Disposed

Therirajan v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police

Madras HC6 Aug 2021WP/21085/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking police protection and resolution of a key dispute, the Court found that the issue was resolved pending before the petition. It directed the Judge Administrator to return the key of the seized premises to the owner, closed the petition, and imposed no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Judge Administrator to return the key of the premises to the owner of the premises; Writ petition closed with no costs.

Therirajan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.21085 of 2019

Therirajan

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar Range, Chennai.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ashok Nagar, Chennai.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, K.K.Nagar,Chennai.

¶12

(cause title amended vide order dated 17.07.2019 made in WMP.20929 of 2019 in W.P.No.21085 of 2019 by NAVJ)

¶13

4.Tom George

¶14

5.Mamachan Anthraper 6.Ancy Mamachan Anthraper

¶15

7.Jose Michael

¶16

(R4 to R7 impleaded vide order dated 27.07.2021 made in WMP No.7489/2020 in W.P.No.21085/2019 by MDIJ)

¶17

8.Dr.G.S.Rajesh Represented by his father and Power of Attorney Agent T.N.Subramanian

¶18

(R8 impleaded vide order dated 27.07.2021 made in WMP No.7796/2020 in W.P.No.21085/2019 by MDIJ)

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

Prayer:

¶22

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's company i.e.I Max Capital Solutions located at 10/93, 92^nd Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Govindaraju For Respondents : Mr.C.E.Pratap for R1 Government Advocate M/s.S.G.Ramesh for R4 to R7 M/s.A.V.Bharathi for R8

¶24

For Judge Administrator : Mr.Bharath Kumar

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's company i.e.I Max Capital Solutions located at 10/93, 92^nd Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083.

¶27

2.The petitioner is the General Manager of M/s.I Max Capital Solutions which made its inception on 24.06.2018 with over 5 employees and close to 22000 distinct customers. Due to some unforeseen situation, the customers of the Company started fearing and false propaganda by rivals resulted severe hardship in running the Company. Out of the total investment received from the customers, the Company had refunded nearly 25% of the amount to its respective owners due to the constant demand from the customers and is left with 75% which belongs to some investors and are willing to refund the same to its rightful owners. Since some unruly elements are misusing the situation and barging into the Company and demanding money, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶28

3.It appears that during the pendancy of this writ petition, Judge Administrator was appointed inorder to resolve the issue and accordingly, the premises which the Company has taken for rent was seized and key was handed over to the Judge Administrator. Thereafter the issue was resolved, however, the key was not handed over to the owner of the premises.

¶29

4.Today, the learned counsel appearing for the Judge Administrator agree to hand over the key to the owner of the premises and the learned counsel appearing for the Landlord submitted that the Landlord is ready to collect the key from the

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

Judge Administrator immediately.

¶32

5.In view of the above, this Court directs the Judge

¶33

Administrator to return the key to the owner of the premises.

¶34

6.The writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, the

¶35

connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

pri

¶41

¶42

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar Range, Chennai.

¶43

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ashok Nagar, Chennai.

¶44

The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station,

¶45

K.K.Nagar, Chennai.

¶46

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Venkatraman(Retd) No.125, “L” Block, East Anna Nagar, Chennai – 102.

¶47

+1cc to Mr.M.Govindaraju, Advocate, S.R.No.38888/2021 +1cc to M/s.A.V.Bharathi, Advocate, S.R.No.38925

W.P.No.21085 of 2019

SR(CO)

RGA(01/09/2021)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Therirajan v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Therirajan v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siva Vs State by

Ravi Venkatachalapathy Vs State Rep by

S.Anand (Rp No 7143) Vs the State by

J.Rajendran (54) Vs K.B.Indira (48)

Vive @ Vickraman Vs the Station House Officer

S.Shankar Vs D.Anushya