Madras High Court Half Yearly Digest: January - June 2024 [Citation 1 to 265]
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 to 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 265 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...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 to 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 265
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
Sri K.Venkatesh v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
M/s Bagalkot Cement & Industries Ltd vs The Chairperson, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
S.Sujatha vs The Director Of Collegiate Education, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
V Syril Sundaraj v The Presiding Officer and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
M. Anantha Babu vs. The District Collector & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
Pandiammal vs Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
S. Keerthana v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development Department & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association (MMBA) v A Radhakrishnan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
S Mariaselvi v AS Mani and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
Sivakumar TD v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
S.ShreDharmaaraghavan v Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd and Another v Suraj Sharma and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
Karti P Chidambaram v The Regional Passport Officer Chennai, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
Sri Nrisimha Priya Charitable Trust versus Central Board of Direct Taxes, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
M Chellammal v Office of the Insurance Ombudsman, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
Rajasekaran v The Assistant Election Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 158
M/s.Eicher Motors Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
Dr A Seshadri and Others v Church of South India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
V Maharajan v. The Election Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
M/s.Bay-Forge Private Limited Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
S Dhinakaran v The Commissioner of HR and CE and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
Ramesh v Selvakumar and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
M/s.Bajrang & Bajrang Versus The State Tax Officer (FAC), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
Sahayaraj V. M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd, CRP(MD) No. 576 of 2024, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
Rajesh Das v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
CM Raghavan v The Joint Director and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
M/s Colorhome Developers Pvt Ltd v. M/s Color Castle Owners Society, OSA(CAD) No. 113 of 2022, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 169
M/s Geojit Financial Services Ltd v. Mrs. Nalani Rajkumar, Original Side Appeal (CAD) No.51 of 2021, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
Mohmood Hussain v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 171
Kamatchi Shanker Arumugam v Tamil Nadu School Education Department and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
S Sahana Priyanka and Others v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
AP Studio Enterprises Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
R Rajamani v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
Sasikumar v Union Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
Arumugapandian @ Bala Vivekanandan @ Rocket Raja v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
Suthanthira Kannan v Election Commission of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
K Selvakumar v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
A Sathiya Prakash v The Board of Control for Cricket in India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
H Raja v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
Safai Karamchari Andolan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
Ms. Monisha v The National Testing Agency and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
D Madhumithra v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
Dr.Wanbor Sungoh v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
B. Saravanan v. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
P. Elilarasan v. The Executive Director, Air India Ltd. & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
A Kamala v Home Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
S Kesavan v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
A Balaguru v The Director Superintending Archaeologist, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
S. Achuthan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Educational Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
M Marannan v. The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
K Saravanan v The Joint Director of School Education and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Tantea Employees' Federation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
P Naveen Kumar v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
Anju v Home Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Branch Manager v Mrs Ramzan Begam, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
KK Ramesh v Union of Indians and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
G.Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
Riyana Begum v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
A Kamala v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
Infosys Limited v The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
Shalin v The District Registrar and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
N Lakshmi v IRDAI and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
High Court of Madras v P Dharmaraj and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
Uma Kant v The Inspector General, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
Balaji @ Panai Balaji v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
Saurav Das v Chief Information Commissioner and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
PK Manimandram Others v State Human Rights Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
Imrankan and others v The Sub Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Kalaiselvi and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
S Sasikala v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
Haj Mohamed v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
Samuel Tennyson v The Principal & Secretary, MCC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
M/s.V.R.Muthu & Bros. Versus State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
S Nithesh and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
Sudha Mathesan v The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
Rakshika Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
Deivanayaki v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
J Rajkumar v The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
Antony Clement Rubin v M Vignesh, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
Kanthavel and Others v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
A Kamala v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Kesava Vinayagam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The President v The State Information Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
MRF Ltd v Competition Commission of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
Gurunathan v The Deputy Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
R Anushri v The Secretary TNPSC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
MM Karthikeyan v Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
High Court of Madras v PU Venkatesan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
R Mohanakrishnan v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Kennel Club of India v The Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
Ashok Kumar v The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
P Jayachandran v A Yesuranthinam (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
Karthick Munusamy v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
State v P Ponnusamy, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
R Sasikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
Tmt. Sabeena Beevi v The Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
K Paranthaman v The Secretary, TNPSC, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
V Sakthivel v The Revenue Divisional Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
M/s.Greenstar Fertilisers Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
Felix Jerald v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
Indian Institute of Technology v The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
Rahul Gandhi v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
Gokul Abhimanyu v Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
B Anantha Lakshmi and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
S Shanmugasundaram v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
Dr. TV Swaminathan v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
S Chandan Babu v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
M/s. SRM Hotels Private Limited v The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
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.
