Madras High Court may modify order preventing TNSTC buses from crossing four toll plazas in south Tamil Nadu
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh accepted a request made by Additional Advocate General (AAG) J. Ravindran for an early hearing of the matter and directed the High Court Registry to list it on Thursday morning. The AAG assured the court that he would take up the issue with the State transport department and come up with a solution for settling the arrears that had mounted over the years.
The judge had on Tuesday (July 8) ordered that TNSTC buses should not be allowed to ply through the toll plazas at Kappalur, Etturavattam, Salaipudhur, and Nanguneri from July 10, 2025, and directed the Director General of Police/Head of Police Force as well as the Inspector General of Police (south zone) to deploy adequate police force at the four toll plazas to prevent any untoward incident0s.
The judge said, he had no choice but to take the extreme step of preventing public transportation through the toll plazas since the arrear amount was continuing to increase due to levy penalty and interest. He also stated that the transport department may not come to the negotiating table and find a solution to the issue unless some shocking order was passed against it.
The interim order was passed on a batch of writ petitions filed by Madurai-Kanniyakumari Tollway Private Limited, Kanniyakumari-Etturavattam Tollway Private Limited, Salaipudur-Madurai Tollway Private Limited, and Nanguneri-Kanniyakumari Tollway Private Limited, accusing TNSTC buses of failing to settle toll charges and not installing Fastag on the vehicles.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
3 hours ago
- India Today
Denotes lack of trust: Top court allows secret call recordings in divorce cases
The Supreme Court on Monday overturned the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling that had barred a husband from using secretly recorded phone calls of his wife as evidence in divorce proceedings, according to a report by Live Law. The High Court had earlier held that recording a wife's telephonic conversations without her knowledge amounted to a "clear breach" of her fundamental right to the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them," a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma top court held that such secretly recorded conversations are, in fact, admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes. It also reasoned that the spousal privilege granted under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be absolute when read alongside the exception built into the same provision. "We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. In fact, Section 122 of Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all," the Supreme Court said. - Ends
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Madras HC restrains temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan from making defamatory remarks against Vedic scholar Dushyanth Sridhar
The Madras High Court has restrained temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan, of Srirangam in Tiruchi district, from making defamatory statements aimed at maligning Vedic scholar and orator Dushyanth Sridhar's reputation in any manner on social media, particualrly X and YouTube. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted the interim injunction until the disposal of a defamation suit filed by the orator early this year seeking damages to the tune of ₹1 crore from the activist for having already allegedly made several abusive and derogatory remarks against him on social media. The orator had filed the suit in February along with an application seeking the leave of the court to institute the case in Chennai despite him being a resident of Bengaluru and the defendant being a resident of Srirangam. He claimed many of his followers were in Chennai and therefore, a part of cause of action had arisen here. Senior counsel Satish Parasaran relied upon a 2011 judgment of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom in Turner versus Grovit and a 2022 judgment of the High Court of Australia in Dow Jones and Co Inc versus Gutnick to contend that his client was entitled to choose a forum of his convenience. Accepting his submissions, Justice Babu had allowed the application to grant leave on June 23, 2025, and directed the High Court Registry to number the suit. Subsequently, he took up the plea for grant of interim injunction, until the disposal of the suit, and gave four weeks' time for the activist to file a reply. The judge said, even during the arguments on the application to grant leave to file the suit, the activist had admitted to have made certain statements against the orator on social media but his defence was that those statements were neither defamatory nor derogatory. 'This court, on going through the statements made by the respondent, prima facie finds that such statements are defamatory in nature. Hence, there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for,' the judge ordered. Advocate Rahul Balaji, representing Mr. Sridhar, said, the activist was in the habit of making objectionable statements against every other person on social media. He produced screenshots of statements made against a senior counsel in order to dissuade him from appearing for the orator. On being convinced that the statements made against the senior counsel were disparaging, Justice Babu wrote: 'Such statements have been made challenging the learned senior counsel who had appeared for the applicant... They are in the nature of making the learned senior counsel to keep him away from appearing in the cases.' Therefore, apart from injuncting the activist from making defamatory statements against the orator, the judge also restrained him from making any kind of statements, in the future, against the lawyers appearing for the opponents in his cases.
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
'Admissible As Evidence': SC Sets Aside Ruling On Secretly Recorded Conversation Of Spouse
Last Updated: The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that termed recording a wife's phone calls without her consent a violation of privacy. The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, holding that recording a wife's telephonic conversation without her knowledge or consent amounts to a 'clear breach" of her fundamental right of privacy. The High Court had also observed that such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence before a family court. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma thus held that a secretly recorded telephonic conversation of the spouse is admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings. 'Some arguments have been made that permitting such evidence would jeopardise domestic harmony and matrimonial relationships as it would encourage snooping on the spouses, therefore, infringing the objective of section 122 of the Evidence Act." 'We don't think such an argument is tenable. If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them," the bench observed while pronouncing the judgment. The remarks by the top court came after a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision. view comments First Published: July 14, 2025, 11:12 IST 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.
