'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
Room for reform: HC commutes death sentences of 2 convicts to life terms
1 2 Kolkata: There was a possibility of reform, the Calcutta High Court said on Wednesday while commuting the death sentences of two men. The men, who were convicted of rape and murder of a five-year-old child in 2021, was sentenced to life sentence without remission for 60 years, considering the depravity of the crime. The Jhargram court had convicted the accused in 2023. The two—Fagun Mandi and Rabindra Routh— had kidnapped the child, subjected her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault and strangled her to death before hiding her body. A witness claimed the girl and the convicts had come to his shop around the same time, while some others said they had seen them go to a field, where the girl's body was recovered on Nov 7, 2021. You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata The division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi said the prosecution had proved their case beyond doubt. "The appellants' conducts demonstrate a quality of depravity that shocks the conscience. A balance has to be struck between the gravity of the offence and the quantum of punishment," said the HC, affirming the Jhargram court's conviction. But citing SC judgments, the HC said the "socio economic backwardness and the conduct of the convict post custody and criminal antecedent if any of the convict should be taken into consideration while determining the quantum of sentence". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The state said on June 9 that Mandi was a slow learner with severe speech problems. He and his brother worked together on a fishing trawler at sea. The report said Mandi's rectification process was going on well at the correctional home. The report stated Routh was also a slow learner and had dropped out of school after class I. Depressed, he was undergoing psychiatric treatment and his family had claimed ailments, said the state report, pointing out Routh's behaviour at the correctional home was reported to be good. The state said families were socially backward and neither had criminal antecedents. "Considering the appellants' background, mental health status and the nature of the crime, we deem it appropriate to impose life sentence on them without a remission for 60 years," the HC held.
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
‘Child's Welfare Overrides Personal Law': Bombay High Court Grants Custody Of 9-Yr-Old To Mother
The HC prioritised the best interests of the boy over Muslim personal law, granting custody to his mother and reinforcing a child-centric interpretation of guardianship statutes In a significant judgment on July 21, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench reaffirmed the primacy of a child's welfare in custody battles, holding that personal laws cannot override the principle of best interest. The case involved a nine-year-old boy whose custody was earlier granted to his father by a family court in Nilanga, Latur, on the grounds that under Muslim personal law, custody of a male child after the age of seven lies with the father. The mother challenged this order, contending that the decision was neither in the child's emotional interest nor supported by material circumstances. Justice Shailesh P Brahme, deciding the appeal, observed that while personal laws offer general guidance on guardianship, the statutory mandate under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, requires that the welfare of the child be treated as paramount. The court held that the father's legal entitlement under Muslim personal law could not be the sole deciding factor, particularly when the child had clearly expressed his desire to continue living with his mother, with whom he had developed a strong emotional bond over the years. A significant factor in the High Court's reasoning was the personal interaction between the judge and the child, who was nearly ten years old at the time. The judge recorded that the child was intelligent, emotionally aware, and had clearly communicated his wish to remain with his mother. The boy reportedly described his father and paternal relatives as strangers, showing discomfort and unfamiliarity with them. The court emphasised that the child's preference, especially at this age, deserved considerable weight in a guardianship proceeding. Further, the court noted that the mother ran a small business and had been consistently supporting the child financially and emotionally. In contrast, the father had failed to establish a reliable income or the presence of a supportive caregiving structure at his residence. The absence of a female guardian in the father's household was also taken into account, as it could affect the child's comfort and care. Though the mother had previously not complied with certain interim orders of the family court, including failing to facilitate visitation on a few occasions, the High Court held that such lapses could not be treated as disqualifications when deciding the larger issue of custody. The court clarified that the welfare of the child must remain central, and should not be overshadowed by procedural defaults or used as punitive measures against either parent. The court also took a dim view of the manner in which the family court had conducted the proceedings. The appellant-mother, who was the primary caregiver, was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present her case, and the decision was largely driven by a mechanical application of religious customs rather than a holistic evaluation of the child's needs. Moreover, the father was unable to produce concrete evidence of neglect or harm while the child was in the mother's custody. Referring to precedents such as Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal and Gayatri Bajaj v Jiten Bhalla, the court reiterated that custody disputes must not be settled solely on the basis of legal rights of parents under personal law but must take into account the child's mental, emotional, and developmental needs. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the family court's order and restored the custody of the child to the mother. It granted the father structured visitation rights, including a week during long school vacations and one day a month for supervised meetings. The court directed that all such visits be conducted in a manner that does not disturb the child's schooling, mental peace, or daily routine. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Bombay High Court child custody muslim personal law view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
HC slams officials of Directorate General of GST Intelligence over illegal detention, dodgy surveillance
Chandigarh: Virtually reprimanding the officials of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), the Punjab and Haryana high court found prima facie evidence that officials illegally detained a person overnight in violation of his constitutional rights. The court expressed serious concern over procedural lapses, obstruction of a court-appointed warrant officer, and the apparent disregard for fundamental liberties in a high-profile GST investigation. In its detailed order, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that DGGI's actions were legally questionable and constitutionally untenable. The prolonged stay was deemed coercive, especially as the detainee was not free to leave, and his family had to approach the court for his release. Further rejecting the DGGI's claim that CCTV cameras were non-functional due to construction, the court noted that the explanation about faulty CCTVs appeared deliberate and evasive, as all the electronic and digital resources of the zonal office, including the E-office portal, were fully functional. The observations from the HC were made in the wake of a habeas corpus petition filed by Barkha Bansal, seeking the release of her husband Bharat Lal Garg, whom she alleged was unlawfully detained by DGGI officials starting June 4. "It is apparent that while DGGI officials put the detainee under restraint at 5:46 pm on June 5, they did not show any urgency in supplying the grounds of arrest to him. As such, the subsequent process of arrest and remand stands vitiated. Moreover, the DGGI officials also failed to supply the detainee with the 'reasons to believe' that he committed an offence under the CGST Act, necessitating his arrest. Such conduct is in clear violation of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in different cases and would therefore render the arrest of the detainee illegal and non est in the eyes of the law," the HC observed. The matter has now been fixed for July 30 for further consideration of the issue revolving around the obstruction caused to the warrant officer appointed by the HC, as well as for the release of the detainee in question. "The Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Chandigarh zonal unit, is directed to file an affidavit showing complete compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a 2021 case titled Paramvir Singh Saini versus Baljit Singh regarding operational CCTV cameras during interrogation and also to deliberate therein why the directions issued by this court on July 2 regarding the production of records have not been complied with," the HC observed in its order released on Wednesday. In this case, the HC on June 5 appointed a warrant officer to inspect the DRI office located in the Central Revenue Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. The warrant officer, accompanied by local police, recovered the detainee from the premises of an IRS officer, where he was allegedly being held under guard by a departmental peon. Later, on July 2, the ADG (GST) was directed to file an affidavit naming all officials present during the incident and disclosing the status of CCTV installations, in line with the guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court. Illegal Custody "The court does not find any justifiable reasons to condone keeping the detainee in the zonal office for over 30 hours. Curiously, a prima facie cognisable offence was yet to be made out against the detainee, and in spite of that, he was kept in the zonal office overnight and subjected to prolonged interrogation," said Justice Harpreet Singh Brar.
