Skip to main content

WhatsApp posts admitted as evidence at Madras High Court

In first of its kind, Madras High court has passed an order based on WhatsApp posts. A PWD staffer, G. Parthiban had, in his WhatsApp posts, allegedly abused and threatened the petitioner, H.B. Saravana Kumar, a law graduate, for filing a RTI petition with Thanjavur East police station seeking certain details regarding him. Kumar, in the RTI petition, sought of the police answers to a few quarries relating to the arrest and remand of Parthiban in 2014.

Soon after filing the petition, Kumar received a phone call on April 15 reportedly from Velayutham, Sub-Inspector, Thanjavur East police station who made some basic enquires regarding the RTI application. Thereafter, Kumar received a series of calls from Parthiban threatening and abusing him using unparliamentary words profusely. Parthiban warned him stating that several leading advocates and a sitting Madras high court judge were his relatives. These conversations recorded by him were posted by him on WhatsApp  and this had raised eyebrows of advocates and rights activists.

On April 15, Kumar filed a complaint before Inspector, B-4 Madras High court police station to take action against Parthiban. As there was no action, Kumar filed a petition before the court seeking direction to the police to register a complaint and pass orders.

Article referred : http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150424/nation-current-affairs/article/whatsapp-posts-admitted-evidence-madras-high-court

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