NEWS
LATEST NEWS ON OUR ORDERS AND JUDGEMENTS
January 23, 2025
Our Managing Partner, Mr. G Vijay Anand appeared for the Appellant in a matter before the Hon’ble DRAT wherein the Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal in the appellant's favour.
December 05, 2025
RECOVERY OF MONEY CANNOT BE MADE THROUGH POLICE AUTHORITIES
​
Our Managing Partner, Mr. G. Vijay Anand argued before the The Hon’ble Madras High Court, wherein the court while quashing two F.I.Rs using its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ruled as follows:
The Court scorned the usage of the police authorities for money recovery proceedings, held that it is a classic case of criminal color being given to civil proceedings which warrant the interference of the Court.
The Court further held that the filing of the F.I.R after a considerable delay of more than 4 months from the date of filing the complaint, coupled with the fact that no summons under Section 41A of CrPC was issued to the Accused clearly shows an abuse of the process of law.
​
​
November 29, 2023
MADRAS HIGH COURT SUCCINCTLY DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN FORGERY AND EDITING UNDER SECTION 465 OF IPC
November 24, 2023
HIGH COURT
QUASHES CASE
AGAINST YOHANN
DC CORRESPONDENT
CHENNAI, NOV. 23
In a case deftly argued by our junior associate, Mr. G. Nicul Anand, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against motorsport official Yohann J. Setna as it found the offences wereunsubstantiated. Yohann had filed a criminal original petition requesting the proceedings be quashed. The case revolved around allegations that Yohann, the Sporting Manager for JA Motorsport, digitally altered and forged a 60-minute video of a rally event held in Coimbatore. The complainant, Vivek Ponnusamy, a co-driveer in the rally, asserted that Yohann's actions were malicious and intended to defame him within the car rally community. In the order, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan highlighted the delay in filing the final report, which took place on October 5, 2020, after a lapse of more than seven years from the date of the FIR registration.
According to Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). the court emphasised that the prosecution should have filed the final report within three years, making the proceedings barred by limitation. The court also noted that the main driver, Samir Thapar, whose video was allegedly tampered with, was not examined by the prosecution, raising questions about the completeness of the investigation.
The court ruled that no offense under Sections 465 and 469 of the IPC was made out and consequently quashed the proceedings.