Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G.Arul Murugan, J
R.Girirajan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. predicate offence registered for corruption; seeks ecir mandamus. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 11) |
| 2. rival arguments on locus, politics, and ecir mandatory. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. pml act scheme requires ed satisfaction for ecir. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. courts cannot direct ecir; ed discretion prevails. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. petition dismissed; ed free to proceed independently. (Para 27) |
The writ petition is filed seeking for a direction, to direct the 4th respondent/Enforcement Directorate to register an Enforcement Case Information Report [ECIR] under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “the PML Act”] against the 5th respondent.
2. The petitioner is a practising advocate and a sitting member of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) from the ruling party of the State. The 5th respondent is from the opposition party, who was a former Minister.
3. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent, during his tenure as Minister, by abusing his official position, had indulged in corruption and committed serious irregularities in the concerned department. Based on a complaint that the 5th respondent accumulate
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
