Madras High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2024 [Citations 1-142]
CITATIONS: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 to 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142 NOMINAL INDEX Ganeshkumar v The Principal Secretary to Government, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus K.M.Mammen, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 Dr R Karpagam v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Others, 2024...
CITATIONS: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 to 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
NOMINAL INDEX
Ganeshkumar v The Principal Secretary to Government, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus K.M.Mammen, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
Dr R Karpagam v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
Nagoorkani v The Commissioner and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
A Rajkumar v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
University Health Network v Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
M/s.Radha Industries Versus Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
G.Shanugam v. Tmt.P.Amudha, I.A.S, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
Annavelu v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
Rajesh Das IPS v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
BNY Mellon Technology Private Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
Murasoli Trust v National Commission For Scheduled Castes, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
S Paul Kithiyon v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
O Panneerselvam v Edappadi K Palaniswami, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
ML Ravi v Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
S Harish v Inspector of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
Apsara Reddy v Joe Micheal Praveen, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
P Gunasekaran v The Deputy Inspector General (Prison), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Dr P Perumalsamy v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
Selvam @ Selvakumar and others v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
Ouwshitha Surendran v National Medical Commission and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
Anamallais Bus Transports P Ltd verses The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
Jak Communications Private Limited Verses Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
Amala Paul v Deputy Superintendent of Police and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
VA Anand v State Information Commission and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
Dr A Paramasivan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Info Edge (India) Ltd. v Google India Ltd and Others (batch cases), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
R Jaganathan v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
M Yogamagi v The Secretary to the Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
R Raja v Government of Puducherry and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
R Sasikala Devi v The AAO/ Assistance Secretary and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
L Ganapathy v The Assistant Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
CA V Venkata Sivakumar v The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
R. Ochappan vs. Keerthana, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
C Ve. Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
State of Tamil Nadu v S Krishnaswamy, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
Marlena Ann v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
Sujithkumar @ Sonaimuthu v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Chennai Metropolitan Development, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
M/s.Tulip Nilgiris Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise (Appeals), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
Sri Guberan Steels Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
CR Balasubramanian vs. P Eswaramoorthi [Crl.O.P.No.947 of 2024], 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
A.Kaliyaperumal v. The Superintendent of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
S Paulraj v The Principal District Judge and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
D Senthilkumar v Government of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
Annadurai v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
Vikas Chudiwala v R Ravinder Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
P Prabhu v Regional Transport Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
XXXX v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
H Santhosh v The District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
Pay Perform India Private Limited v The Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
M/s.India Cements Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
Flow Link Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank v K Marimuthu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
TN Medical Laboratories Association v Principal Secretary and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
SR Sathyanarayana Rao v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
E Shakthi Murugan v District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
Madurai Mavatta Devendra Kula Velalar Uravinmurai Sangam v The Secrertary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
M/s.Supreme Paradise Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
CPF (INDIA) Private Limited Verses Addl. CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
Varun and another v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
K Annamalai v V Piyush, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
M/s.Thillai Agencies Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Gopal Vittal, Bharti Airtel Ltd v Kamatci Shankar Arumugam, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
S Gurumoorthi v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
Nithesh Chaudhari v The Special Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
Buhari @ Kichan Buhari v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
Rajesh Das v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
Abhijit Majumder v Inspector of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Tvl. Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
The Under Secretary to Govt v RK Venkatachalam and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
Siva and Others v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
Dr. Shri Harish v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
(T) CMA (PT) No.88 of 2023 (OA/14/2017/PT/CHN), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
G Bhagavath Singh v The Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
N Ilango v The Chief Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
XYZ v Kalakshetra Foundation and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
C Rasu v The Principal Secretary and Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
Tvl.Transtonelstory Afcons Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
Dharma v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The State v I Periyasamy, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
Krishapriya Foundation v The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
Union of India v The Deputy Director, UIDAI, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
S Lakshmipathy v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
The Secretary to Government and Others v Regina, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
Suthendraraja T @ Santhan v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
J Sheena v. TNPSC, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
M/s.Indralok Hotel Pvt. Ltd. versus The Greater Chennai Corporation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
Karthick v Registrar General, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
D Bright Joseph v Church of South India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
M Priya v Canara Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
V Boovalingam v Ponnamani and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
S Harikrishnan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
M/s.Sri Sasthaa Constructions Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
M/s.Saravana Selvarathnam Retails Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The State v Muneeswaran and Others, 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 102
R Manibhyarathi v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
The Director General and Others v Narender Chauhan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
Suganya Jebi Sarojini v The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
Taeyang Metal India Private Limited vs DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
The Ramco Cements Limited vs ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
A Aashifa Begum v Khader Beevi and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
M/s.Sabari Alloys & Metals India Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
R Rajamani v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Seva Bharathi TamilNadu v Surendar @ Naathikan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
J Ramesh Kumar v Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
Ankit Tiwari v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple v Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Mohammed Ashik v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan verses ACIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
Vijaykumar Versus The State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
M/s.LKS Gold House Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
A Rajasekaran v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Salem Urban Co-operative Bank limited Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS Ward), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
Gandhiyawati T Ramesh v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
Raji v Executive Magistrate and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
K Mariappan v The Government of Tamil Nadi and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
S Menaka v KSK Nepolian Socraties (batch case), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
K Nagomi v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
B Ramkumar Adityan v Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
M Kesavan v The Principal and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Government of Tamil Nadu v Dr.S.Vijay Vikraman, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
T.Senguttuvan v Ashokkumar K and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
Simon and Others v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
Srikaran V @ Murugan v The Director of Rehabilitation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
Tvl.Vardhan Infrastructure Versus The Special Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
Auro Logistics Ltd Versus The Assistant Director (SRO), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
Ezhilan v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
K Ramachandran v The District Educational Officer (Elementary Education), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
Netvantage Technologies Pvt Ltd v The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
M/s.Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
State of Tamil Nadu v MK Stalin, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
REPORTS
Case Title: Ganeshkumar v The Principal Secretary to Government
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
The Madras High Court recently issued a compendium of procedures to be followed by the Advisory Board under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act 1982, while conducting an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of Clause (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice KK Ramakrishnan made it clear that the compendium was to be strictly followed by the State Advisory Board till the State came up with a law within Article 22(7)(c) of the Constitution. Article 22(7)(c) empowers the Parliament to prescribe laws to be followed by the advisory board while considering the detention of a person.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus K.M.Mammen
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
The bench of Justice R. Mahdevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, while upholding the order passed by the single judge, held that since the penalty was reduced from 300% to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 279(1A) of Income Tax. The section deals with non-prosecution for tax offences where the penalty is reduced.
The judgement has been delivered a writ appeal filed by the tax department challenging the order of the single judge who remitted the case back to Director General Income Tax ( Investigation ) with a direction to compound the case under Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
The Madras High Court recently observed that the removal of a wife's uterus after being diagnosed with Ovarian cancer during the subsistence of marriage and subsequent inability to have a progeny will not be mental cruelty to the husband warranting dissolution of marriage.
The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji thus confirmed an order of the Family Court dismissing the Husband's plea for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of mental cruelty, desertion and suppression of material fact.
Case Title: Dr R Karpagam v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
The Madras High Court has asked the authorities to take all steps as per the existing guidelines while conducting the Masi festival in the Adhi Karuvannarayar temple located in the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve in February.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a public interest litigation filed by one Dr. R Karpagam seeking to regulate the movement of people in the tiger reserve during the festival.
Shop Cannot Be Closed Forever Merely For Keeping Banned Tobacco Products For Sale: Madras High Court
Case Title: Nagoorkani v The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
The Madras High Court recently commented that a shop could not be closed forever merely for keeping banned tobacco products for sale. The court thus directed the Food Safety and Drug Administration authorities to de-seal the shops.
Justice GR Swaminathan highlighted that the Food Safety and Standard Rules 2011 provided for sealing shops only during the inability to adhere to procedures contemplated under Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. The court thus noted that even if there was justification in initially sealing the premises, at some point it had to be de-sealed.
The court added that the shop owners had a right to carry on business as guaranteed under the Constitution. Adding that the Constitution did not give a right to trade in banned items, the court opined that the shopkeepers could still sell other products in their shops and by sealing the shop, their right to livelihood was affected.
Madras High Court Stays ED Summons To Private Contractors In Sand Mining Money Laundering Case
Case Title: A Rajkumar v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
The Madras High Court on Friday stayed the operation of summons issued to private contractors in connection with the ongoing investigations by the Enforcement Directorate in the sand mining money laundering case.
Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan granted a stay on a plea by A Rajkuamr, partner of RS Construction, Shanmugam Ramachandran, and K Rethinam. The court had previously also stayed the operation of summons issued to the District Collectors in connection with the investigation.
Case Title: University Health Network v Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
Rejecting an appeal claiming forum conveniens, the Madras High Court observed that the High Court will continue to have territorial jurisdiction, irrespective of the location of the appropriate patent office if a part of the cause of action arose within its territory.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that in the present case, the original petitioner had a patent and was conducting business in Chennai. Thus, the court rejected the appellant's argument that the rights of the parties played out in Delhi and that the Delhi High Court should have heard the matter.
Case Title: M/s.Radha Industries Versus Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court has directed the verification of certificate of origin within 30 days and in case of failure of verification within time release the seized areca nut is subject to providing a bond for 100% of the value of goods but without insisting on a bank guarantee.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that areca nuts have a limited shelf-life and the risk of contamination and deterioration of goods increases over time.
Case Title: G.Shanugam v. Tmt.P.Amudha, I.A.S
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
While issuing guidelines to the Police and the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) for permitting and holding route marches in the future, the Madras High Court commented that men in power should not attempt to prevent an individual's right of thought and expression.
Justice G Jayachandran also added that men in power should not be biased while permitting citizens to express their views and any restriction must pass the test of reasonable restriction.
