Madras High Court Rules on PMK Dispute Between Father and Son

by

Narendra Jijhontiya

Madras High Court Rules on PMK Dispute Between Father and Son

Chennai, March 16: The Madras High Court has stated that disputes between a father and son within the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) cannot be resolved based solely on their familial conflict. The court emphasized that any investigation into the matter should be conducted strictly in the context of the political party.

The founder of PMK, S. Ramadas, filed a lawsuit in Chennai’s civil court to prevent Ambumani Ramadas from using the party’s name and symbol. The civil court did not consider the request to involve him as a party in the case. Consequently, PMK’s General Secretary, Vadivel Ravanan, approached the Madras High Court to participate in the proceedings.

During the hearing, the Madras High Court imposed a temporary stay on the civil court’s proceedings initiated by S. Ramadas. Following this, S. Ramadas filed a petition in the High Court to lift the interim stay.

When the petition was presented before Justice Tamilselvi, Vadivel Ravanan’s lawyer argued that since S. Ramadas claimed to be the leader of PMK, he should also be included as a party in the case.

During the proceedings, the judge inquired of the lawyers representing Ambumani Ramadas and S. Ramadas about their intentions, especially since the election schedule had already been announced.

The judge further stated that disputes between a father and son can always be resolved, indicating that the case should not be decided based on their personal differences. The court clarified that the investigation should only reference PMK as a political party. In this regard, the judge questioned whether there would be any objections to including Vadivel Ravanan as a party in the case.

Ambumani Ramadas’s lawyer also requested that a separate petition seeking documents related to the party from S. Ramadas be heard the following day. Accepting the request, the judge ordered that the interim stay on the proceedings initiated by S. Ramadas would continue, and the hearing for the arguments of S. Ramadas, Ambumani Ramadas, and Vadivel Ravanan was adjourned until the next day.

Leave a Comment

BREAKING NEWS: