Madras HC seeks reply on plea for Rs 50 lakh compensation over toddler's death in playschool sump
Petitioner T Amuthan stated that he had admitted his daughter Aarudra to a playschool in Madurai by paying nearly Rs 37,000. On April 29, his wife received a call from the school that their daughter had fallen down and was taken to a private hospital. Upon reaching the hospital, the couple came to know that their daughter had drowned in a sump which had been left open and unfenced at the school, he said.
Blaming the school authorities for gross negligence, Amuthan claimed the school lacked first-aid facilities and that the staff were not trained in handling emergencies. He also criticised the school education authorities for allegedly failing to conduct periodic inspections, as stipulated under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, and sought the above direction.
Hearing the plea, Justice S Srimathy issued notices to the school education secretary and director, Madurai collector, the school management, among others, and directed the authorities to file a counter-affidavit before the next hearing on August 22.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Tamil Nadu people are not naive to get provoked by Madurai Adheenam's ‘unnecessary' comments: Madras High Court
Are the people of Tamil Nadu so naive to get provoked by 'unnecessary' remarks made by Madurai Adheenam who had termed a minor road accident as an alleged assassination attempt against him, suspected involvement of Pakistan and claimed that the alleged assassins were wearing skull caps and sporting beards? asked Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (August 5, 2025). The judge posed the question when Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) R. Muniyapparaj vehemently opposed a petition filed by by the ascetic Harihara Gnanasambanda Desigar to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him by the cyber crime wing of the Greater Chennai City Police on the basis of a complaint lodged by R. Rajendiran, an advocate. The FIR was registered on June 24 under Sections 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause rioting), 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 353(1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief) and 353(2) (making false statements to create communal enmity) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). After watching the CCTV footage of the road accident played by the APP on a tablet, the judge was convinced that it was the Adheenam's car which had been driven rashly when he travelled from Madurai to Chennai on May 2. He said, a major accident had been averted because of the sagacity of the other car driver who had pulled the brakes at the right moment. 'Merely because the occupants of the other car were Muslims, the petitioner appears to have escalated the issue. Are they not your brethren? Are they also not as much Indian as you are?' the judge asked the Adheenam's counsel Ramaswamy Meyyappan who replied that the ascetic was forced to speak only by the mediapersons at a private event in Chennai. The counsel also stated the petitioner had nowhere named any religion and the FIR itself had been registered nearly two months after the remarks were allegedly made. On the other hand, the APP claimed multiple protests were held across Tamil Nadu against the Adheenam's remarks and that cognisable offences had been clearly made out warranting registration of a FIR. The APP also stated many private complaints too had been filed against the Adheenam for his remarks. However, the judge felt the resources of the police department could be utilised better for probing serious criminal cases than cases of the present nature. He, later, granted time till August 14 for the police to file its counter affidavit to the FIR quash petition.
NDTV
23 minutes ago
- NDTV
Kochi IT Executive Accused Of Sexual Harassment After Filing Blackmail Case
A week after a top IT executive filed a complaint against his former employee and her husband for allegedly blackmailing and threatening him for a substantial sum of money, a case was registered against him on Tuesday following a counter-complaint by the woman, accusing him of sexual harassment. This fresh development comes just a week after a local court granted bail to the Kochi-based couple, only hours after they were taken into custody by the Ernakulam Central Police. The duo, identified as Krishna Raj and his wife, allegedly blackmailed and trapped Venu Gopalakrishnan -- the CEO of Litmus7, a leading IT firm based in the Infopark campus -- forcing him to transfer Rs 50,000 into their bank account. According to Gopalakrishnan's complaint, the couple even coerced him into signing two cheques of Rs 10 crore each in their names. The woman had been employed at his firm but had recently resigned. Following her resignation, the couple allegedly plotted to fabricate a false case and began threatening the businessman, demanding Rs 30 crore. They warned that if he failed to pay, she would accuse him of being in an extramarital relationship with her and of sexually assaulting her. Based on Gopalakrishnan's complaint, the couple was arrested on July 30. However, they were granted bail later the same day. The latest development came on Tuesday, when the Kochi police registered a case against Gopalakrishnan following the woman's complaint, accusing him of sexual harassment and issuing threats. In her complaint, she stated that it was only after she expressed her intention to file a complaint against Gopalakrishnan with the internal complaints committee of the IT firm that he allegedly framed them in a false honey trap case. With a case now registered against Gopalakrishnan, alongside the ongoing investigation into the couple, the two separate probe teams are reportedly considering a coordinated approach to move the investigations forward.
NDTV
24 minutes ago
- NDTV
Anil Ambani's Multi-Crore Fraud Case: What Probe Agency May Ask Him Today
Reliance Group chairman Anil Ambani is being questioned at the probe agency Enforcement Directorate's office in New Delhi today in connection with money laundering charges linked to alleged bank loan frauds worth Rs 17,000 crore. The probe agency issued the summons to Mr Ambani after three days of scouring through the records of 50 companies and interviewing over 25 people. The summons to appear before the probe agency was issued on August 1. According to sources, Mr Ambani is not allowed to have a lawyer present with him during the questioning - which will be recorded on camera. Here is the list of questions that the probe agency may be asking Mr Ambani today: Which companies took loans in the last 10 years? What was the financial condition of the companies? Were the loans used for sanctioned purposes? Did the companies furnish correct information? Were loans diverted to shell companies? Did you default on loans deliberately? Were fraud bills circulated by your companies? Did banks or any other organisation file audit reports? Were you part of any conspiracy? Did you influence people to be part of the fraud? Transactions were made with which foreign companies? Did you bribe any government official? Were funds transferred after the NSA was declared? Were funds transferred to political parties? Why was a fraudulent bank guarantee given? How were loans disbursed before approval? Why did you pay bank officials after loan disbursal? Anil Ambani and the multi-crore fraud The action against Mr Ambani pertains to alleged financial irregularities and collective loan "diversion" pegged at more than Rs 17,000 crore by his multiple group companies, including Reliance Infrastructure (R Infra). The first allegation concerns the "illegal" loan diversion of around Rs 3,000 crore, given by the Yes Bank to Mr Ambani's group companies between 2017 and 2019. The second allegation includes a similar fraud - but much larger - of over Rs 14,000 crore, allegedly committed by Reliance Communications. The investigation also flagged instances of loans being issued to companies with poor or unverified financial sources, use of common directors and addresses, lack of essential documentation, routing of funds to shell entities, and instances of 'loan evergreening'. According to sources, the initial inquiry shows some loans were approved and released on the same day the application was made, while others were transferred even before 'approval'. Following this, the probe agency launched raids on July 24 as part of the alleged bank loan fraud-linked money laundering case, apart from multiple other allegations of financial irregularities with crores of rupees by certain companies. The searches, conducted under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), were held in Delhi and Mumbai for at least three days. The first arrest in the case was made last week. Partha Sarathi Biswal, the managing director of Biswal Tradelink Pvt Ltd, was arrested on August 1 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, for submitting fake guarantees worth Rs 68.2 crore, sources said. These guarantees, they said, were arranged on behalf of Reliance Power.
