Skip to main content

Madras HC says no role for police in landlord-tenant dispute

Police should stay off landlord-tenant disputes, as the parties involved can seek remedy only from the competent civil court, the Madras high court has said.

"If there is a landlord-tenant relationship, police are not entitled to inquire the matter. It should advise both the parties to approach the competent civil court or rent control authority," Justice T S Sivagnanam said recently, passing orders on a petition.

The matter relates to a criminal complaint lodged against R Suresh by his landlord P Syed Omar Sajeeth before the Teynampet police on June 7, seeking recovery of rent arrears. In his petition, Suresh said after being summoned to the police station, he and his counsel met the officers handling the matter. Even after his counsel explained that there was absolutely no criminal offence necessitating the summoning of Suresh, police held inquiries. He then moved the high court.

His counsel S Namo Narayanan said police ought not to have entertained the complaint at all, as there was no criminal element in the allegations. The dispute is civil in nature, he said. He sought a direction to the police not to harass Suresh in the name of inquiry.

When the matter was taken up for hearing, additional public prosecutor admitted that an inquiry had indeed been conducted by the Teynampet police. It was, however, closed, he said.

Recording the statement, Justice Sivagnanam pointed out that a police notice served under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was furnished in the court to prove that Suresh had been summoned to the station. Since it is stated that the inquiry is already over, Suresh should not be harassed by police any further, the judge said, disposing of the petition.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more