Case Title: Annavelu v State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
Quashing a criminal case registered against a man for conducting a demonstration against the arrest of DMK Youth Wing Secretary, the Madras High Court observed that every person had a democratic right to raise his voice against the government demanding legal action and when such a right was exercised, it could not be said to be “unlawful” or “illegal”
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench observed,
“The petitioner along with others simply made agitation. It is a democratic right of every person to raise voice against the political or Government demanding legal action. Such a right has been exercised by the petitioner. So, that cannot be construed as 'unlawful or illegal',” the court observed.
Case Title: Rajesh Das IPS v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by former Tamil Nadu DGP Rajesh Das seeking to transfer an appeal against his conviction from the Villupuram Principal District Court to any other court.
Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the plea and observed that there was no prima facie materials to order a transfer. The court also directed the lower appellate court to complete the hearing in the appeal by January 24th, 2024 and pass orders on merit as expeditiously as possible.
The court noted that no grounds raised by Das warranted transfer of the case and in fact Das, in his own accord was trying to create an impression that there was reasonable apprehension.
Case Title: BNY Mellon Technology Private Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
While setting aside the order disposing of assessee's objection for re-opening of assessment pursuant to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and the consequent reassessment order, the Madras High Court held that there is no scope for re-opening of the assessment, since the reasons cited for same was inspired from change of opinion of the Assessing officer.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that “there is no case made out for reopening the Assessment that was completed earlier. Reopening of the Assessment was inspired from a review and a change of opinion by the subsequent officer. Such practice has been deprecated and frowned upon by the Courts” (Para 35)
Case Title: Murasoli Trust v National Commission For Scheduled Castes
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
While dismissing a petition filed by Murasoli Trust challenging a notice issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Caste, the Madras High Court called the trust's action unnecessary and uncalled for as the commission was acting within its jurisdiction.
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that the National Commission for Scheduled Caste was a constitutional body for the benefit of the socially disadvantaged group in the country. The court added that NCSC has all the powers of a civil court including the powers to summon, receiving evidence, requisitioning public records, issue commissions, and other powers stipulated under the Constitution. Thus, the court observed that the commission had only acted within its power when it received a complaint about the deprivation of the legal right of the Scheduled caste members.
Case Title: S Paul Kithiyon v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
In a plea seeking to declare the transport strike called by different trade unions in the state of Tamil Nadu as illegal and unconstitutional, the Trade Unions, on Wednesday informed the court of their willingness to call off the strike in larger public interest and given the Pongal festival.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy invoked the principle of Salus Populi Suprema Lex and observed that welfare of people was to be given utmost importance. Considering the immense hardship that the general public will have to face in the absence of an essential service like Transport, especially during Pongal, which was the largest festival in the State, the court expected the trade unions to rise to the occasion and call off the strike at least till the next conciliation proceedings.
Case Title: O Panneerselvam v Edappadi K Palaniswami
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
A Division bench of the Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an interim order of a single judge restraining former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and expelled AIADMK leader O Paneerselvam from using the party's name, flag, symbol, and letterhead.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the single judge and dismissed Panneerselvam's appeal. The court said that Paneerselvam could approach the single judge to vacate the interim injunction order.
In November last year, Justice N Satish Kumar allowed the plea for interim injunction filed by the party General Secretary Edappadi Palaniswami. Edappadi had approached the court contending that even after expulsion from the party, OPS continued to claim himself to be the coordinator of the party.
Case Title: ML Ravi v Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the election of some MPs and MLAs noting that the issue involved disputed questions of fact which could not be looked into in a writ petition.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing a plea by ML Ravi to declare the election of some MPs and MLAs as null and void and declare the acceptance of their forms as illegal.
Ravi had contended that the respondent MPs and MLAs were members of one political party but had contested the election on the symbol of another political party which was impermissible under law. He submitted that the sworn affidavit filed by these candidates was false and thus the Form B issued was illegal.
Case Title: S Harish v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
Setting aside the criminal proceedings initiated against a man, the Madras High Court recently observed that watching child pornographic videos will itself not attract offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that to attract the offences under the POCSO Act, a child or children must have been used for pornography purposes. In the present case, the court noted that accused had watched pornography videos but had not used a child or children for pornographic purposes. This, in the opinion of the court, could only be construed as a moral decay on the part of the accused person.
With respect to the charges under Section 67B of the IT Act, the accused must have published, transmitted, and created materials depicting children in sexually explicit acts or conduct. The court added that the section did not make child pornography, per se, an offence. Thus, the court noted that the Act did not cover a case where a person had merely downloaded child pornography in his electronic gadget and watched the same without doing anything more.
ALSO READ: Gen Z Grappling With Porn Addiction, Must Be Counselled Out Of It: Madras High Court
Case Title: Apsara Reddy v Joe Micheal Praveen
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court recently ordered YouTuber Joe Micheal Praveen to pay Rs 50 Lakh compensation to Apsara Reddy, a transperson, politician and journalist.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the statements made by Praveen were derogatory and nothing but humiliation to Reddy. The court noted that because of the defamatory statements, some programs in which Reddy was supposed to talk had been cancelled.
The court observed that though a person had a right to post on YouTube, he could not cross his limit and encroach upon the privacy of others. The court added that the right of publication is subject to reasonable restriction and when statements are made touching upon the character, behavior and personal life of any individual, it would have serious impact.
Case Title: P Gunasekaran v The Deputy Inspector General (Prison)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Granting leave to two convicts who were accused in an NDPS case, the Madras High Court recently observed that even prisoners who had committed heinous crimes were entitled to be treated as human beings which was a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that rules regarding ordinary leave to prisoners were meant to bring consistency while granting leave but these rules had to be mended when it came to the relationship between a mother and son. The court added that it was tyrannical to deprive a son from attending his mother's death ceremony.
Case Title: Dr P Perumalsamy v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madras High Court recently upheld an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulation 1954, bringing the Chairman and Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) under the purview of the State Vigilance Commission and Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption with effect from August 9, 2011.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the amendment did not affect the rights of the Chairman and members nor did it change the service conditions. The court observed that only an investigation agency was being provided for and thus the amendment could not be said to be arbitrary.
Case Title: Selvam @ Selvakumar and others v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
The Madras High Court recently observed that the trial courts were not following the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 2014-2016 dealing with witness examination. The court remarked that some trial judges were not following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court but were adjourning cases at the request of the counsels appearing for the accused to earn a good name at the bar.
Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to set aside an order of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai The Sessions judge had dismissed a petition filed by the petitioners to recall some witnesses.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
The Madras High Court recently observed that a husband who was not interested in living with his wife and children by not giving them any financial assistance and not including their names in the Railway Service register would be committing cruelty.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji were dealing with an appeal preferred by a wife challenging a Family Court order granting divorce to the husband on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The court however noted that none of the reasons stated by the husband were proved as per law and in fact, the wife was able to show that it was the husband who had not discharged his duties even while the wife was willing to lead a peaceful life.
Case Title: Ouwshitha Surendran v National Medical Commission and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
The Madras High Court has recently directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to grant an eligibility certificate to a Foreign Medical Graduate and register her as a Medical Practitioner if there is no other impediment. The NMC had earlier rejected the eligibility certificate on the grounds that she had not studied English as a subject.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing an appeal by the graduate, Ouwshitha Surendran, against a single-judge order holding her ineligible as per the rules. The court however noted that Ouwshitha qualified as per Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 since she had undergone all her education till her MBBS Degree in English Medium which was not less than the core course of English as prescribed by NCERT.
Case Title: Anamallais Bus Transports P Ltd verses The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
While observing that transaction pertaining to loan between two concerns wherein the liability of borrower stood reduced in the books of accounts to an extent of payment made to clear the liability of assessee appears to be in accordance with law, the Madras High Court ruled that penalty under Section 271E of Income tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied on repayment of loan in absence of cash transaction.
The High Court made it clear that the question of dealing with cash transaction does not arise and therefore penalty under Section 271E cannot be levied.
Case Title: Jak Communications Private Limited Verses Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
Remarking that there cannot be any restriction/limitation for filing application for compounding of offence contrary to Section 279(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Madras High Court quashed the order rejecting application for compounding of offences filed by the assessee and its directors on the ground that the same is filed beyond the period of 12 months as prescribed in CBDT Circular dated Sep 16, 2022.
At the same time, the High Court clarified that the limitation period in the CBDT Circular is directory, not mandatory, and thus cannot bind the assessee or the Writ Court.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Bhavninder Singh In Cheating Case By Actress Amala Paul
Case Title: Amala Paul v Deputy Superintendent of Police and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
The Madras High Court has set aside the bail granted to actress Amala Paul's ex-partner Bhavninder Singh in a cheating case filed by the actress.
Asking Bhavninder to surrender before the Investigating Agency, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the bail order had impeded the investigation as it did not impose any conditions. The court added that if the orders are passed to scuttle further investigation, the entire criminal justice system will fail and fall.
Case Title: VA Anand v State Information Commission and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court recently upheld an order of the State Information Commission directing an employer to furnish the salary information of an employee sought by his wife.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that when the matrimonial proceedings were pending between the husband and the wife, the quantum of maintenance would depend upon the husband's salary and the wife could make a rightful claim only when she knew the details of the salary.
Case Title: Dr A Paramasivan v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
The Madras High Court recently observed that though the legal principle of justice delayed is justice denied is well established, however, hasty justice is not preferred over delayed justice.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira was dealing with the plea of a man seeking transfer of the trial against him. The petitioner apprehended that his case would not be considered fairly after the trial judge refused to postpone the trial in light of the petitioner's medical condition.
The court remarked that while eliminating the delay in the disposal of criminal cases, due care needs to be taken to prevent undue speed and haste as the same would result in unfair play. The court added that the case of the defence should not be discouraged while attempting to expedite criminal trials.
Madras High Court Dismisses Appeals By Indian Startups Against Google's New Billing Policy
Case Title: Info Edge (India) Ltd. v Google India Ltd and Others (batch cases)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed the appeals preferred by 13 Indian companies challenging Google's new billing policy.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu, however, allowed an earlier interim protection against delisting to continue for 3 weeks, following which the protection would exhaust.
