HC expresses displeasure over special court order on wealth case

Chennai:

Madras High Court expressed its displeasure over an order of the special court hearing the wealth case against Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa and said Bangalore court had not shown ‘due respect’ to the observations of the High Court.

Expressing his displeasure while referring to the March 14 order of the special court dismissing a petition filed by a Chennai-based company Lex developers and imposition of Rs 10,000 cost on it, Justice A Arumughaswamy said, “It gives an impression that the special court has not shown due respect to the observations, as is expected from a judicial forum which maintains judicial discipline and decorum.”

The special court had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the company stating no such observation was made by Madras High Court. “If the position is being so, it is incorrect on the part of special court to say that no such observation was made by the court,” the judge said.

The disproportionate wealth case, which was registered against Jayalalithaa in 1996, was being heard at a special court in Chennai. It was, however, transferred to a special court Bangalore by Supreme Court order on November 18, 2011, on a petition filed by DMK general secretary K Anbazhagan.

Among the assets attached or seized by the prosecution were the properties of Lex which had been attached by police. When Lex moved the high court for appropriate orders, the court in 2011 directed it to approach the special court in Bangalore. The court also made it clear that if such a petition was filed, the special court would dispose of the matter “at first instance, before taking the main case towards its finality.”

On March 14, the special court dismissed Lex’s petition with Rs 10,000 cost. Aggrieved, the company came back to the Madras High Court seeking certain clarifications to its order.

Justice Arumughaswamy said the company must work out its remedy before the High Court of Karnataka. He, however, observed that, “The special court in Bangalore is, of course, not bound by the observations made by me in the earlier order. But, at the same time, the earlier order of this court certainly will have a persuasive value before the special court since the petition was filed only in pursuance of the observations made by the court. The special court cannot simply ignore the observations made by this court,” he said.

“Judicial discipline and decorum requires that a subordinate court, whether subordinate to the particular or not, if there is any observation by such High Court should be considered  while decision making,” the judge said.

He also said the petitioner is entitled to file clarification application before the court against the order passed by this court.