delay the hearing of the appeals and the death reference case pending before the high court, under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from the investigating officer was absolutely reprehensible,” it said.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday strongly deprecated the “dilatory tactics” adopted by the parties and their advocates for “deflecting the course of justice” in a murder case, where seven of the convicts have been awarded death sentence.

    The top court dismissed an appeal filed by a convict challenging the Madras High Court order in which it had refused to wait for the documents relied upon in the investigation, which they had sought from the investigating officer of the case and asked the parties to proceed with the hearing.

    A bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat said, “We are of the opinion that the circumstances in which the request was made through the letter after appeal was set down for hearing despite repeated opportunities was not justified.” 

    “The appellant could have sought recourse by filing an appropriate application, in accordance with the procedures set out, well in time. We, therefore, agree that the appeal made at this late stage appears to be to prolong the hearing. In these circumstances, the court declines to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed,” the bench said.

    Justice Bela M Trivedi, who was also part of the bench, took a strict view and said, “Such a dilatory tactics adopted by the parties and their advocates and thereby deflecting the course of justice in the cases like the present one, where some of the appellant-accused are facing the death penalty and some sentence of life imprisonment are strongly deprecated.” 

    Justice Trivedi, in a separate but concurring order, stated that it is needless to say that the death penalty cases referred by the sessions courts to the high court have to be given utmost priority and should be heard and completed by the high court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months.

    She said that from the observations made by the high court in the impugned order, which have remained unchallenged before this court, it was only because of the non-cooperation on behalf of the counsels appearing for the accused, the high court was not able to hear the reference case.

    “The court may not have to remind the senior advocates of their duties to assist the courts for the cause of justice, and not to indulge into dilatory tactics and hamper the cause of justice,” Justice Trivedi said.

    The bench recorded the sequence of event, noting that City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 109, 341, 302 read with section 34 of IPC had awarded death penalty to seven convicts and one was awarded life sentence.

    The sessions court had referred its judgement and order to the high court for confirmation of the death penalty awarded to some of the accused under Section 366 CrPC. The accused also had filed separate nine appeals before the high court challenging the judgement and order passed by the sessions court in the said case.

    The apex court said that the high court after ascertaining the convenience of all the advocates appearing for the parties had fixed the date for final hearing on June 15, 2022 vide the order dated April 27, 2022.

    Justice Trivedi said, “On September 14, though the state public prosecutor was ready to argue, one of the senior advocates from Delhi appeared before the high court and requested the court to adjourn the hearing.” 

    She noted that at that time, the state public prosecutor drew the attention of the high court to a letter dated September 5, 2022 sent by advocate G Sriram appearing for the accused addressed to the Inspector (Law and Order) Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai, asking him to produce certain documents, stating therein inter-alia that the said documents were required for fair adjudication of their case in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision (in case of Manoj and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh, May 20, 2022).

    Justice Trivedi said, “The said letter was placed on record by the state public prosecutor. On the said date i.e., September 14, 2022, the senior advocate who had come from Delhi assured the court that she had discussed with all the counsels who were appearing for the appellants and that all had assured her that they would proceed with the hearing on October 17, 2022.” 

    The bench noted that the high court apprised her (senior advocate from Delhi) that the case pertained to the sentence of death penalty, which had to be completed within six months and that for the last one year there was no progress in the case on account of non-cooperation of the accused.

    “However, she (lawyer from Delhi) repeatedly assured the court that no one would seek adjournment on October 17, 2022, and therefore the high court out of sheer courtesy and respect for the senior advocate adjourned the case to October 17, 2022,” it said.

    The bench said that despite such assurance having been given by the senior advocate and all other advocates, including other senior advocates appearing for the other accused, to the high court to proceed with the hearing of the reference case and the appeals, the appellant rushed to this court to hamper the hearing fixed before the high court on October 17, 2022.

    “In the aforesaid premises, the attempt made on behalf of the appellant-accused and the other accused to delay the hearing of the appeals and the death reference case pending before the high court, under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from the investigating officer was absolutely reprehensible,” it said.

  • Conviction can’t be based solely on extra-judicial confession if not duly proved: SC

    The Supreme Court set aside the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the Madras High Court.

  • Madras HC order for CBI probe against EPS axed by SC

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a Madras High Court ruling ordering a CBI probe into allegations of corruption against former chief minister and AIADMK leader Edappadi K Palaniswami in awarding road contracts.

    A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli asked the HC to decide on the complaint against Palaniswami without being influenced by earlier observations or orders passed in the matter.

    The Madras High Court, after taking note of the plea of DMK leader RS Bharathi, had in October 2018 passed the order transferring the probe on his complaint of tender irregularities to CBI for “fair, reasonable and transparent probe”.

    “We don’t want CBI. We want an independent investigation,” senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Bharathi, told the apex court on Wednesday. Senior advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Palaniswami, said a report filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had exculpated Palaniswami.

    The HC, however, passed the order without considering the DVAC report, and the SC must examine the report, Sundaram said. The SC bench, however, said it will ask the HC to take a fresh decision and remitted the matter to the Madras HC.

