'Refund Excess Ticket Charges Or Face Action': Madras High Court Warns Cinema Halls
The theatre owners cannot fleece the movie goers by collecting excess amount from them, court said.
Against cinema theatre owners flouting government-fixed ticket rates, the Madras High Court has directed Tamil Nadu authorities to take prompt action against such violators and ensure refund of excess amounts charged from moviegoers.
The order came in a writ petition filed by G Devarajan, who alleged that several cinema theatres across Tamil Nadu were collecting more than the permitted price for tickets, especially during the first four days after a new movie's release. He pointed out that films like 'Vivegam" had seen inflated pricing, in clear violation of government norms.
The petitioner had urged the court to issue a writ of mandamus directing state officials—including Tahsildars, Collectors, and officials from the Commercial Tax and Home Departments—to crack down on this 'cheating practice" and ensure that the overcharged amounts were returned to the public.
During the hearing, the state's Additional Government Pleader informed the bench that a dedicated monitoring committee was already in place. This committee regularly inspects theatres, monitors compliance, and recommends action wherever overcharging is detected.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh, however, emphasised that merely forming a committee was not enough. Observing that such violations often occur during the high-demand phase immediately after a film's release, he directed that the committee take active steps whenever complaints are received. The court said that if a theatre is found collecting more than the approved rates, it must not only face appropriate action but also refund the excess collected.
'When the Government has fixed a rate which is revised from time to time, the theatre owners cannot fleece the moviegoers by collecting excess amount," the court stated, while adding that the committee must respond promptly to complaints and enforce the rules strictly.
Justice Venkatesh concluded the proceedings by disposing of the petition but with clear directions for future monitoring. He stated that no costs were being awarded in the case and closed the connected miscellaneous petition as well.
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Cash loan of over Rs 20,000 not a ‘legally enforceable debt', rules Kerala HC
Kochi: High court has held that a cash loan exceeding Rs 20,000 does not constitute a 'legally enforceable debt' since such transactions are prohibited under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, if a cheque issued for the repayment of such an illegal loan is dishonoured, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not be attracted. Justice P V Kunhikrishnan delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by P C Hari of Pathanamthitta, challenging his conviction and sentence in a financial cheating case. The allegation against Hari was that he had borrowed Rs 9 lakh in cash from Shine Varghese of Pathanamthitta, and that the cheque issued by him in discharge of the said amount had been dishonoured. The trial court found Hari guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment along with a direction to pay Rs 9 lakh as compensation. An appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the additional district and sessions judge, Pathanamthitta, prompting Hari to move HC. In his appeal, Hari argued that the transaction, as admitted by the complainant, was in cash. He relied on Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that any loan or deposit above Rs 20,000 must be made through an account transfer, cheque or demand draft. It was further submitted that the complainant had not paid income tax on the alleged loan amount. In such circumstances, Hari contended, the transaction itself was illegal, and a debt arising out of an illegal transaction could not be treated as legally enforceable. The court focused on the question of whether a cash loan above Rs 20,000 could be considered a 'legally enforceable debt.' Referring to prior judicial precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court, the bench held that the disputed amount could not be treated as such. Consequently, HC set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant. Additionally, HC observed that the trial court had erred in treating the cash loan as a legally enforceable debt. It cautioned that if courts begin to regularise such transactions, it would encourage illegal monetary dealings among citizens and potentially enable the conversion of black money into white through the machinery of criminal courts. The bench further noted that when the Govt of India is actively promoting a shift towards complete digital transactions, courts cannot turn a blind eye and effectively validate substantial cash dealings by recognising them as legally enforceable under law.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court orders notices to DVAC, Senthilbalaji on AIADMK advocate's plea to register FIR in alleged transformer procurement scam
The Madras High Court on Friday ordered notices to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) and former Electricity Minister V. Senthilbalaji in a new case seeking a probe into an alleged transformer procurement scam during his tenure. Justice P. Velmurugan recorded the submission of Advocate General P.S. Raman that he would be appearing on behalf of the DVAC and permitted senior counsel R. John Sathyan, representing the petitioner E. Saravanan of AIADMK advocates wing, to take private notice too, returnable by four weeks, to the former Minister. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that there had been a massive scam in procurement of electric transformers in the State between 2021 and 2023. He claimed that the entire process was carried out in violation of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act of 1998 and in collusion with the bidders. The petitioner claimed that the amounts quoted by the bidders clearly revealed cartelization. Yet, the government officials involved in the tender process had blindly accepted the tenders. The irregularities had led to monetary loss to the tune of ₹397 crore to the public exchequer, the petitioner complained. Stating that he had lodged a detailed complaint with the DVAC in May 2025, the petitioner said, the investigating agency had issued an acknowledgement but did not take any further action. He said the sleuths had not even bothered to summon him for an inquiry regarding the complaint. The petitioner urged the court to issue a direction to the DVAC to register a First Information Report based on his complaint and constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe into the issue. The A-G told the court that a similar plea filed by anti-corruption organisation Arappor Iyakkam is already pending in the High Court.
United News of India
4 hours ago
- United News of India
SC sends ‘Udaipur Files' movie release challenge to High Court, refuses to extend stay
New Delhi, July 25 (UNI) The Supreme Court today relegated to the Delhi High Court the petitions challenging the Central Government's order allowing the release of the movie 'Udaipur Files' subject to six further cuts, while refusing to extend the stay on the film's release. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said it would pass an order requesting the High Court to consider the challenge to the revisional authority's order on Monday itself. The Court recorded that the producer's petition before it was withdrawn, while the accused's petition was closed with liberty to pursue the matter before the High Court. Clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on merits, the Bench told petitioners to approach the High Court. Justice Surya Kant remarked, 'Please don't waste time here. Go to the High Court.' Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, urged the Court to restrain the film's release till the High Court considered their plea. However, Justice Kant refused to pass any interim order, stating, 'Meanwhile, nothing.' Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, for the producers, argued that petitioners before the High Court could not seek interim relief from the Supreme Court, particularly when the producers wanted to withdraw their petition. Referring to a similar matter involving the movie 'The Kerala Story', he said, 'I have lost twelve days already.' Justice Kant, on a lighter note, replied, 'Don't think you were in losses in these 12 days,' noting the publicity generated by the litigation. A counsel for an intervenor submitted that the petitioners' concerns were imaginary, citing no adverse consequence from earlier films like ' the Kashmir Files' and the 'Kerala Story'. He criticised the 'hyper sensitivity syndrome' of petitioners seeking to act as a 'super censor.' Bhatia added that any interim order now would cause further damage to the producers. Sibal, in response, argued that the present case was different as the petitioner had watched the film and was challenging its content, also citing the Supreme Court's hate speech judgment in Amish Devgan v. Union of India. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Wednesbury principle would apply when an expert body had taken a decision. (The Wednesbury principle establishes a standard for judicial review where courts can overturn decisions made by public bodies if those decisions are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made them.) Ultimately, the Bench directed that the High Court hear the matter on Monday, reiterating that it had not expressed any view on the merits. Yesterday (July 24), the Court indicated it may remit the matter to the Delhi High Court for interim relief. During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant remarked, 'It is the right of the society to watch or not watch a movie,' and stressed that judicial officers must decide cases based strictly on evidence. Commenting on public perception, he said, 'The judiciary should remain unaffected by all this nonsense… Most of us don't read newspapers in the morning. We don't care about it.' On July 21, the Centre informed the Court it had ordered six changes to the movie. Earlier, on July 10, the Delhi High Court stayed the release of 'Udaipur Files' pending decision on pleas seeking a permanent ban over concerns of promoting disharmony. UNI SNG RN