Case Title: Sri K.Venkatesh v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
The Madras High Court recently opined against giving police protection to persons with criminal backgrounds as it would send a wrong signal to society and would make people lose their faith in the existing system.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that courts must be very circumspect to grant police protection to any person with a criminal background. The court added that even if some persons with criminal backgrounds are given police protection, the same could not be taken as a precedent by the courts.
Case Title: M/s Bagalkot Cement & Industries Ltd vs The Chairperson, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
The Madras High Court single bench of Justice R. N. Manjula held that the imposition of three times of the bank rate of interest on the award amount by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Facilitation Council is violation of fundamental principles of reasonableness and fairness. It held that the Petitioner is indirectly deprived of his appeal remedy in view of such high rate of interest.
The High Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the right to challenge the award remains realistic and accessible. It criticized the imposition of excessive interest, which effectively closes the door to challenging the award, thereby indirectly depriving the petitioner of their appeal remedy. The High Court condemned such actions as contrary to the fundamental principles of justice.
Case Name: S.Sujatha vs The Director Of Collegiate Education
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of S. Sujatha vs The Director of Collegiate Education has held that age relaxation can be provided to a person to compete in the recruitment process by giving the weightage for having been engaged or worked in the department for a significant period of time.
Case Title: V Syril Sundaraj v The Presiding Officer and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
The Madras High Court full bench has recently observed that the State Express Transport Corporation management which had taken a stand before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) supporting the bus driver involved in an accident was not precluded from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the same driver.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, and Justice V Lakshminarayan observed that the MACT did not have jurisdiction to arrive at the liability of the driver and was only concerned with the claim. The court thus opined that if submission before the MACT was to preclude the management from taking disciplinary proceedings, it would be enlarging the scope of the MACT which was beyond the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Case Title: M. Anantha Babu vs. The District Collector & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R.N. Manjula while deciding a writ petition in the case of M. Anantha Babu v. The District Collector & Ors. has reiterated that compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely on the ground that the child was from the second wife of the deceased employee.
The court observed that legitimate children born out of void marriage have been recognised by law itself. The court relied on the judgement of Union of India and Ors. Vrs. V. K. Tripathi wherein the Supreme Court had observed that a child of a second wife of an employee could not be denied for compassionate appointment on that ground alone.
Contract Appointment Of Protection Officer, Can't Continue Beyond Term: Madras High Court
Case Title: Pandiammal vs Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Pandiammal vs Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department & Ors has held that Protection Officer appointed on contract basis cannot be termed to be appointed under Rule 3(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (DV Rules) merely because she was allowed to continue her service after completion of tenure of contract.
The court also observed that the post of Protection Officer under DV Act was not governed by any service rules of the Government and governed as per the terms of contractual agreement of the incumbents. Such a contact could be terminated before the completion of one year on the ground of unsatisfactory service on the candidate or when it is felt that continued employment is unnecessary.
Case Title: S. Keerthana v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development Department & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Vijayakumar while deciding a writ petition in the case of S. Keerthana v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development Department & Ors. has held that a near relative of an officer of a co-operative society cannot be appointed to any post in the service of such society.
Case Title: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association (MMBA) v A Radhakrishnan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
The Madras High Court has recently modified an earlier order and restored the power of the Madurai Bench to hear pan-state matters.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice R Hemalatha felt that it would not be appropriate to limit hearing of pan-state matters to the principal bench especially when the Central Government notification for setting up the Madurai bench did not have any such classification. The court however added that the Chief Justice would continue to have the administrative powers to transfer cases from the Madurai bench to the principal seat.
Case Title: S Mariaselvi v AS Mani and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
The Madras High Court has asked the media to be more cautious while making allegations, especially sexual allegations, against religious leaders as the same not only affects the administration of the institutions but will also create a false image against such religious leaders.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench pointed out that reputation was an element of personal security that was protected by the constitution. The court also remarked that a man, whose reputation was hurt, was half-dead. Highlighting the importance of untainted reputation, the judge also remarked that it was the purest treasure of life.