In August last year, a single judge had dismissed 14 petitions by Indian startups challenging the new user choice billing system by Google. The single judge had observed that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India and that the remedy available under the Competition Act is much more comprehensive than that available before a civil court. The court added that the pleas are barred by Section 61 of the Competition Act which expressly forbids civil courts from hearing any lawsuit or action that the Commission is authorized to decide.
Case Title: R Jaganathan v State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
The Madras High Court has stayed the ongoing investigation against the Vice Chancellor of Periyar University, R Jaganathan, in an alleged case of fund misappropriation.
Justice Anand Venkatesh stayed the investigation pending the disposal of a plea by Jaganathan to quash the FIR against him. The court opined that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute an offence. After considering the materials, the court also opined that the prosecution was instituted with an ulterior motive.
Case Title: M Yogamagi v The Secretary to the Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
The Madras High Court recently observed that as per a Government Order issued by the Labour and Employment Department, the family pension of a deceased employee need not be considered while assessing the income of the family while considering an application for compassionate appointment.
Justice L Victoria Gowri was hearing a plea challenging the rejection of compassionate appointment. The court also noted that as per the Government Order, when a person in the family of the deceased was employed before the death but was living separately without extending any financial assistance, the same would not come in the way of giving compassionate appointment.
Case Title: R Raja v Government of Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
The Madras High Court today held a special sitting to hear a plea challenging the half-day closure of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry on account of the Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha Ceremony to be held in Ayodhya tomorrow.
The Court disposed of the PIL upon noting the Union's submission that the hospital would remain sufficiently staffed and accept emergency cases even during the half-day closure.
A division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharata Chakravarty had assembled for a special Sunday hearing to hear a plea by the petitioner challenging a circular issued on 19th January through an Office Memorandum by the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, declaring that JIPMER Hospital in Puducherry would observe a half-day and be functional only from 2:30 pm on Monday 22nd January on account of the Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha Ceremony to be held in Ayodhya.
Case Title: R Sasikala Devi v The AAO/ Assistance Secretary and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
The Madras High Court recently directed the SBI Life Insurance Company to settle the claim amounts to the family of a man who had defaulted in paying premiums on account of hospitalization.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the default was neither intentional nor wilful and the non-payment was only because the insured was hospitalized and taking treatment and had passed away subsequently.
Case Title: L Ganapathy v The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
The Madras High Court on Monday disposed of a plea challenging the rejection of permission to live telecast the Ram Mandir inauguration programs in a private hall.
Justice Anand Venkatesh held a special sitting in the early hours of Monday to hear the matter. The court took note of the State's submission that there was no prohibition against conduct of functions, singing Bhajans, uttering Rama Nama and Annadhanams on account of the auspicious ceremony. The court however added that the same should be done responsibly to avoid any law and order problem.
The court added that care must be taken to ensure that no misinformation or wrong information was being spread and it should be understood that devotion was for bringing peace and not to disturb the equilibrium of the society.
Case Title: CA V Venkata Sivakumar v The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
While dismissing a challenge made to Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code which gives powers to the Insolvency Professional Agency (IPA) to monitor the conduct of the Insolvency professional, the Madras High Court recently observed that merely because the provision gave powers to both the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and the IPA, it would not become arbitrary or give a presumption of double jeopardy.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the conferment of powers to the IBBI and IPA by itself would not amount to conferring unbridled power as the regulation and bye-laws provided for checks and balances. Noting that there was no excessive power being granted, the court added that Section 204 was only an enabling provision and there was no constitutional infirmity in the provision.
Any Person Can File Plea U/S 125 CrPC Seeking Maintenance On Behalf Of A Minor: Madras High Court
Case Title - R. Ochappan vs. Keerthana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madras High Court has observed that Section 125 of CrPC does not prohibit any person from filing a maintenance petition on behalf of a minor.
The bench of Justice KK Ramakrishnan opined thus while holding that a married woman is not barred from filing a plea on behalf of her minor brother seeking maintenance from their father.
The Court found justification in the revision court's order to grant maintenance to the minor brother, even though only the married sister had initiated the revision against the dismissal of the maintenance claim concerning her, and no revision had been filed by the minor brother.
Case Title: C Ve. Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
Emphasising on the need for a good opposition, the Madras High Court recently observed that for a democracy to operate successfully, it is important to recognise the opposition and give it an institutional form.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that the opposition plays a major role in providing checks and balances in the functioning of the democracy and by making constructive criticisms about the policies of the ruling government, the opposition could make the government accountable to the public and make them work in accordance with the social welfare and public good.
At the same time, the court also cautioned the opposition from using harsh languages to raise criticism. The court remarked that in the name of voicing concerns, the opposition should not have a vituperative outburst as such sharp language would result in maligning the government and could be considered defamatory. The court added that when such languages was used, it would side track the issues raised.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v S Krishnaswamy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
The Madras High Court recently upheld an order granting compensation to a man who had suffered injuries during a bandh following the arrest of the then-erstwhile Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in 2001.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held the State responsible along with the political party that had called for the bandh. The court observed that the State was vicariously liable for its inaction during the situation and not taking proper care of the law-and-order situation.
The court noted that the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation had admitted that there were untoward incidents obstructing the operation of vehicles and causing damage to the vehicles on 30th June, 1st July and 2nd July 2001. The court thus opined that when the respondent authorities had already witnessed untoward incidents happening on the 30th June, they could have taken necessary precautions for the following days.
Case Title: Marlena Ann v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed DMK MLA E. Karunanithi's son and daughter-in-law to appear before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai (Special Judge for SC/ST cases). The duo have been accused of allegedly beating and verbally abusing their 18-year-old house help, belonging to the scheduled caste community. As per the latest reports, the couple have now been arrested.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that in view of the amendments made to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the court could not routinely issue directions. The court was thus not inclined to allow the couple's request to direct the lower court to consider their bail applications on the same day of their surrender.
Case Title: Sujithkumar @ Sonaimuthu v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on a man accused of allegedly committing sexual assault on his neighbour on the false promise to marry.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the victim girl to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Take Steps To Ensure Upcoming Bus Stands Are Disabled Friendly: Madras High Court To CMDA
Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Chennai Metropolitan Development
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High recently directed the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to ensure that the upcoming bus terminals in Koothambakkam, Venpakkam, Varadarajapuram and Mamallapuram are constructed by duly complying with the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea by disability rights activist Vaishnavi Jayakumar seeking directions to the CMDA to ensure that the newly constructed Kilambakkam Bus Terminus is compliant with the design and standards prescribed in the Harmonised Guidelines.
Case Title: M/s.Tulip Nilgiris Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise (Appeals)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court has held that an IGST refund claim may be made before the expiry of two years from the relevant date. The relevant date is required to be computed from the date of export of the goods concerned by any mode.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that since the refund claim pertains to exports made between July 2017 and November 2017 and the refund application was filed on January 9, 2019, it is clear that the refund application was made within two years from the relevant date.
Case Title: Sri Guberan Steels Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment order and held that the defect was not cured due to the availability of records in the custody of the central GST authority.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that a composite order of assessment was issued with regard to four defects, and the documents on record disclose that the non-availability of records, on account of such documents being in the custody of the Central GST authority, undoubtedly impacted the petitioner's ability to respond to two defects.
Case title - CR Balasubramanian vs. P Eswaramoorthi [Crl.O.P.No.947 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
The Madras High Court has directed the District Courts across the State of Tamil Nadu to not mechanically impose a condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount/cheque amount u/s.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
For context, in an appeal against conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 NI Act, the appellate court, as per Section 148 NI Act, has the power to grant suspension of sentence pending appeal with imposition of a condition for payment of a minimum 20% of compensation/fine amount as ordered by the trial court.
Case Title: A.Kaliyaperumal v. The Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
The Madras High Court has recently held that the reckoning date for calculating the limitation period under Section 469 of CrPC would be from the date of filing of the final report and not the date of registration of FIR.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that in a case emanating from the FIR, cognizance is taken by the Magistrate upon the filing of the final report. The court added that the basis of the FIR is only information received by the police authorities and not a “complaint” of which cognizance is taken.
Case Title: S Paulraj v The Principal District Judge and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash the punishment imposed on the Head Clerk of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur in connection with the missing of two plaints and pro-notes in plaints.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice R Vijayakumar held that the order of imposing a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was not in any way disproportionate to the misconduct and gross dereliction of duty committed by the Head Clerk. The court added that the Head Clerk, who was in charge of the custody of the documents had committed grave misconduct and even chose not to bring the matter to the notice of the Presiding Officer.
Palani Temple Not A Picnic Spot, Cannot Allow Entry Of Non-Hindus Beyond Flagpole: Madras High Court
Case Title: D Senthilkumar v Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
While directing the state government to install boards indicating that non-Hindus are not permitted entry into the Palani temple beyond the flag pole situated at the entrance of the temple, the Madras High Court today emphasized that temples are not covered under Article 15 of the Constitution and hence restriction of entry for non-Hindus could not be said to be improper. The court also directed the authorities to maintain the temple as per Agamas, customs and practices.
The court said temples are not tourist spots and even if one wanted to admire the architecture of the temple, entry should be restricted to the “kodimaram” or flag pole situated at the entrance of the temple.
Case Title: Annadurai v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court recently observed that the court competent to initiate confiscation proceedings and issue directions for disposal of seized materials with respect to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act is the Magistrate Court, which is the court competent to take cognisance of the offence.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus took a different view than what had been laid down by the full bench of the Madras High Court last year.
The court noted that under the Mines and Minerals Act, the Special courts were established for speedy disposal of the cases but these courts could not take cognisance of an offence without an order of committal. This was because under Section 30-C of the Act, a Special court was deemed to be a court of session and as per Section 193 CrPC, a Sessions Court was barred from directly taking cognizance.
Case Title: Vikas Chudiwala v R Ravinder Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court has referred to a division bench the question of whether the proprietor of concern would alone be considered as the drawer of a cheque when a prosecution has been initiated against the proprietary concern under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that there were two contradictory views on the same issue and thus an authoritative pronouncement was necessary. This was more so since the provision was under criminal law and had to be given a strict interpretation.
