Act against cinema theatres fleecing moviegoers, Madras High Court orders T.N. government
The Madras High Court, on Monday (June 9, 2025), directed the Tamil Nadu government to initiate appropriate action against cinema theatres which charge over and above the rates fixed by the State government.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh issued the direction while disposing of a writ petition filed by G. Devarajan of Chennai in 2017 accusing cinema theatres of fleecing the audience during the first four days of the release of new movies.
With specific reference to the excess charges allegedly collected by certain theatres during the release of Ajith Kumar-starrer Vivegam that year, the petitioner had also sought a direction to refund the excess charges to the cinema goers.
When the case was listed for final hearing now, an Additional Government Pleader brought it to the notice of the court that the government had already constituted committees to keep a check over the sale of tickets at cinema theatres.
After recording his submission, the judge wrote: 'When the government has fixed rates, the theatre owners cannot fleece the moviegoers by collecting excess amount. Whenever such practices are reported, the committees must immediately act upon them,'
During the course of hearing of the case, the judge also cautioned that the cinema theatres may not survive for long in view of the increased patronage being received by the Over the Top (OTT) media service platform.
'These days, most people, including the judge sitting before you, prefer to watch movies on OTT using home theatres. Now, we have the convenience of getting even popcorn delivered at home. Therefore, theatre owners must give a thought to it,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
‘Serious threat to public health': Telangana HC upholds preventive detention of bootlegger
HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court upheld the state govt's decision to detain a habitual bootlegger under the PD Act, observing that the manufacture and sale of illicitly distilled liquor can have irreversible and dangerous consequences for society. A division bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao made these remarks while dismissing a petition filed by a Warangal woman challenging her husband's preventive detention. The bench said that the man's repeated involvement in bootlegging posed a serious threat to public health and safety, thereby warranting detention under section 2(A) of the PD Act, 1986. "His actions endangered the health of the public and created a sense of fear and insecurity," the court said in its judgment. The court further observed that the sale of spurious liquor goes beyond mere law and order concerns and directly undermines public health and societal stability. In arriving at its decision, the bench cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Pesala Nookaraju versus govt of AP (2023), which upheld preventive detention in similar cases involving habitual bootleggers.
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
Court order seeking FIR in EDC land fraud matter stayed
Panaji: The high court of Bombay at Goa stayed the order of a North Goa court directing the anti-corruption branch (ACB) of the directorate of vigilance to register a first information report (FIR) in connection with allegations of fraud related to land allotment at EDC, Patto. Initially, the trial court had directed the CBI to register the FIR but later assigned the task to the ACB. S Karpe, additional public prosecutor said that the order passed by the sessions court judge at Panaji in the criminal case did not take into consideration the consent as contemplated under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018. According to the counsel, there was no reason given by the trial court for arriving at the conclusion that the FIR needs to be registered within 24 hours in accordance with the complaint. Subsequently, an application was filed for an extension of time, which was granted by the sessions court on June 19, extending the same by 48 hours. 'Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on July 11, 2025. Notice be issued by all the available modes of service. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the order dated June 9, 2025, shall be stayed till the next date,' Justice Nivedita Mehta observed. Activists had moved the court alleging that govt property was allotted to EDC to house certain offices, but they allegedly leased and sold land without obtaining permission from the govt, causing a loss of Rs 300 crore to the state exchequer. Even if permission was obtained, they ought to have deposited 50% of the amount with the govt or the EDC, which has not been done, the activists had alleged. 'In the present case, the FIR ought to have been registered. There is nothing exceptional in the present case that warrants a delay in the registration of an FIR on the ground of a preliminary inquiry. Even if there were exceptional circumstances in the case, any preliminary inquiry could not have, under any circumstances, exceeded two days,' the sessions court Judge Irshad Agha had stated. 'In the present case, the FIR ought to have been registered and a preliminary inquiry ought to have been carried out by the investigating agency. However, there is enough material to directly register the FIR,' the judge had said.
NDTV
12 hours ago
- NDTV
Cops Can't Barge Into History Sheeters' Homes For 'Surveillance': Court
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has held that the police have no right to knock on the doors of suspected persons or history sheeters or "barge" into their homes at night under the guise of surveillance. The ruling by Justice V G Arun came on a plea by a man accused of threatening police officers from discharging their duties when they asked him to come out of his home late at night as part of night check on rowdy history sheeters. Allowing the plea, the court quashed the FIR against the man and all further proceedings in connection with it, saying that "under the guise of surveillance, the police cannot knock on the doors or barge into the houses of history sheeters". The court said that police officers should understand that the concept of home "transcends its physical manifestation as a dwelling and encompasses a rich tapestry of existential, emotional and social dimensions". "In other words, every man's house is his castle or temple, the sanctity of which cannot be vilified by knocking on the door at odd hours. A person's right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity and dignity is non-negotiable," it said. The court further said that under the Kerala Police Manual only 'informal watching' of history sheeters and 'close watch' over those leading criminal existence were permitted. "Undoubtedly, neither of those expressions permit domicile visits at night," it added. It also pointed out that under section 39 of the Kerala Police Act all persons are bound to comply with the 'lawful directions' of a police officer for discharge of his functions. "Knocking on the doors of a history sheeter at midnight and demanding him to come out of the house cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as a lawful direction," the court said. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence of threatening a police officer to obstruct him from discharging his duties under the Kerala Police Act for refusing to abide by the direction to come out of the house at night, the court added. "If, as alleged, the petitioner had used derogatory language or threatened the police during the course of such refusal, his action may invite some other offence, but definitely not the offence he is presently charged with," it said. The petitioner had claimed that he was implicated in the case to divert the enquiry ordered by the High Court into his complaint alleging police harassment. The police had claimed that as part of their night check duty on rowdy history sheeters, officers had gone to ascertain if the petitioner was at home. However, when he was asked to open the door of his home, he refused to do so and also abused and intimidated the officer, it had alleged.
