V.KANAGARAJ, T.V.MASILAMANI
A. Samivel – Appellant
Versus
The Competent Authroity and Additional Commissioner – Respondent
V.Kanagaraj, J.
By consent, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. Today, when the C.M.P.No.16303 of 2004 was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent as well, this Court is apprised of the fact to the extent that the appellant has come forward to file the above C.M.P. praying for the grant of interim stay of the order dated 23.09.2004 made in O.A.No.44 of 2004 by the Court of the Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai, relating to the conditions imposed requiring the appellant/petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10/lakhs.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the total number of accused are 31 and all are alleged to have had some nexus or the other in the defunct company of the appellant herein, and since the petitioner is neither a Managing Director nor even a Director and no such responsibilities are attached to the appellant whether it is policy making or decision taking in the affairs of the company. But two vehicles belonging to the appellant both stage carriage permitted buses run in the interest of the general public belonging to the petit
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.