    “Let the HC examine the (inquiry) report. Without going into the details of the matter, we request the high court to look into the reports submitted there and pass an appropriate order after examining the report…We set aside all the observations that will not come in the way of the fresh consideration of the matter,’ the bench said. RS Bharathi had filed a petition in the high court accusing Palaniswami of misusing his official position.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a Madras High Court ruling ordering a CBI probe into allegations of corruption against former chief minister and AIADMK leader Edappadi K Palaniswami in awarding road contracts.

    A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli asked the HC to decide on the complaint against Palaniswami without being influenced by earlier observations or orders passed in the matter.

    The Madras High Court, after taking note of the plea of DMK leader RS Bharathi, had in October 2018 passed the order transferring the probe on his complaint of tender irregularities to CBI for “fair, reasonable and transparent probe”.

    “We don’t want CBI. We want an independent investigation,” senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Bharathi, told the apex court on Wednesday. Senior advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Palaniswami, said a report filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had exculpated Palaniswami.

    The HC, however, passed the order without considering the DVAC report, and the SC must examine the report, Sundaram said. The SC bench, however, said it will ask the HC to take a fresh decision and remitted the matter to the Madras HC.

    “Let the HC examine the (inquiry) report. Without going into the details of the matter, we request the high court to look into the reports submitted there and pass an appropriate order after examining the report…We set aside all the observations that will not come in the way of the fresh consideration of the matter,’ the bench said. RS Bharathi had filed a petition in the high court accusing Palaniswami of misusing his official position.

  • Pay pension to transport staff without discrimination: Madras HC 

    By PTI

    CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay within six months the pension due to the employees of various transport corporations in the State without any discrimination.

    “I am inclined to allow all these writ petitions in terms of GO dated August 26, 2019. The authorities shall pay the arrears of pension and dearness allowance (DA) to the petitioners as made applicable to the pensioners, who had retired between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2018 with notional effect from January 1, 2016 prospectively with effect from August 28, 2019 within six months,” Justice C Saravanan said.

    The judge was allowing a batch of writ petitions from the Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations by its president S Renganathan of Kottur Garden and seven other associations, recently.

    The petition prayed for a direction to the government to provide adequate funds to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust and to implement of the revision of payment of pension to the members of the petitioner Federation, who retired between September 1, 1998 and December 31, 2015 based on the recommendation of the Seventh Central Pay Commission with a multiplying factor of 2.57 as per a GOs dated October 25, 2017 and November 9, 2017 with arrears and interest and continue to pay the revised pension without any interruption.

    Allowing the petitions, the judge noted that even if the pension was to be paid from and out of the pension fund, reality is that the pension fund is being paid and funded by the State government as the amount of pension fund is not sufficient to meet the requirements.

    Therefore, a uniformity has to be maintained to all the employees who were drawing pension from and out of the fund which is supported by the government contributions.

    Having extended the benefits to other classes of pensioners and considering the fact that the pension of those pensioners is also borne by the State government, there is no justification for discriminating between the pensioners those who retired prior to January 1, 2016.

    Further, the State Transport Undertakings were part of the State Transport department.

    Various Transport departments were hived off into the separate State Transport Undertakings.

    There was a tacit understanding that the salaries and pension of these employees and pensioners would be protected on par with their counterparts in government services.

    Therefore, there is no basis for discriminating between the employees of the State Transport Undertakings who have retired earlier, the judge said.

    The judge further said there is no rational basis to discriminate between the persons, who belong to the same class by artificially creating a class between them, who retired on or before January 1, 2016 and those who retired after January 1, 2018.

    The benefit of the August 2019 GO has to be extended uniformly. There is no justification in not granting similar revisions to those administrative and technical supervisory staff, who have retired prior to January 1, 2016.

    There is also no justification in confining the benefit to one section of the pensioners.

    “In the light of the above discussions, I am inclined to allow all these writ petitions in terms of the August 28, 2019 GO,” the judge said.

  • Tender graft: Furnish inquiry report’s copy to Velumani, SC tells Madras HC 

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Madras High Court to supply a copy of report of preliminary enquiry conducted against S P Velumani over alleged corruption in awarding of tenders in corporations during his tenure as Tamil Nadu minister for municipal administration, and asked the HC to dispose of the cases on merit, uninfluenced by any observation made by it. 

    “In our considered opinion, the HC has committed a patent error. Without considering the material before it, and by merely relying on the submissions made by the State, the HC has made sweeping observations which are prejudicial to the appellant,” the court said.

    “It was the HC which had ordered that a preliminary inquiry be conducted and a report be submitted by the special investigating officer. However, once the inquiry was completed, the HC failed to even peruse the report. Rather, the HC left the decision completely in the hands of the State government. Such an approach cannot be countenanced in law. When the State changed its stand, the HC neither provided the appellant an opportunity to defend himself, nor sought a reasoned justification from the State for having turned turtle,” the apex court said. 

    According to Velumani’s plea, a a PIL was filed before the Madras High Court in 2018 for a direction that an FIR be lodged and an investigation be conducted relating to tenders awarded by municipal corporations.  It was alleged that Velumani had misused his powers and the tenders were awarded to his close aides. The HC had directed an enquiry, though there was no offence made against him, he said.