Case Title: P Prabhu v Regional Transport Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
The Madras High Court has recently observed that while exercising powers under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Regional Transport Authority cannot pre-judge the guilt of a person charged under a criminal case and seize driving licenses without filing a final report by the police.
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench was dealing with a batch of pleas seeking directions to the Regional Transport Officer to return the driving license seized by the officials following the registration of criminal cases against the petitioners.
The court noted that the authorities could initiate action under S. 19 of the MV Act only based on a report by the Police and thus, merely on the registration of an FIR, the police officer did not have any power to seize the license. The court added that of any action was to be taken, the police had to forward a report to the concerned RTA, who after being satisfied that any of the contingencies as provided in the Act exists, and after giving an opportunity to the license holder, will pass appropriate orders.
Case Title: XXXX v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court recently quashed a sexual harassment case under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The court added that since the accused person had not been identified for 3 years, continuing the proceedings would be a mockery upon womanhood and bring further embarrassment to the woman who would be put to mental agony.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also lamented that in many sexual abuse cases, not many were willing to come to court and fight against the abuse and even if a few came forward to fight, the system was not very friendly. The court added that in many cases, the victim ended up facing a double whammy by suffering sexual abuse and embarrassment in the court. The court also remarked that this was more of a punishment for the victim.
Revenue Authorities Not Empowered To Issue “No Caste, No Religion Certificate”: Madras High Court
Case Title: H Santhosh v The District Collector
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
The Madras High Court recently observed that while a person could choose not to mention his caste and religion in his documents, the revenue authorities were not empowered to issue a “No Caste No Religion Certificate”. The court observed that issuance of such a certificate will be construed as a general declaration and the Revenue Authorities could not do so in the absence of any powers conferred by the Government.
Justice SM Subramaniam added that the Tahsildars could not issue certificates at their whims and fancies and such unguided powers would lead to administrative anarchy and unconstitutionality.
While the court appreciated the man's desire to secure such a certificate, the court noted that the government did not confer any powers on the Tahsildar to issue a certificate of such nature and in the absence of such powers, the court could not issue directions while exercising its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Pay Perform India Private Limited v The Union of India and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court recently held that the Adjudicating Authority under Section 6 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial tribunal merely because the procedures followed by the authority had some “judicial colour” to it.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea challenging the constitutionality of Section 6(2), 6(3)(a)(ii), and 6(5)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.
Thus, the court observed that the adjudicating authority was an original authority exercising the administrative function under the Act. The court thus opined that the adjudicating authority was in place as a check and balance to ensure that the power was not solely exercised by the investigating officer.
Electricity Qualifies As Input For Grant Of CENVAT Credit: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.India Cements Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
The Madras High Court has held that electricity qualifies as an input for the grant of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (CCR).
The Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice R. Vijayakumar have observed that the captive power plant has been set up at substantial cost by the appellant at one of the company locations. The electricity generated has been used as 'input' only within the appellant group of companies, though at different locations. The consumption is in pari materia with the power generation, and there is no inflated claim.
The court held that the electricity generated has been wheeled through the grid, and thus the process of supply to each of the sister units is transparent and in accordance with the terms and procedures under the wheeling agreement entered into with TANGEDCO. Being related parties and units of one company, it is possible for there to be a check on the methodology adopted by the parties for the transfer of the input, the utilization of the 'input' itself, and all other relevant determinants by the department.
Case Title: Flow Link Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
The Madras High Court, while remanding the matter, held that the refund claim has to be examined and determined based on documents pertaining to the availing of ITC as well as the export of products on a zero-rated basis.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that the petitioner/assessee has made the refund claims on time and cannot be faulted for the delayed processing of claims by the department.
Case Title: Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank v K Marimuthu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
The Madras High Court recently held that the lawyers empanelled by the banks to represent them in cases do not hold a civil post and thus the laws of reservation will not be attracted during their appointment.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus set aside an order of a single judge made last year where the single judge had observed that the right to be considered for appointment was a fundamental right and had directed the banks to review their existing procedures for empanelment of lawyers.
The division bench, however, held that the relationship between the banks and the empanelled lawyers was purely professional and not that of a master and servant. The court observed that the empanelled lawyers were not covered by any service laws and their services were purely on a contractual basis. The court added that the banks had their procedures for empanelment of lawyers and providing reservation in the same would be “stretching Article 16”.
Case Title: TN Medical Laboratories Association v Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
The Madras High Court recently commented that when the State of Tamil Nadu claims to be a champion in the healthcare facilities in the country, it is expected to implement the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 scrupulously and monitor and control the clinical establishments in the country.
Justice SM Subramaniam added that health being an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution, the State is expected to ensure that quality medical services are provided in the clinical establishments across the state.
Case Title: SR Sathyanarayana Rao v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
Lamenting on the situations prevailing the State, the Madras High Court recently observed that ordinary citizens were being forced to approach court for a simple direction to government authorities to consider representations.
Justice P Velmurugan observed that the Government Officials who were expected to serve the ordinary citizens, now prioritised only people who had muscle power, money, or political power, ignoring the ordinary man. The court deprecated this attitude of the government officials.
Case Title: E Shakthi Murugan v District Collector
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
While granting relief to a man seeking police protection to remove a stone 'projected as an idol' at the entrance of his home, the Madras High Court lamented that even with the passage of time, the society was not evolving and letting go of the superstitious beliefs.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the stone covered with a green cloth was planted right in front of petitioner's property, an attempt was being made to call it as an idol and on that ground, he was not being allowed to enjoy his property.
Case Title: Madurai Mavatta Devendra Kula Velalar Uravinmurai Sangam v The Secrertary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
The Madras High Court recently junked a plea seeking to dissolve the National Commission for Scheduled Caste.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that if a person was aggrieved by any action of the Commission, they could challenge the same before the appropriate forum, and a blanket prayer for dissolving the Commission would not be in the interest of the members belonging to the scheduled caste community.
The court was hearing a plea by the Madurai Mavatta Devendra Kula velalar Uravinmurai Sangam seeking directions to the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment to dissolve the commission. It was alleged that the commission was not performing its duties in accordance with Article 338 of the Constitution.
Discount Linked To Subsidy Alone Can Form Part Of “Transaction Value”: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Supreme Paradise Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court has held that a discount linked to the subsidy alone can form part of the “transaction value.”.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that a discount by itself will not qualify as a subsidy. However, a discount offered by a distributor, a supplier, or the manufacturer to the buyer or recipient simplicitor cannot form part of the “transaction value” unless such a discount is offered on account of the subsidy for supplies by a third party.
Case Title: CPF (INDIA) Private Limited Verses Addl. CIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
While holding that the draft assessment order suffers from non-application of mind, the Madras High Court sets aside the proceedings initiated in violation of procedure prescribed as per Section 144B(1)(vii) read with (xiv) and (xvi)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that “a duty is cast on the assessing authority in terms of Section 144B(1)(xiv) of the Act to take into account all relevant material and thereafter frame the draft assessment order. The respondent has erred in not complying with the above mandatory requirement inasmuch as the draft assessment order has been made without even examining / taking into account the objections / response of the petitioner made vide letter dated 22.09.2021. Thus, the draft assessment order suffers from non-application of mind to matters that are relevant and on record, thus stands vitiated”. (Para 5)
Case Title: Varun and another v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has made it clear that the date of filing a chargesheet should be taken to be the date on which the e-filing was done and not when the papers were physically made available at court.
Justice Anand Venkatesh was dealing with a plea challenging a written endorsement of a trial court returning an application for statutory bail on the ground that the charge sheet had already been filed. The prosecution had informed the court that the final report was e-filed two days before the application for statutory bail was moved and thus the indefeasible right did not exist.
The court noted that in this digital era, one could not say that the date on which the papers were physically produced before the court would be taken to be the date of filing and such an interpretation would defeat all the efforts taken to digitise the legal proceedings.
Case Title: K Annamalai v V Piyush
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against BJP State Head K Annamalai for his remarks against a Christian Missionary NGO.
While refusing to quash a criminal proceeding initiated based on the above statements, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that Annamalai had turned a petition filed in the interest of the environment into a vehicle for communal tension and the statements had a communal fervor to it.
The court noted that the psychological impact on a person or a group would also come within the definition of hate speech and thus the courts should not only focus on the prima facie physical harm while dealing with these types of cases. The court added that the posts made on Twitter were permanent data and acted like a ticking bomb waiting to have its desired effect at a point of time. The court added that Annamalai's statements had a prima facie psychological impact on the targeted group.
Case Title: M/s.Thillai Agencies Versus State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
The Madras High Court has held that when a registered dealer claims any benefit under Section 19 of the TNVAT Act 2006, he has to strictly adhere to the conditions laid down in the said section.
The bench of Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice R. Vijayakumar has observed that the petitioner has not produced the original tax invoice from a registered dealer, and therefore, he cannot complain that the authorities are attempting to reverse the input tax credit in his favor. In fact, the petitioner has affected the purchase five months after the cancellation of the registration of the selling dealer. Since the registration of the selling dealer had already been cancelled in April 2008, he would not have paid the tax. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the notice issued by the respondent department for reversing the input tax credit would amount to double taxation is not legally sustainable.
Case Title: Gopal Vittal, Bharti Airtel Ltd v Kamatci Shankar Arumugam
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a company making a list of employees who have not been vaccinated against Covid-19 is not sharing sensitive personal data and cannot be prosecuted under Section 43 A of the Information Technology Act.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus set aside a private complaint initiated against a company by its former employee. The court noted that the company was merely taking preventive measures to safeguard itself from COVID-19 attacks.
The court noted that Section 43A was not strictly an offense under the IT Act and was more like a tort. The court noted that the consequence of commission of a tort was payment of damages or compensation and no punishment had been prescribed under the Act. Thus, the court noted that the offence was not one, which could be taken cognizance of by a court.
Case Title: S Gurumoorthi v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court held a special sitting on Sunday to hear the anticipatory bail plea of an undertrial arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, seeking to attend his father's funeral.
