Case Law Details
C. Joseph Vijay Vs State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)
HC held that it is difficult to suggest that the petitioner had acted with malafide and with deliberate intention and thus, the observation made by the learned single Judge, apart from being unwarranted, are irrelevant to decide the issue. The order of the writ Court also overlooks the fact that the view/stand taken by the petitioner, insofar as the leviability of entry tax on imported vehicles is the view taken by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court and also the Judgment of the Madras High Court and the matter was finally resolved by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after the Constitutional Bench of Nine Judges pronounced on the scope of Part XIII of the Constitution. The above sequence of litigation will clearly demonstrate that the appellant cannot be imputed with motive whatsoever and therefore, the disparaging remarks are clearly unwarranted.
To Read the Scathing’ Remarks Against Actor Vijay made by single judge bench in paras 3,4,7,8, 11 and 12 of the original order please read following Post- Actor Vijay slammed by HC for hesitancy in payment of Entry Tax on Imported Car
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The charm and dignity of a judge get enhanced by sobriety restrain grace and concern for the cause of justice – EGO (Edging God Out).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
