Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal

Criminal Court Lacks Jurisdiction: High Court Directs Parties to moves Civil Court for Ownership Claims Over Seized Oil

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable decision, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition filed by Menaka, directing the parties to establish their claims over seized oil in a civil court. The order came in the context of conflicting ownership claims over a large quantity of oil seized from the petitioner’s factory, with the petitioner and the second respondent, Sri Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited, asserting different narratives about its nature and use.

Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed, “if there is any rival claim relating to the seized goods, the criminal Court has no jurisdiction to determine the rival claim and the same is to be decided in the civil Court.” This directive follows the principles laid out in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Suryanarayanan (2020 12 SCC 637).

The revision petition, Crl.R.C(MD). No.945 of 2023, sought to overturn a decision of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, which had returned the docket on a petition for interim custody of the seized oil. The petitioner, running a business named “Sarathy Krishnan,” claimed that the seized oil was non-edible and used for lamp oil, contrary to the respondent’s assertion that it was edible oil.

The court considered reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and food analysts. The FSL report suggested that the oil was non-edible, while the food analysts stated that the oil was not fit for edible purposes due to its condition at the time of testing. Based on these conflicting reports, the court declined to make a determination on the nature of the oil.

In its decision, the court directed the parties to approach a civil court to establish their claims based on the purchase vouchers they presented. Additionally, the court ordered the destruction of the 16.6 tons of seized oil and stated that the succeeding party in the civil suit would be entitled to reimbursement of the oil’s value, along with interest from the date of filing the suit.

Date of Decision: 19.01.2024

Menaka VS The State

 

Latest Legal News