Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
K. GNANASEKAR V/S THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT, VILLUPURAM & OTHERS, decided on Monday, February 27, 2012.
[ In the High Court of Madras, Writ Petition No.4434 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012. ] 27/02/2012
Judge(s) : M. JAICHANDREN
Advocate(s) : S. Mazhaimeni Pandiyan. V. Jaya Prakash Narayan, Additional Government Pleader (W).
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  B. Raghavendran Versus Inspector General of Police, Chennai & Others,   24/11/2016.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    Subject     (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to return the vehicle Car TATA Indica TN-05-X-6670 to the petitioner.)Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that a notice dated 23.12.2011 had been issued to one P.Sivakumar the owner of the vehicle in question asking him to show cause as to why the said vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 14(4) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act 1937.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is the present owner of the vehicle in question as he had purchased the said vehicle from P.Sivakumar. Therefore he had submitted that he would appear before the second respondent along with the relevant documents to show cause as to why the vehicle in question should not be confiscated under Section 14(4) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act 1937.4. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner it is made clear that it would be open to him to appear before the second respondent along with the relevant documents to show that he is the present owner of the vehicle in question. Thereafter on his submitting the necessary explanation the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon as per law as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.