The court also considered it appropriate to put forward some suggestions to the press in the interest of individual reputation, press freedom and society. The court suggested the press council to frame proper guidelines to publish materials relating to the personal life of an individual after proper verification. The court added that proper verification meant that the materials should be collected with concrete information and from a true source. The court further said that the publisher should publish the information after taking due deliberation, and steps that he would take in his own case.
Case Title: Sivakumar TD v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
The Madras High Court has asked the State government to not insist on the production of medical examination reports and sexual re-orientation surgery certificates for publishing a change of name or gender of transpersons in the official gazette.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad added that the State should rely on the self-declaration forms and affidavits filed by trans persons and if needed, could ask for the Aadhar card or other valid ID document for publication in the official gazette. The Court also asked the State Social Welfare Department to follow the same procedure while issuing ID cards to trans persons.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by Sivakumar TD, an LGBTQ rights activist, and co-founder of Nirangal, a non-profit organization focusing on gender and sexuality rights. Sivakumar had argued that the procedure adopted by the State for publishing a change of name or gender in the official gazette was unlawful and against the laws laid down by the Apex Court.
Case Title: S.ShreDharmaaraghavan v Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
Allowing permission for a book launch event, the Madras High Court recently observed that the state should not deny permission for an event merely because a person participating in the event is a candidate in the elections.
Justice G Jayachandran was hearing a plea by Shre Dharmaaraghavan, who wanted to organize an event for the launch of the book “Professionals in Politics”. The event was to be addressed by Drona Charya Awardee Mr. RB Ramesh, Badri Seshadri Publisher and TV Panelist, Former IPS Officer and TN State BJP President K Annamalai, Technocrat and Business Mr Murali and Journalist, CEO and Anchor Mr Rangaraj Pandey. The Assistant Election Officer, Singanallur had declined permission for the book launch event.
Considering the submissions, the court directed the State Government and the Election Commission to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law and spirit of Part III of the Constitution and Article 324 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd and Another v Suraj Sharma and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
The Madras High Court recently observed that a High Court will have inherent powers to transfer to itself a rectification application pending in a Trademark registry that is not within its jurisdiction.
Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that the Trade Marks Act had deliberately omitted to define the word “High Court” and thus the intention of the legislature was not to curtail the powers of the High Court. The court noted that the legislature intended to not for two forums to deal with the same subject matter and give conflicting decisions.
Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram v The Regional Passport Officer Chennai
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
The Madras High Court last month directed the Regional Passport Office to issue a regular passport to Karti P Chidambaram with a validity of 10 years after noting that the order of the Regional Passport Office limiting the validity of the passport for one year was without any reasoning.
Justice Anita Sumanth also observed that though Karti Chidambaram had criminal cases pending against him, he had approached the court several times in the past seeking permission to travel and has been granted the same. The court also noted that even the Special Judge (PC Act) in Delhi had remarked that Karti had not breached any conditions imposed by the court thus far. The court was thus of the opinion that there did not impede granting the passport for 10 years.
Case Title: Sri Nrisimha Priya Charitable Trust versus Central Board of Direct Taxes
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
The Madras High Court has held that the Circular dated May 24, 2023, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) not extending time to file applications for regular registration of new provisionally registered trusts under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act is violative of the Constitution of India.
The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has observed that the petitioner trusts do not have any vested right to claim an extension of time. When the statute prescribes a time limit, the petitioner trusts are expected to apply within the said date to avail themselves of the benefits. The first respondent board issues circulars enlarging the time limit even beyond the prescribed limit to mitigate the rigors of the statute and the hardship faced by the assessees. The same is in exercise of its powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. No discrimination or differentiation was made between the existing trusts and the new trusts at the first instance when Circular No. 8 of 2022 was issued. When the impugned Circular No. 6 of 2023 was issued, the reason stated by the first respondent was to mitigate genuine hardship.
Case Title: M Chellammal v Office of the Insurance Ombudsman
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
The Madras High Court recently remarked that while dealing with claims under the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bina Yojana, the provisions of the policy must be interpreted to benefit the policyholder.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench was dealing with a plea challenging the order passed by the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman rejecting a complaint against the Life Insurance Corporation of India for rejecting a death claim.
