https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2019/12/22/private-complaint-cannot-be-quash-velmurugan-j-https-www-sekarreporter-com-complaint-cannot-be-quash-velmurugan-j/ by Sekar Reporter · December 22, 2019 [12/22, 09:17] Sekarreporter 1: [12/22, 09:16] Sekarreporter 1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2019/12/22/private-complaint-cannot-be-quash-velmurugan-j-https-www-sekarreporter-com-complaint-cannot-be-quash-velmurugan-j/ [12/22, 09:17] Sekarreporter 1: Mhc advt HAJA mohatheen kisthi argued [12/22, 09:18] Sekarreporter 1: [12/22, 09:17] Sekarreporter 1: [12/22, 09:16] Sekarreporter 1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2019/12/22/private-complaint-cannot-be-quash-velmurugan-j-https-www-sekarreporter-com-complaint-cannot-be-quash-velmurugan-j/ [12/22, 09:17] Sekarreporter 1: Mhc advt HAJA mohatheen kisthi argued [12/22, 09:17] Sekarreporter 1: [12/22, 09:09] Sekarreporter 1: Crl..O.P.Nos.18407 of 2013 and 1479 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.12.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.O.P.Nos.18407 of 2013 & 1479 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 and 2 of 2014 1.Ashwin 2.Ashok …. Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.18407 of 2013 1.Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Director, Mr.Sumit Chatterjee, No.12, Vaibhav Building Basement, Smith Road, Off. Mount Road, Chennai. 2.Mr.Sumit Chatterjee …. Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1479 of 2014 vs M/s.R.K.Productions Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.Manikantan Having its Office at No.16/5, Rajamannar Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 17 …. Respondent in both cases. Prayer in both the cases: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.2818 of 2013 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the said complaint. 1 http://www.judis.nic.in [12/22, 09:10] Sekarreporter 1: Crl..O.P.Nos.18407 of 2013 and 1479 of 2014 7 The respondent assigned copyright to the first petitioner’s company. The second petitioner is working as a Director, the 3 rd and 4 th petitioners are working in the company. It is averred in the complaint that the petitioners have infringed the rights assigned in the assignment deed. A1 is the company and other accused are participating in the day to day affairs of the first petitioner’s company and hence, they are also liable for the infringment. Therefore, they must be prosecuted for the complaint filed by the respondent before the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.2818 of 2013. Further there are allegations in the complaint against these petitioners. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to invoke powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., when, there are specific allegations levelled against all the petitioners herein. This Court does not find any merits in these petitions. 8 Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take all their defence before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance of the petitioners 2 to 4 are dispensed with and the petitioners 2 to 4 herein are directed to appear before the trial Court as and when required. 5 http://www.judis.nic.in [12/22, 09:10] Sekarreporter 1: Crl..O.P.Nos.18407 of 2013 and 1479 of 2014 9 Since, these matters are pending from the year 2013, the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.2818 of 2013, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate for the speedy disposal of the case. If the petitioners are not co-operating to dispose of the case within the stipulated time, the order of dispense with the personal appearance shall stand automatically cancelled and the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 18.12.2019 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no sbn Note: Issue order copy on 20.12.2019 To The learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 6 http://www.judis.nic.in
தமிழ்நாடு பிரஸ் கவுன்சில் அமைக்க வேண்டுமென பிறப்பிக்கப்பட்ட உத்தரவை சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் திரும்பப் பெற்றுள்ளது. March 16, 2022 by Sekar Reporter · Published March 16, 2022
(b)The Competent Authority (RDO or Collector) shall not refuse issuance of a community certificate in favour of a claimant who relies upon the community certificate issued, and verified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee of his parents, brothers, sisters or close blood relative which is supported by genealogy tree issued by the concerned Revenue Authority. (c)The State Level Scrutiny Committee shall endeavour to conclude the verification process expeditiously. (d)The State Level Scrutiny Committee shall not solely rely upon the Report of the Anthropologist and the same may be a factor to consider the claim of the individuals. (R.S.M., J.) (K.B., J.) 25.11.2022 Index: Yes Internet: Yes Speaking gba/pam To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee – III, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The District Collector, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram. 3.The Director, Tribal Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ ST Vigilance Cell, Kanchipuram. 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madhuranthakam, Chengalpet District. 6.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chengalpet Division, Chengalpattu – 603 001. R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K. KUMARESH BABU, J. gba A Pre-delivery common order in W.P.Nos.2828 & 5237 of 2022 25.11.2022 December 1, 2022 by Sekar Reporter · Published December 1, 2022
Review dismissed Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice Hon’ ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge April 1, 2024 by Sekar Reporter · Published April 1, 2024