Though the court firmly objected to granting bail or interim bail to the prisoner, the court observed that the Right to attend the funeral was part of Article 25 of the Constitution and thus paved way for the undertrial to attend his father's funeral.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that Article 25 could be invoked by any person and did not make any distinction between free persons and prisoners. The court also noted that the prisoner, being a Hindu had to discharge certain religious obligations. The judge also added that courts must have due regard in matters of religion. Thus, the court invoked its inherent powers to allow the man to attend the funeral and the 16th Day ceremony.
Case Title: Nithesh Chaudhari v The Special Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a provisional attachment order made by the Deputy Director of ED and confirmed by the adjudicating authority after noting that the provisional attachment was not made per law. The court noted that even on the counter, the Department could not explain how the provisional attachment could be sustained on merits.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan, however, gave liberty to the authorities to take action under the law if upon further investigation it was found that the sale made was a sham.
Though the court agreed that the petitioners had alternative remedies, the court also noted that since the attachment itself was not proper, the petitioners needn't be relegated to approach the authorities or Special Court. the court, thus set aside the provisional attachment order with respect to the petitioners' property.
Case Title: Buhari @ Kichan Buhari v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
The Madras High Court recently held that the word “Shall” used in Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act be read as “May” in appeals challenging the judgments of conviction and appeals challenging rejection of bail.
Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the right of appeal against conviction and the appeal against rejection of bail is a fundamental right and a procedural law could not extinguish a fundamental right.
The court noted that when a provision in a procedural law had the effect of extinguishing a fundamental right, it could be read down by the courts. The court added that if a person, having sufficient cause, was denied his right of appeal, it would be denying his fundamental right.
Madras High Court Refuses To Stay Conviction Of Former TN DGP Rajesh Das In Sexual Harassment Case
Case Title: Rajesh Das v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The Madras High Court has refused to stay the conviction of former Tamil Nadu DGP Rajesh Das in a sexual harassment case.
In June 2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Villupuram had convicted Das for sexually harassing a woman Superintendent of Police while on duty in 2021 and sentenced him to three-year imprisonment with a fine. This order was confirmed by the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram on 12th February 2023.
When Das pleaded for staying this sentence, Justice Nirmal Kumar said that he could not stay the conviction in a criminal revision and observed that such a prayer could be heard only in an appeal against the conviction.
Case Title: Abhijit Majumder v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
The Madras High Court on Tuesday quashed an FIR registered against Journalist Abhijit Majumder. The FIR was lodged by the Tamil Nadu police over derogatory remarks made on Periyar in an opinion piece written by Majumder criticizing Tamil Nadu Youth Development Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin's Sanatana Dharma remark.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the journalist had redacted the controversial remarks made against Periyar and had republished the new article. The court noted that the de facto complainant had also accepted Majumder's undertaking and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.
Case Title: Tvl. Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
The Madras High Court has quashed the revision order passed under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act (TNGST Act) against Renault Nissan for travelling beyond the scope of revision proceedings.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has quashed the revision order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The respondent department was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter issue a speaking order. The exercise shall be completed within a maximum period of two months.
Case Title: The Under Secretary to Govt v RK Venkatachalam and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
While observing that the schemes in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana have to be read harmoniously, the Madras High Court recently directed the Union Government to provide pension to a nonagenarian former member of the Indian National Army who was incarcerated in Rangoon (Myanmar) back in 1945.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that in cases where the persons belonging to the Indian National Army were incarcerated in a foreign country, it would be difficult to strictly adhere to the criterion provided in the scheme and in such cases, the scheme had to be read harmoniously.
The court noted that while mainland prisoners could produce certificate from the jail authorities to prove their claims, the members of the INA, who were incarcerated in other countries could not produce such certificates. The court also noted that if insistence was made regarding the certificate of co-prisoners, it would become an eligibility instead of proof.
Case Title: Siva and Others v State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to three men who were accused under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, after they undertook to file affidavits pledging allegiance to the Constitution stating that they would not practice social discrimination or untouchability.
Noting that the investigation was in the penultimate stage and the charge sheet was also to be filed shortly, the court was inclined to grant bail upon the filing of the undertaking.
Case Title: Dr. Shri Harish v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
The Madras High Court on Monday refused to stall the Formula 4 night street racing scheduled to be held in Chennai. Though the race was initially proposed to be held in early December 2023, it was later postponed following the Michaung Cyclone.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq have now dismissed a batch of pleas challenging the conduct of the race. The court noted that the State had decided to conduct the race as part of its policy decision to promote sports and had already spent huge amounts making enormous efforts for the race. The court was thus not inclined to stall the race and prevent the state from implementing its policy decision.
The court thus permitted the race to be conducted on the dates to be fixed by the State in consultation with the stakeholders. The court also directed that the race be conducted with highest regard for public safety and asked the organisers to install necessary silencing equipment for noise control and to provide necessary protective gear to the public viewers.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
While elaborately discussing who would be a “person skilled in the art” under the Patents Act, the Madras High Court recently observed that a person skilled in the art is someone who has a skill level good/greater than the average person.
Further, the court noted that the educational/academic or vocational qualifications of the person would depend on the art. The court added that work experience would be a requirement as an ordinary person with requisite educational qualification but no work experience would not be a skilled person. The court also remarked that such a person should be able to use the tools of the trade.
With respect to identifying the person skilled in the art, the court observed that the person could be readily identified from the field of invention. The court further added that this person could be an individual or a group of persons with the requisite skills.
Case Title: G Bhagavath Singh v The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Madras High Court recently allowed a lawyer to go on a hunger strike demanding to make Tamil an official language of the High Court. The court thus allowed the lawyer to conduct the indefinite fasting near Rajarathinam, stadium from February 28th 2024.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the lawyer had only intended to express himself strongly and there was nothing illegal in the objective.
The court also made it clear that of any leader wanted to extend support to the fasting and speak by arranging a meeting near the venue of fasting, prior intimation should be given to the jurisdictional police and permission be taken.
Case Title: N Ilango v The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking action against the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Organisation who had issued a circular asking his subordinates to perform special poojas in important temples for getting rain.
Referring to a Government Order, the bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the GO had not prohibited any authority to ask his subordinates to conduct pooja. The court further noted that what the GOs had prohibited was the practice of worship in the office premises.
Case Title: XYZ v Kalakshetra Foundation and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
The Madras High Court has disposed of a plea filed by a group of students from Rukmini Devi College of Fine Arts, functioning under the Kalakshetra Foundation. The students had approached the court for the formulation of proper safety policies and redressal mechanisms in the college.
Justice Anita Sumanth noted that there was no necessity to issue directions as the college had finalized the Gender Neutral Policy for Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal of Sexual Harassment Complaints. The court also noted that the Internal Complaints Committee was also re-constituted and thus the reliefs sought had been remedied.
The court, however, also added that the institution's failure to address the allegations put forward by the students was a “blight on Kalakshetra”. The court added that the stakeholders in the education system were expected to adhere to the expectations that were demanded.
Case Title: C Rasu v The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
The Madras High Court has recently asked the Namakkal District Collector to handover required extent of land of the Sri Kottaianna Swamy Temple to the Archaeology Department for conducting research. The department had, on inspection found important archaeological remains in the temple premises.
Justice SM Subramaniam asked the authorities to initiate land acquisition proceedings and complete the same within a period of 6 months to avoid further damage to the site area and the sculptures, culverts, statutes etc.
Chennai Metro Rail Responsible For TDS Deduction And Not Work-Contractors: Madras High Court
Case Title: Tvl.Transtonelstory Afcons Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
The Madras High Court has held that Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. (CMRL) is responsible for TDS deduction and not work contractors.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that if CMRL had failed to deduct the amounts under Section 13(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, machinery under Section 13(8) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, is to be directed only against CMRL. Therefore, to that extent, the impugned notices are without jurisdiction. The 2% demand proposed in the notices is to be directed only against CMRL and not on the petitioner, the work contractor.
The court noted that Section 13(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, contemplates deduction of tax by the person responsible (namely the employer) for paying any amount to a dealer whose service is engaged for executing a works contract for civil contract work and/or civil maintenance works contract for the former.
Case Title: Dharma v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Madras High Court recently observed that conscious possession along with actual physical possession was a necessary element for constituting an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh of the Madurai bench observed that like actus reus and mens rea, which were essential elements in criminal law, in the NDPS Act, the physical, as well as the mental possession of drugs, were essential elements.
The court added that offences involving drug peddling affected the financial security of the nation and contributed to anti-national activities as it provided funds to terrorist organisations. Thus, the court highlighted that a balance had to be struck to make sure that the criminals involved in grave offences do not go unpunished and at the same time an innocent is protected from an adverse interpretation of the law. In the court's opinion, the rule of conscious possession provided this balance.
Case Title: The State v I Periyasamy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
While setting aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I Periyasamy in a corruption case, the Madras High Court on Monday observed that the constitutional courts were duty bound to ensure that the legitimacy of the administration of justice is not eroded by allowing a minister or MLA to short circuit the trial in corruption cases against them.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that the trial court order discharging Periyasamy was manifestly illegal and that the trial judge had committed grave procedural impropriety which necessitated the court's intervention. The court added that once the trial had commenced, the discharge petition filed by Periyasamy was not maintainable and the trial court had committed an error by entertaining it and allowing it.
Case Title: Krishapriya Foundation v The Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
The Madras High Court was recently informed that the Central Government has approved 38 One Stop Centres in the State of Tamil Nadu of which only eight One Stop Centres were pending construction. One Stop Centres (OSC) are intended to support women affected by violence, in private and public spaces, within the family, community and at the workplace.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea seeking to draw up a scheme for establishing counselling centres in each police station in the state of Tamil Nadu.
Case Title: Union of India v The Deputy Director, UIDAI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to provide Aadhar details of some PFI members who have been accused of murdering a man and striking terror.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the National Investigation Agency could proceed with the investigation only after obtaining the details and thus directed UIDAI to furnish the details sought by the agency.
