AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.Ilangovan, J
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the continious trouble has been made by the fourth respondent and estwhile employee of the petitioner, over which, they made a trouble. Because of that he could not continue the bhadham milk shop, so he made a representation, but that was not considered and he moved by filing Crl.O.P(MD) No.3188 of 2023, seeking necessary action namely Police protection, that was also considered by this Court and direction was issued to the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose the same on its own merits.
Now this petition has been filed stating that there was a direction to the third respondent to register the FIR against the fourth respondent, that was complied by the third respondent.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the earlier representation that was made by the petitioner was enquired. During the course of enquiry, it was found that it is the issue between the partners and later difference of opinion arose between them, the petitioner retired from the partnership and Rs.75,000/- was also paid. Later he entered partnership with one Murugan. The enquiry was closed, advising the parties to workout their remedy through civil process.
It was a simple issue between the petitioner and the ex-employee. By suppressing many facts, this petition has been filed.
Since continious trouble exist between the parties, issue notice to the fourth respodent returnable by 18.07.2023 to resolve the issue by referring the matter to Mediation Centre. Private notice is also permitted.
Post on 18.07.2023.