High Court allows govt to retain keys of Jayalalithaa residence The bench, admitting the appeal, ordered an interim stay on the earlier direction of handing over the premises’ keys to the High Court registry.

STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

High Court allows govt to retain keys of Jayalalithaa residence

The bench, admitting the appeal, ordered an interim stay on the earlier direction of handing over the premises’ keys to the High Court registry.

Published: 30th January 2021 04:56 AM  |   Last Updated: 30th January 2021 04:56 AM  |  A+A-

A four-year-old file picture of former CM J Jayalalithaa’s residence Veda Nilayam

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: A day after the Tamil Nadu government moved an appeal in the Madras High Court challenging a single-judge interim order, the court permitted the State to retain keys of Veda Nilayam, former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s residence. The bench, admitting the appeal, ordered an interim stay on the earlier direction of handing over the premises’ keys to the High Court registry.

The issue pertains to the State government moving an appeal on Wednesday at the High Court challenging the interim directions made by a single judge, in the petitions moved by Deepak and Deepa, legal heirs of the late AIADMK supremo, seeking a stay on the inauguration of the memorial.

The single judge, in his order, had observed: “Once the function is over, the District Collector or an official who has the custody of the keys of the premises shall hand over the same to the registrar general of this court, since the valuable movables of Jayalalithaa to which the petitioners are now heirs, must be valued.”

Advertisement

 

During Friday’s hearing before the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, Advocate General Vijay Narayan submitted that the possession of the building and the property was with the District Collector of Chennai.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

However, the petitioners’ counsel stated that the entire proceedings in acquiring Veda Nilayam had taken place without their notice, to which the State contended that prior notices were sent to them during every proceeding. The properties were acquired in accordance with the law after providing due compensation, the State added. Clarifying that the remainder of the order was not interfered with at this stage, the court adjourned cas

You may also like...