Case Title: S Lakshmipathy v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Director General of Police transferring the investigation in a case from the state police to the Crime Branch of CID. The court held that the DGP had no powers to order for fresh investigation by transferring the trial to another agency and that the order was legally not sustainable.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that only a court could order for fresh investigation or re-investigation and by filing a new FIR in the guise of conducting further investigation, the DGP and the CB-CID had played with the court. The court added that what had prompted the DGP to suo motu order transfer of investigation was a “million dollaw question”.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
The Madras High Court has dismissed the bail plea of MLA and former Minister Senthil Balaji. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June last year in a cash-for-jobs money laundering case.
Justice Anand Venkatesh on Wednesday observed that there were no merits in the bail plea filed by Balaji. However, considering that Balaji had been incarcerated for more than 8 months, the court directed the Special court to complete the trial in the case within 3 months.
ALSO READ: Under PMLA, Jail Is The Rule And Bail Is The Exception: Madras High Court In Senthil Balaji's Plea
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
The Madras High Court has recently observed that when husband and wife were engaged in a war of words, abuse and vulgar criticism of family members, there was no point in saving such a marital relationship as the marital tie would have become worthless and deadwood.
Justice G Jayachandran and Justice C Kumarappan were hearing a challenge against an order from the Family Court refusing to dissolve the marriage between the parties. The court, after going through the exchanges between the parties, which were bordering vulgarity and obscenity, noted that the marriage was bound to be dissolved. The court observed that the cruelty committed by the parties against each other had injured the marital bond.
Case Title: The Secretary to Government and Others v Regina
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
The Madras High Court recently observed that though neither the Court nor the State have any authority to question the discretion of a minority school to run with just two students, the State does have the authority and right to decline public grant to such school.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice C Kumarappan added that an institution, just because of its minority status could not manage their affairs contrary to the instructions of the Government.
Case Title: Suthendraraja T @ Santhan v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Government to appoint senior IAS and IPS officers to ensure that the mortal remains of T Suthenthiraraj alias Santhan, one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case is taken to Sri Lanka.
When the matter was taken up previously, the Government had informed the court that the Deputy High Commissioner for Sri Lanka had issued a temporary travel document allowing Santhan to go to Sri Lanka.
On Thursday, the bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice K Kumaresh Babu wondered why Santhan was not permitted to go to Sri Lanka despite the exit permit. The court also called for Santhan's medical reports to determine his medical conditions.
The court directed the state to expediate the process and asked the state to coordinate with the High Commission and expedite the process.
Case Title: J Sheena v. TNPSC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to cancel the provisional list for the recruitment of 245 civil judges in the State.
Asking the TNPSC to prepare a revised provisional list within two weeks, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that the impugned provisional list was prepared without applying Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conditions of Service Act 2016.
The court agreed with the petitioners and held that the methodology adopted by the Commission was in violation of the scope of Section 27(f) and the interpretation of the Apex Court. The court also said that this erroneous application had resulted in denial of opportunity to other candidates, who would have been otherwise eligible either under the general category or the reserved category.
Case Title: M/s.Indralok Hotel Pvt. Ltd. versus The Greater Chennai Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
The Madras High Court has held that Section 116A of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, mandates that 15 days' time should be provided to the property tax assessee to respond to the notice before action is taken.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has directed the respondent department to de-seal the restaurant.
The petitioner/assessee has assailed a demand notice that was affixed to the premises of the petitioner. The half-yearly property tax in respect of the Pride Hotel was fixed by the Taxation Appeals Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 11,63,702 with effect from the second half of 2006–07. The order was carried out on appeal by the Greater Chennai Corporation before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
The Madras High Court has held that Ao's classification of Harpic and Lizol under the 28% GST slab rate is without application of mind.
The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that when objections are raised, a duty is cast on the assessing authority to apply its mind to the objections and deal with each one of them. Failure to do so would vitiate the order of assessment on the ground of non-application of mind.
Case Title: Karthick v Registrar General
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
The Madras High Court recently emphasized that though the courts were expected to preserve data as a court of record, it was also required to strike a balance between the collection of such data and the protection of a person's personnel data.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that while the courts were expected to possess data, it was the courts discretion to make such data publicly available and such a decision had to be taken consciously and carefully. the bench also observed that the courts could not be compelled to make any information publicly available under the RTI Act.
The court added that the open justice system has brought justice and dispensation of justice to the doorstep of citizens. However, the court added that privacy was an inalienable facet of the right to life and dignity, and thus the courts had to strike a balance between the concept of open justice and the privacy of the litigant. The court also noted that institutions committed to serving justice, the courts could not close their eyes to privacy concerns and a litigant's right to leave behind his past.
Case Title: D Bright Joseph v Church of South India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the Church of South India performs public functions when it is engaged in the running of schools, colleges, hospitals, etc and if any action taken by the CSI is detrimental to this public duty, a writ petition against the same would be maintainable.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian, Justice PT Asha, and Justice N Senthilkumar also emphasized that when the CSI was performing functions outside the above public duty, ie, when it was engaged in discharging the functions of the clergy, such functions would be outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: M Priya v Canara Bank
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
The Madras High Court has held that while considering compassionate appointments, granting appointments should be the rule, and denying it should be an exception.
Justice RN Manjula observed that providing compassionate appointment was like fulfilling the unwritten will of the deceased government servant, and required an understanding of how the deceased employee would have wished his dependents to settle in life if he was alive. The court, thus, noted that the authorities needed to consider the applications with both sympathy and empathy.
The court further pointed out that while married daughters had crossed the first challenge of coming under the ambit of the compassionate scheme, they continued to face challenges and were expected to prove that they were depending on the income of the father. The court added that while married sons found it easier to continue living in the family home when married daughters chose to live in their parents' house, it raised eyebrows and was considered unusual.
Case Title: V Boovalingam v Ponnamani and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
The Madras High Court recently remarkes that parks and playgrounds are the lungs of a city and lands earmarked for constructing the same should not be used for any other purpose.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice P Dhanabal observed that as per Section 32(4) and Section 122 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules 2019, the building and use of land shall conform to the conditions imposed while sanctioning the land.
Case Title: T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to issue a writ of quo warranto against Tamil Nadu Ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin, Sekar Babu and MP A Raja to remove them from their posts because of the comments against Sanatana Dharma.
At the same time, Justice Anita Sumanth made critical remarks against the statements made by the Ministers and observed that those holding constitutional positions should not have made such divisive statements. The court added that Minister Udayanidhi Stalin's statement equating Sanatana Dharma to HIV, AIDS, Malaria etc was perverse and against the constitutional mandate.
The Court specifically criticised HR&CE Minister Sekar Babu for participating in a meeting for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma.
The court added that those holding constitutional positions should propound only constitutionalism and even if there were ideological differences between political leaders, any statement made publicly should be constructive and not destructive.
Case Title: S Harikrishnan v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
The Madras High Court recently observed that in military services, the paramount consideration was towards discipline and any lenient view would cause organisational disorder.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice N Senthilkumar was hearing a plea against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding a driver's removal from service and seeking to reinstate him with monetary benefits.
The court opined that the petitioner had not considered his employment seriously and a lenient view could not be taken in such cases. The court also observed that when such unauthorised absence was not viewed strictly, it could set a bad precedent.
The court also rejected the petitioner's submission that the authorities had not considered his explanation. The court observed that it was for the competent authority to decide whether the explanation was satisfactory and it was not for the court to substitute its views for the vires of the competent authority.
Case Title: M/s.Sri Sasthaa Constructions Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
The Madras High Court has directed the Assessing Officer to allow transitional credit of purchase tax paid under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017, if the petitioner had paid “purchase tax” under Section 12(1) of the TNVAT Act.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the petitioner deserves a chance to defend the case as the impugned assessment order was passed during the period when the country was in semi-lockdown mode. If the VAT-TDS had indeed remained unutilized for discharging tax liability under the TNVAT Act, 2006, there should be a fresh adjustment of the amount out of the VAT-TDS towards the tax liability of the petitioner, and thereafter, ITC, which would have remained unutilized, ought to have been allowed to be transitioned under Section 140 of the Act or refunded to the petitioner under Section 54 of the TNGST Act, 2017 read with the TNVAT Act, 2006.
Case Title: M/s.Saravana Selvarathnam Retails Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Madras High Court has held that it is mandatory for the income tax department to follow the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) while conducting searches and seizing electronic evidence.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the electronic data has been collected in.txt files in violation of the provisions of the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual. Though the procedures have not been followed while collecting the electronic data in.txt files, the data collected by the respondents can be relied upon only if the said data are supported by the corroborative evidence.
Case Title: The State v Muneeswaran and Others
Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 102
The Madras High Court has directed the Judicial Magistrates to not accept the voluntary surrender petitions of accused persons when the Magistrate court does not have jurisdiction to try the case. The court made it clear that as per Section 167 of CrPC an accused had to be “forwarded” to the Magistrate by the police and only then the court could entertain a surrender petition filed by the accused.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that remand report and case diary are jurisdictional conditions for authorising detention under Section 167(2) as it allows the Magistrate to apply his mind anad effectively determine whether a case for remand is made out. Thus, in the court's opinion, when an accused voluntarily surrenders, the remand, based on only the FIR copy is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction.
Case Title: R Manibhyarathi v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
While emphasizing the need to protect the fast-disappearing water bodies in the state of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court has directed the State government to open a dedicated website containing the details of all water bodies across the state, including their survey number, physical location, details of village, taluk, etc.
The Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi observed that water bodies belonged to the society and though their ownership technically existed with the government, it also belonged to other living beings and thus it was the duty of the officials to ensure that the quality of water was not affected in any manner. The court also made it clear that water bodies could not be obliterated in the name of public interest.
Case Title: The Director General and Others v Narender Chauhan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of a single judge reinstating a police constable into the service who was dismissed from service for reacting with a “thumbs up” emoji to a message about the brutal murder of a superior officer.
