Chennai, March 16: The Madras High Court has stated that disputes between a father and son within the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) cannot be the basis for deciding any case. The court emphasized that it can only investigate the matter in the context of the political party.
The issue arose when PMK founder S. Ramadoss filed a lawsuit in Chennai’s civil court to prevent his son, Anbumani Ramadoss, from using the party’s name and symbol. As the civil court did not consider the request to make him a party in the case, PMK General Secretary Vadivel Ravanan approached the Madras High Court to intervene.
During the hearings, the Madras High Court had previously issued an interim stay on the proceedings of the lawsuit filed by S. Ramadoss. Subsequently, S. Ramadoss filed a petition in the High Court to lift this interim stay.
When the petition came before Justice Tamilselvi, Vadivel Ravanan’s lawyer argued that since S. Ramadoss claimed to be the leader of PMK, he should also be made a party in the case.
During the hearing, the judge asked the lawyers of Anbumani Ramadoss and S. Ramadoss what they intended to do, considering that the election schedule had already been announced. The judge further remarked that disputes between a father and son can always be resolved, and therefore, the case cannot be decided based on their personal differences. The court stated that the investigation should only reference the PMK as a political party. In this context, the judge questioned whether there would be any objection to making Vadivel Ravanan a party in the case.
Anbumani Ramadoss’s lawyer also requested that another petition seeking documents related to the party from S. Ramadoss be heard the following day. Accepting the request, the judge ordered that the interim stay on the hearing of S. Ramadoss’s lawsuit would continue, and the hearing for arguments from S. Ramadoss, Anbumani Ramadoss, and Vadivel Ravanan was adjourned until the next day.