Begin typing your search...

    PIL moved on payment of legal fees, fine in Jaya’s DA case

    The plea regarding whether the Tamil Nadu government is liable to pay the legal charges demanded by the Karnataka government for handling the disproportionate wealth case of late chief minister J Jayalalithaa or should it be recovered from auctioning her properties while paying the fine imposed by the trial court has reached the Madras High Court.

    PIL moved on payment of legal fees, fine in Jaya’s DA case
    X
    A file photo of the Madras High Court

    Chennai

    The Division Bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice M Sundar, before whom a PIL filed in this regard came up for hearing on Friday, directed the petitioner to make his legal submissions and posted the case for further hearing to July 7. 

    The plea moved by C Kumaran, Chennai District Secretary, Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, besides raising the issue of legal charges also sought a consequent direction to the state to collect the fine amount by auctioning or selling the immovable and movable properties of the late chief minister. 

    The petitioner while mentioning about the orders of the trial court in Bengaluru and the order of Supreme Court in the disproportionate wealth case in his petition said, “The Supreme Court in its order abated the sentence of Jayalalithaa alone due to her death, but the finding of imposition of fine of Rs 100 crore and the confiscation of the properties of Jayalalithaa stands.” 

    Referring to the demand made by Karnataka government to pay Rs 12 crore towards the expenses, the petitioner submitted, “The amount cannot be paid from the government exchequer. It should be paid only from the fine amount collected from the convicts.”

    Relief for med PG students joining deemed varsities
    Coming to the rescue of post graduate medical aspirants who were forced to part with Rs 40 to Rs 50 lakh as fees at the deemed universities in Puducherry, the Madras High Court has directed the deemed universities to admit the students provisionally in the vacant seats in order of merit, subject to the condition that the students shall each deposit Rs 10 lakh at the time of admission as annual fee for the first year.
    The first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar passing an interim order in this regard also held, “Considering that the future of the students who are admitted pursuant to this interim order remains uncertain, there is an immense urgency and we expect that UGC and Ministry of Human Resource Development shall forthwith constitute a committee to regulate fees chargeable by the self-financed deemed universities, after giving all stakeholders, including the universities adequate opportunity of representation.” 
    It also held that in the event of the fees determined by the fee committee that may be constituted by the UGC and HRD ministry to study the fee structure of the deemed universities is higher, they shall pay the differential amount. The bench further noted that those students who have already taken admission by depositing the full fees will, if necessary, be entitled to refund/adjustment of the difference between the fees that might be determined by the committee and the amount paid by them. It then directed that such admission shall be effected within 5 pm on June 19.

    DMK’s plea on ruling party MLAs posted to Monday 
    The Madras High Court on Friday adjourned the miscellaneous petition filed by DMK leader MK Stalin seeking a probe by the CBI and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) about two MLAs from opposing factions of the AIADMK being caught on tape. The duo had claimed that money and gold were offered to them and others to support the Sasikala camp in the confidence motion moved by Chief Minister Edappadi K Palanisamy. When senior counsel Shanmugasundaram, appearing on behalf of the DMK, made a mention before the division comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice M Sundar seeking to issue notice to the newly included respondents -the CBI and DRI- the bench said that the counsel of the respective respondents should first come to know that such an impleading petition has been filed and posted the case for further hearing to Monday.

    Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

    Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

    Click here for iOS

    Click here for Android

    migrator
    Next Story