The Madurai bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the thumbs-up signal was also an alternative for the word “OK” and sharing the same could not be considered as celebrating the brutal murder. The court also noted that the employee, who was not so conversant with WhatsApp had only meant to acknowledge that he had seen the message. Thus, noting that the employee did not have any antecedents, the court held his explanation to be believable.
Case Title: Suganya Jebi Sarojini v The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
The Madras High Court has read down Regulation 3.1 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Ph.D. Regulations 2020, which prescribed the possession of a 2-year Master's Degree in law as the eligibility criteria for admission to the University's Full-Time Ph.D. program.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the University was bound by the University Grants Regulation (UGC) which had recognized the 1 year LLM program and the University could not knock off any qualification from eligibility. The court added that prescribing higher standards should only be in addition to the existing qualification and not in derogation of it.
Senthil Balaji Case: Madras High Court Refuses To Stay PMLA Trial In Cash For Jobs Scam
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Madras High Court has refused to stay the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against MLA and former Minister of Tamil Nadu Senthil Balaji in a case of cash-for-job scam.
Noting that it was too early to stay the trial, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan refused to grant any interim reliefs on the plea filed by the MLA and directed the Enforcement Directorate to file a counter to the plea by April 25th.
When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Balaji contended that the trial in the money laundering case had to follow the trial in the predicate offence. He added that of Balaji was convicted in the ED trial and subsequently acquitted in the IPC offence, it would lead to manifest injustice. He also argued that deciding the money laundering case before the predicate offence would be like putting the cart before the horse.
Case Title: Taeyang Metal India Private Limited vs DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
Finding that the period of one month expired on July 31, 2022, whereas the assessment order came to be issued on Mar 25, 2023, the Madras High Court Held the assessment order issued beyond time-limit specified in Sec.144C(13) as unsustainable.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that “the directions of the DRP were forwarded to the assessing officer, i.e. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi by uploading the same on 17.06.2022. Although learned senior standing counsel contends that the jurisdictional assessing officer received the directions only on 17.03.2023, for purposes of sub-section (13) of Section 144C, the date of receipt should be reckoned as the date of receipt by the National Faceless Assessment Centre on 17.06.2022”. (Para 7)
Case Title: The Ramco Cements Limited vs ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
While dismissing assessee's petition, the Madras High Court held that the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent/ AO is only a draft assessment order in which case, the petitioner/ assessee should approach the appropriate forum and address their grievance in terms of Section 144 (C) of the Income Tax Act.
The Single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “Though the word “draft assessment” is missing, the provision under Section 144 (C) of the Income Tax Act is very much available and any order whatsoever in the form, in the event of the provisions by referring Section 144(C)(1) of the Act, it should be construed only as a draft assessment order. No deficiency or discrepancy could be found in the order for not mentioning the word “draft assessment order” and by virtue of which, it would not get abated”. (Para 12)
Case Title: A Aashifa Begum v Khader Beevi and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court has recently emphasized that an affectionate relationship with grandparents is beneficial for a child's development.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that in custody and guardianship matters, the child's welfare had to be given paramount consideration. The court further noted that there was a need to safeguard the fast-eroding family system in the country and to ensure that the child's overall development is taken care of in the right environment. The court was thus of the opinion that the courts should not deny reasonable access/ visitation rights to the grandparents.
Case Title: M/s.Sabari Alloys & Metals India Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
The Madras High Court has held that the Assessing Officer is not incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if such officer had committed a glaring mistake of fact or law while passing the assessment order.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the meaning of the expression “error apparent on the face of record” is wider than the expression “mistake apparent from the record.”.
The court has held that if an AO has failed to do what is required under the law at the time of passing an assessment order and has passed an assessment order with such defects, such assessment orders can be rectified by the officer by exercising power under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is the effort of the assessing officer while exercising the power under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: R Rajamani v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea to include the Gudugudupukarar Caste in the Scheduled Tribe list under Article 342 of the Constitution.
Observing that the presidential order of the Scheduled Tribes list cannot be tinkered with by the court, the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy added that granting such relief will be beyond the purview of the court. The court further said that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes had the authority to see whether a particular tribe was under the parameters of Scheduled Tribe.
Case Title: Seva Bharathi TamilNadu v Surendar @ Naathikan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the court cannot shut its eyes to false statements circulated on social media to target and blackmail innocent persons.
The court observed that the law did not give any license to YouTubers and people on social media to spoil the reputation of others. The court thus directed a Youtuber to pay Rs. 50 Lakh as damages to Seva Bharathi for allegedly making derogatory statements linking the trust with the custodial death of Jayaraj and Bennix in 2020.
Justice N Satish Kumar further observed that no one could conduct interviews intruding on the privacy of others on the pretext of freedom of speech and expression. The court added that if such behaviors were condoned, every blackmailer would end up using social media to blackmail others by spreading false and unnecessary news.
Case Title: J Ramesh Kumar v Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court has directed the Coimbatore police to grant permission for conducting a 4 km road show in Coimbatore in connection with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the city on March 18, 2024. The court has however imposed some restrictions on the conduct of the roadshow. The district police authorities had denied permission for the road show earlier today.
Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the Assistant Commissioner to grant necessary permission and police protection upon reasonable condition. One such condition was to ensure that no flex boards were erected by the organizers during the roadshow. The court also directed the authorities to make sure that the roadshow is conducted in a smooth manner without giving rise to any law and order problems or cause security concerns for the Prime Minister.
While rejecting the State's objection to the conduct of a roadshow, the court pointed out that some hindrance to the free movement of people was unavoidable in such cases where a Political leader wished to interact with the people. The court added that this could not be a ground to deny permission and it was upon the police to find an alternative. The court highlighted that the leaders were elected by the people and thus should not be stopped from meeting them.
Case Title: Ankit Tiwari v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court has dismissed the second bail petition filed by arrested Enforcement Directorate officer Ankit Tiwari. Ankit was arrested in December 2023 by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The DVAC had alleged that Ankit had demanded money from one Dr. Suresh Babu as a bribe to close the pending case against him.
Justice Dhandapani, while dismissing Tiwari's revision petition, observed that the court was bound to follow the ratio laid down by the Apex court and that its hands were tied from deciding the case on merits due to the reason that there was an interim stay by the Apex Court.
The court further observed that though the Supreme Court had permitted the High Court to consider the matter on merits, Tiwari would have been eligible for statutory bail only if the investigating agency had not filed the chargesheet within the stipulated time frame. In the present case, the court noted that the investigating agency was ready with the chargesheet on the 55th day itself but its hands were tied due to the order of the Supreme Court. Thus, the court granted liberty to the parties to approach the Apex Court to clarify the order.
Case Title: Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple v Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
The Madras High Court has recently observed that no person can alienate or create encumbrance for land belonging to an idol or deity without following the due process of law. The court thus highlighted that the law of limitation or adverse possession does not apply to a land belonging to a deity, idol or temple.
Justice P Velmurugan made the observations in a plea filed by the Fit Person of Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal temple seeking directions to the concerned authorities to restore the patta of the temple land.
Case Title: K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
The Madras High Court has held that a tax recovery officer cannot declare a sale made by the assessee in favour of a third party void if he finds that the property of the assessee was transferred by the assessee to a third party with an intention to defraud the revenue.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the Income Tax Department will have to file a suit in terms of Rule 11 (6) of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, though under Rule 11 (6) of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the party against whom an order of attachment is made has to institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right which he claims over the property in dispute, and subject to the result of such suit (if any), the order of the Tax Recovery Officer shall be conclusive.
Case Title: Mohammed Ashik v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
The Madras High Court recently observed that while dealing with rash and negligent driving among youngsters, the aim of criminal jurisprudence must be towards reforming them and not branding the teenagers as criminals.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that instead of dumping the teenagers as criminals, they must be made to understand the consequences of reckless driving. The court thus suggested a conveyor belt-like system where the teenager indulging in reckless driving would get into the system and come out as a reformed person who no longer got involved in such reckless driving.
Case Title: Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan verses ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that provision of Section 278E of the Income tax Act brings in a statutory presumption regarding the existence of a culpable mental state.
Accordingly, the High Court refused to interfere in the criminal proceedings and relegated the petitioner/ taxpayer to the trial, while stating that the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the contrary and that can be done only at the time of the trial.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that “the only criterion for initiation of prosecution is that there must be a wilful failure to furnish returns as required under Section 139(1) of the Act and once that requisite is fulfilled, the statutory presumption under Section 278E starts operating and this provision brings in a statutory presumption with regard to the existence of a culpable mental state”. (Para 11)
Case Title: Vijaykumar Versus The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment order and held that the petitioner availed of a lower amount as ITC than the amount reflected in the auto-populated GSTR 2A return. The petitioner wrongly availed of ITC, which indicates non-application of mind.
The court quashed the assessment order, and the matter was remanded to the assessing officer for reconsideration. The petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the assessing officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.
Case Title: M/s.LKS Gold House Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
The Madras High Court has held that assessing officers are not governed by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, before an assessee officer are not judicial proceedings. It is a quasi-judicial proceeding before a quasi-judicial officer. The provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872, particularly the special provisions relating to evidence relating to Sections 65A, 65B, and 66, are not relevant.
The court held that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including court-martial. It does not apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not apply to a quasi-judicial proceeding before a quasi-judicial officer, such as an assessee officer under various tax laws or the appellate authority and tribunal under them.
Case Title: A Rajasekaran v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the removal of service of an Additional District Judge who was accused of engaging in a conference call with the accused in the Sankararaman murder case.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that a Judicial Officer was expected to maintain a high level of integrity and in the present case, the charges against the Judicial officer were proved. The court added that the charges were grave and touched upon the integrity and honesty of a Judicial officer. Thus, the court held that the punishment of removal from service was not disproportionate.
