HC records displeasure over Blr Special court observations

Madras High Court today recorded its displeasure over observations of the Special court in Bangalore trying the disproportionate assets case against Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, saying it has not shown due respect to the High Court's observations.
Disposing of a petition by Lex Properties Developers (P) Limited, a third party in the case, whose properties were attached by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption here, Justice A Arumugaswamy said generally the special court was not bound by the observation he had made in the earlier order.
But that order has persuasive value before it since the petition was filed in pursuance of observations by HC here, which was transmitted to the special court. The Special Court at Bangalore had an occasion to try the case, he said.

Therefore, the Special Court could not simply ignore this Court's observations, whether subordinate to the particular High Court or not. "If there is any observation made by the High Court, it should be considered while decision making."
As per Supreme Court orders, the case was transferred to Bangalore for trial by a Special Judge and all records sent in Dec 2011. The petitioner filed an application there, seeking a direction to raise the attachment against the properties, for which an Interim Application filed by them is pending.
It referred to the Madras High Court order, which observed that the application has to be decided at the first instance.

But the Special Court dismissed the application on March 14 this year with costs of Rs 10,000, saying there was no such observation by the HC to decide the Interim Application.

The company then filed a petition in Madras High Court seeking a clarification of its December 14, 2011 order.
The judge today said that under the guise of clarification he does not want to sit over the Special Court order. The firm had filed the Interlocutory Application to raise attachment only in pursuance of the observation he made that day,he said.
The judge noted he had observed in more than one place that day that the company could file an application before the Special Court to raise the attachment and if it was being done, that Court shall dispose it of at the first instance before taking the main case towards its finality.

He said the Special Judge however had not considered the request to dispose the petition for raising attachment at the first instance and had dismissed the petition with costs.
Recording dissatisfaction at the way in which the special court dismissed the petition and failed to give due respect to the HC observations, he said "It is expected from the Judicial Forum which maintains Judicial discipline and decorum."
He directed the company to work out its remedy before Karnataka High Court on the order passed by the Special Court, imposing cost on it for filing the application.