The court disagreed with the insurance company's stand that every year a fresh policy is being issued. The court added that in matters like this, the provisions should be interpreted to the benefit of the policyholder.
Case Title: Rajasekaran v The Assistant Election Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 158
While directing the state to allow a rally by BJP National President JP Nadda, the Madras High Court recently observed that hindrance to traffic and free movement of people in itself was not a ground to deny permission for the rally.
Justice Murali Shankar set aside the state's order denying permission for the rally and directed the Assistant Election Officer to grant permission for the rally in an alternative route and directed the state to give necessary police protection for the same by imposing conditions. The court also asked the state to ensure that no flex boards are erected and directed the parties to ensure that the rally takes place peacefully without any law and order problems.
Case Title: M/s.Eicher Motors Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Madras High Court has restrained the department from appropriating interest liability against Eicher Motors until the matter is taken up by the appellate court.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that since an appeal has been filed against the order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) with regard to the imposition of interest on the sum of Rs. 49,00,000 and the appeal is pending consideration, it is just and appropriate to provide protection to the petitioner until such an appeal is taken up.
Case Title: Dr A Seshadri and Others v Church of South India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
The Madras High Court has appointed a committee of two retired High Court judges to takeover the administration of the Church of South India (CSI) and to conduct the election of the Synod.
Though a single judge had previously appointed a retired High Court judge to conduct elections, the bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice R Sakthivel felt that considering the nature of work, a committee could more effectively administer the affairs of CSI.
The court thus appointed retired judges Justice R Balasubramanian and Justice V Bharathidasan to take immediate charge of the administration as well as the Trust Association and administer the same till the conduct of elections.
The court added that the administrators were at liberty to appoint other retired District Judges to assist them in the process and were to be paid a remuneration of Rs. 10,00,000 and Rs. 3,00,00 to the District Judges as initial remuneration.
Case Title: V Maharajan v. The Election Commission
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the nomination filed by Nainar Nagendran, BJP's candidate from Tirunelveli.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad noted that it was too late to issue any direction at this point considering that the polling in the state of Tamil Nadu was scheduled to be held on 19th April.
The petition was filed by one V Maharajan from Madurai. In his plea, Maharajan had submitted that there was a case pending against Nagendran in Nanguneri Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(i), 109 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He added that the details of the above case was deliberately concealed by Nagendran in all four of the nomination papers filed by him.
Case Title: M/s.Bay-Forge Private Limited Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
The Madras High Court has quashed the order as the opportunity for hearing was refused due to the assessee's failure to click on the appropriate button.
The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that the personal hearing ought to have been extended, though the assessee might have failed to click on the appropriate button. The bench, while quashing the order, was directed to pass the order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity and personal hearing through a video conference.
Case Title: S Dhinakaran v The Commissioner of HR and CE and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
Criticizing a litigant for filing pleas objecting to the handing over of a sceptre to a widow during the Pattabhishekam day in Chitra Festival in the Meenakshi Amman Temple, the Madras High Court recently observed that there was no embargo in handing over the Sengol or the Sceptre to a woman or a widow.
Justice C Saravanan added that even if such sanctions were operating in ancient times, these prejudicial and discriminatory practices had to give way in modern times after the adoption of the Constitution. The court also added that objecting to the handing over of the Sceptre to a woman was an affront to equality guaranteed and enshrined under the Constitution.
Case Title: Ramesh v Selvakumar and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
The Madras High Court recently observed that merely smelling alcohol in the breath of a person brought to the hospital by itself is not a ground to attribute contributory negligence to the person in motor accident cases. The court noted that in most cases, the doctors merely indicated the breath smelled of alcohol without making any effort to find out the percentage of alcohol in the blood.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that this determination was important to ascertain whether the person who consumed alcohol was within his control to drive the vehicle. The court thus directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to issue circulars to all hospitals including private hospitals to assess the level of alcohol in blood when an injured or deceased was brought to alcohol and smelt alcohol.