Case Title: The Salem Urban Co-operative Bank limited Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS Ward)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
The Madras High Court has waived the condition of payment of a 10% pre-deposit as the 10% demand was already paid by the assessee.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq have observed that the single judge, while taking note of the financial hardship expressed by the assessee, modified CIT (TDS)'s order and permitted the assessee to deposit the amount in three instalments. The aggrieved assessee filed writ appeals, whereby the Division Bench waived the payment of the balance 10% of the pre-deposit and directed the disposal of the appeals on merits within eight weeks after hearing the assessee.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Allotment Of Lotus Symbol To Bharatiya Janata Party
Case Title: Gandhiyawati T Ramesh v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by founder of Ahimsa Socialist Party, T Ramesh seeking to cancel the allotment of Lotus symbol to the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the plea and directed Ramesh to deposit Rs. 10,000, out of the 20,000 he had deposited as a pre-condition for proving bonafide, to the Tamil Nadu Legal Service Authority.
Ramesh submitted that the lotus being the national flower represented the entire Nation and thus allotting the lotus symbol to a political party was unjust. He also submitted that allotting a lotus symbol to a particular party was a disgrace to the national integrity. Ramesh had also argued that lotus was considered auspicious and sacred and played a central role in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.
Case Title: Raji v Executive Magistrate and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
The Madras High Court has paved way for performing daily Pooja at the Villupuram Draupathiamman temple which was sealed in June last year following caste related conflicts.
Noting that the temple has existed since centuries and not performing poojas will have an impact on the sentiments of the local villagers, Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE, Villupuram District to perform poojas in the temple. The court, however, directed that the temple will be opened only to allow the Poojari (priest) to enter the temple to perform pooja and no one else will be allowed inside the temple until further orders.
Case Title: K Mariappan v The Government of Tamil Nadi and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking reservation to a differently abled person for promotion to the post of District Judge per Section 34 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the present service rules only provided for providing 4% reservation in direct recruitments and not while considering promotions. Thus, in the absence of service rules, the court was not inclined to grant the relief prayed for.
The court also noted that the petitioner, K Mariappan, had already availed the benefit of the reservation during direct recruitment. The court thus noted that claiming the inadequate presence of Persons with Disabilities in the cadre of District Judges was unfounded and would only result in unjust acceleration of seniority.
Case Title: S Menaka v KSK Nepolian Socraties (batch case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court on Thursday ruled that orders of interim maintenance passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are only interlocutory orders and thus, an appeal against such orders will not lie either under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi however added that a revision against the order of interim maintenance is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution irrespective of whether it was made by a regular civil court or a Family Court.
Case Title: K Nagomi v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
While setting aside the detention of a man under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act 14 of 1982, the Madras High Court expressed its discontentment with the manner in which the State was callously misusing detention orders.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan however refrained from passing deterrent orders against the State and hoped that the State would mend its approach and refrain from carelessly passing detention orders in the future.
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking to make proof of voting mandatory for availing paid leave on polling days in the upcoming elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that though every person had a duty to cast a vote, no one could compel a person to vote if he chose not to exercise his right.
The court was hearing a plea by Advocate Ramkumar Adityan. Adityan had sought directions to the Ministry of Personnel and Training, Labour Welfare & Skill Development Department, and the Chief Election Commissioner to make it mandatory to submit necessary proof of voting to avail of paid holiday on the poll day if the employee was a voter in the constituency where a general or bye-election was to be held.
Case Title: M Kesavan v The Principal and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that educational institutions cannot withhold the educational certificates of students with respect to pending dues. The court underlined that educational institutions cannot claim lien over the student's certificates.
Justice Anita Sumanth directed the Principal of Cheran College of Pharmacy to return the original Transfer Certificate, mark sheet of X and XII to a former student. The court also gave liberty to the college to take appropriate measures to recover the monetary outstanding in the manner known to law.
The court was hearing a plea filed by one M Kesavan, a former student of Cheran College seeking directions to the college to return his original transfer certificate and mark sheets of X and XII standards to enable him to secure admission to the School of Agriculture and Animal Science.
Case Title: The Government of Tamil Nadu v Dr.S.Vijay Vikraman
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
The Madras High Court recently stressed the need to have clinical trials in Indian Medicine enabling it to get the required audience at international levels. The court added that the development of Indian Medicine like Siddha will not only benefit mankind but also take the pride of the country to the entire world.
The remarks were made by a bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice B Pugalendhi while hearing a plea by the Government of Tamil Nadu to lift a prohibition order and to allow the demolition of the old Government Siddha Medical College at Palayamkottai. The State had proposed to establish a University for Indian Medicine at Chennai in 30 acres of land.
While the bench lauded the State's efforts to bring in a legislature viz, Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical University Act 2022, it suggested that the State should reconsider its decision to establish the new University in Chennai. The court added that the State should consider setting up the University in the Western Ghats where the Siddha system of medicine originated and where the system could reach its glory.
Case Title: T.Senguttuvan v Ashokkumar K and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court has ordered the recounting of 605 postal ballot votes which were rejected without assigning proper reasons in the Krishnagiri constituency during the 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
Justice PT Asha directed the Registrar General of Madras High Court to name any of the Registrars to supervise the counting of the postal ballot votes and submit a report on the reasons recorded for rejecting the postal ballot votes, whether reasons were recorded on each postal ballot/cover and whether the number of votes rejected under each head detailed in Form 20 tallied with the number of votes rejected under the respective heads.
Case Title: Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that Hostel services providing welling to girl students and working women will be exempt from the GST regime as they are residential dwelling units for the girl students and working women.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stressed the work “residential dwelling” referred to in Entry 12 of the Exemption Notification No. 12 of 2017 would include hostel facilities also. While noting that residential dwelling varies from person to person, the court added as far as hostellers were concerned, after their avocation, they stay, sleep, eat, wash etc in the hostel rooms alone thus making it their residential dwelling.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
The Madras High Court recently disposed of a suo motu plea the court had taken up in light of untoward incidents taking place during funeral processions in the state of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy closed the suo moto writ petition after the Director General of Police informed it of the instructions given to all the SDOs and SHOs for preventing untoward incidents.
The court had taken suo motu cognizance based on a letter it had received from one Anbu Selval regarding an unfortunate incident that took place because of throwing garland during the funeral procession.
Case Title: Simon and Others v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
The Madras High Court has recently observed that when there is no prohibitory order existing under S. 144 CrPC, there was no illegality in a few people assembling and demonstrating against the police and the same would not constitute an offense.
Justice M Dhandapani of the Madurai bench made the observation in a plea seeking to quash the FIR registered against a group of men who were demonstrating against the police inaction in a matter of the death of one Silambarasan due to police brutality.
Case Title: Srikaran V @ Murugan v The Director of Rehabilitation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
The Sri Lankan High Commission has informed the Madras High Court that temporary travel documents have been issued to Balasundaram Robert Payas, Mr. Vetrivel Srikaran, and Mr. Shanmugalingam Jeyakumar, convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case allowing them to be deported to Sri Lanka.
The submission was made before the bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu. The court was dealing with a plea filed by Srikaran seeking directions to the Director of Rehabilitation to issue a photo ID card to him allowing him to apply for travel documents.
Case Title: Tvl.Vardhan Infrastructure Versus The Special Secretary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
The Madras High Court has held that in the absence of notification for cross-empowerment, action taken by counterparts was without jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the manner in which the provisions have been designed is to ensure that there is no cross-interference by the counterparts. The only exception provided is under Section 6 of the respective GST enactment. Therefore, in the absence of a notification for cross-empowerment, the actions taken by the respondents are without jurisdiction. Officers under the State or Central Tax Administration, as the case may be, cannot usurp the power of investigation or adjudication of an assessee who is not assigned to them.
Case Title: Auro Logistics Ltd Versus The Assistant Director (SRO)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The Madras High Court has held that the inquiry will have to be continued by the adjudicating authority as per the notification in vogue and not by the adjudicating authority under the superseded notification.
The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy has observed that the phrase “except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession...” would mean that whatever acts are done till the date of issuance of the notification superseding the earlier notification are saved.
The court held that the show cause notice issued under Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2000 before the issuance of the notification dated September 27, 2018 was saved. The proceedings cannot proceed before the person who was an adjudicating authority under the notification has already been superseded. The inquiry will have to be continued by the adjudicating authority as per the notification in vogue and not by the adjudicating authority under the superseded notification.
Case Title: Ezhilan v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea questioning the gap between the date of polling and the date of counting in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the plea does not espouse any public cause and that the court could not issue directions to the Election Commission of India regarding the manner of conducting elections.
Case Title: K Ramachandran v The District Educational Officer (Elementary Education)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
The Madras High Court has recently observed that there was no bar on a department for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee for grave misconduct even if the misconduct was not in connection with the discharge of duty.
The Madurai bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice C Kumarappan made the observations on a plea filed by one Ramachandran questioning the charge memo.
Case Title: Netvantage Technologies Pvt Ltd v The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the Registering Authorities or the District Registrars are quasi-judicial authorities and are not empowered to cancel Sale Deeds through summary proceedings.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that the District Registrar only had powers to form an opinion regarding errors, omissions or violations during the course of registration or violations of procedures under the Act. The bench noted that for cancelling Sale Deeds, a trial was warranted which could only be undertaken by a Civil court and not the Registrar.
The court further added that though the Registrars had power to refuse registration of documents if found to be fraudulent, this power was limited. The court noted that while conducting a summary enquiry, if the District Registrar found that there was a prima facie proof to establish fraud or impersonation, only then the document could be cancelled. Thus, if there was any iota of doubt on the prima facie case, the District Registrar was not empowered to adjudicate the issue on merits and was bound to relegate the parties to the civil court.
Case Title: M/s.Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range and ordered de-freezing the bank account of Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust after finding that the trust's account was frozen under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act without conducting proper inquiry.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that as per Section 7(1) of the UAPA while passing a prohibitory order, an inquiry had to be conducted. The court noted that in the present case, no such inquiry had been conducted. Thus, the court found the order violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v MK Stalin
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
The Madras High Court recently allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to withdraw cases that the state had filed against CM MK Stalin. The cases were initiated in 2019 when the AIADMK party was in power. The case relates to the alleged irregularities in the construction of Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex.
While allowing the State's request to withdraw the case the bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the court could not compel a party to pursue the case when the party itself wanted to abandon the case without reserving any rights.