Disposed¶32

Seikodenki India Pvt. Ltd., v. The Commissioner of police

Madras HC25 Aug 2025WP Crl./62/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.Crl.No.62 of 2025; Article 226 mandamus; police protection; peaceful reopening of company; SIDCO Industrial Estate Thirumazhisai; expelled director; Ahamed Kabeer; Seikodenki India Pvt Ltd; representations dated 01.06.2024 and 16.05.2025; FIR pending left to investigating officer; petition disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands disposed of with no costs; no writ of mandamus was issued, the Court recording that it is well open to the petitioner to run the company as per law and leaving the pending FIR to the investigating officer. ¶32

Seikodenki India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.62 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.Crl.No.62 of 2025

¶7

M/s.SEIKODENKI INDIA PVT LTD Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.R.Srinivasan S/o.Ramalingam Having place of business at DP-50, SIDCO Industrial Estate Thirumazhisai, Chennai – 600 124

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Commissioner of Police Avadi CCB-Central Crime Branch Avadi – 600 054

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police Vellavedu Police Station Thiruvallur Main Road Vellaveedu, Thirumazhisai Chennai – 600 124

¶13

4.Ahamed Kabeer

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1-3 herein to

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.62 of 2025

¶19

provide adequate police protection to the authorised personnel of the petitioner company for the peaceful reopening of the petitioner company at D.No.50, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Thirumazhisai, Chennai-124 by restraining the 4th respondent from interfering threatening or trespassing in to the company premises or obstructing the functioning of the company by considering the petitioners representation dated 01.06.2024 and 16.05.2025.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nirmal Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan for R1 to R3, APP Mr.C.Aravind for R4

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition has been filed for police protection on the ground that

¶23

the 4^th respondent is one of the expelled director is causing disturbance to the petitioner company.

¶24

The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that fourth

¶25

respondent is not in possession and is not causing disturbance from running the company.

¶26

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record .

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.62 of 2025

¶30

Such view of the matter, since the fourth respondent himself has

¶31

admitted that they are not in possession and is not causing disturbance, it is well open to the petitioner to run the company as per law. At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that FIR is also pending. It is for the investigating officer to carryout the investigation as per law.

¶32