Disposed

B.Kavitha v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC29 Mar 2021WP/7974/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution sought a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of an enquiry in a civil business dispute. The court held that such disputes are for the civil court and directed the police not to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent police not to interfere in the business dispute between the parties.

B.Kavitha Vs The Superintendent of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.7974 of 2021 and WMP.No.8534 of 2021

¶6

B.Kavitha ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruppur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Dhali Police Station,
Udumalpet.
3.The Authorized Officer,
The Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited,
Regional Office,
No.18/3, Big Bazar Street,
Coimbatore. ...Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 or their subordinates not to harass the petitioner under the guise of an enquiry in connection with the complaint alleged to have lodged by the 3^rd respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 15.03.2021 and pass orders.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar

¶9

For Respondents: Mr.C.Raghavan,

¶10

Government Advocate for RR1 & 2.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 or their subordinates not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

¶14

Taking into consideration the fact that the nature of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the dispute involved in this case is a business dispute

¶15

between the parties, it is for the parties to redress the same before the appropriate Civil Court and the respondent police will have no role to play in a case of this nature.

¶16

This Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent police not to interfere in the business dispute between the parties and it is open for the parties to agitate their rights before the competent civil court.

¶17

Assistant Registrar (CS-IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rm
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruppur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Dhali Police Station,
Udumalpet.
3.The Authorized Officer,
The Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited,
Regional Office,
No.18/3, Big Bazar Street,
Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai-108.
+1cc to Mr.D.R.Arunkumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 20370
W.P.No.7974 of 2021
JPL(CO)
GN(04/05/2021)

¶18

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

B.Kavitha v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Kavitha v. The Superintendent 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

V.Seema Vs State by

Rani Vs The Director of Prosecution (i/c)

R.H.Annadurai Vs State Rep.by

Jaya Mohan Vs State Rep.by

Lalitha Vs The Superintendent of police

Vadivel Vs Jaganatharao