Case Title: M/s.Bajrang & Bajrang Versus The State Tax Officer (FAC)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
The Madras High Court held that the assessee cannot be absolved of responsibility as a registered person to monitor the GST portal.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that an audit was conducted and that an audit report dated 15.09.2023 was issued. An intimation and show cause notice preceded the impugned order. It is noticeable that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not submit a reply along with supporting documents. Therefore, by putting the petitioner on terms, the interest of justice demands that the petitioner be provided an opportunity.
Case Title: Sahayaraj V. M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd, CRP(MD) No. 576 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
The High Court of Madras at Madurai has held that an Executing Court cannot go behind an arbitration award and decides issues on merit of the award.
The bench of Justice G. Ilangovan held that an arbitration award can only be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act and party failing to challenge the award therein cannot raise contentious issues on merit of the award before the executing court.
The Court held that an Executing Court cannot go behind an arbitration award and decides issues on merit of the award. It held that Executing Court rightly refused to entertain those objections.
Case Title: Rajesh Das v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed two applications moved by former special DGP of Tamil Nadu Rajesh Das, seeking suspension of sentence and exemption from surrendering in a sexual harassment case.
While setting aside Das's plea for suspending the sentence pending consideration of the revision petition, Justice M Dhandapani observed that a person of Das's status, who was holding the post of Director General of Police ought to have conducted himself in a proper manner.
The court also observed that the present case was unlike other routine cases since it involved allegations of a serious nature against a man, being higher in the hierarchy in the police department, for outraging the modesty of women folk.
Case Title: CM Raghavan v The Joint Director and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by an independent candidate seeking action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against the BJP and Congress candidates in Tirunelveli, following seizure of money.
A bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed the plea after noting that the offences alleged did not constitute scheduled offences warranting prosecution under the Act. A detailed order is expected soon.
The petition was filed by one CM Raghavan, an independent candidate from Tirunelveli constituency seeking directions to the ED to register a case against Nainar Nagendran and Robert Bruce, BJP and Congress candidates respectively.
Case Title: M/s Colorhome Developers Pvt Ltd v. M/s Color Castle Owners Society, OSA(CAD) No. 113 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 169
The High Court of Madras has held that a plea regarding lack of jurisdiction or invalidity of the appointment of the arbitrator must be raised before the arbitrator during the arbitral proceedings. It held that if such a plea is not taken at the first instance or, the Court in appeal cannot entertain such an objection.
The bench of Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel also held that an objection regarding validity of the invocation of the arbitration dismissed by the Court under Section 11 cannot be raised again in appeal.
Case Title: M/s Geojit Financial Services Ltd v. Mrs. Nalani Rajkumar, Original Side Appeal (CAD) No.51 of 2021
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
The High Court of Madras has held that an arbitration award based on an evidence taken on record after the completion of arguments and behind the back of a party would be liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel held that when an evidence is taken behind the back of a party and after the completion of arguments, it deprives that party of its valuable opportunity to dispute such evidence/document.
The Court also held that such a defect would not be cured if the opportunity to dispute such document was provided before the appellate tribunal.
Case Title: Mohmood Hussain v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 171
The Madras High Court recently struck down an amendment brought out by the State Legislation in 2010 to the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act bringing Wakf properties under the ambit of the act.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that since an amendment was brought into the central act- Wakf Act, which already provided a mechanism to deal with encroachments, the state legislature was repugnant and void. The court emphasized that Section 85 of the Central legislation had expressly prohibited the jurisdiction of other authorities and thus there was no scope of harmony between the central and state legislation.
The court thus set aside the proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer, appointed under the State Legislation to remove encroachers, and directed the Estate Officer to make applications before the Wakf Tribunal which shall then proceed with the matter.
Case Title: Kamatchi Shanker Arumugam v Tamil Nadu School Education Department and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
Emphasizing the need to treat children with care and respect, the Madras High Court has recently deprecated the practice of imposing corporal punishment on children.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that corporal punishment was completely unacceptable and prohibited under Section 17(1) of the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009. The court also said that corporal punishment was not a solution to guide children and instead efforts must be taken to treat children with respect.
The court observed that children should be allowed to grow in a safe and secure environment and to express themselves in their own voices. The court stressed that each child was different and unique and a common method of upbringing could not be adopted for all children. The court further remarked that one should start being more receptive to the needs of children and have an equipped and pragmatic approach where children are better heard and treated with respect.
Case Title: S Sahana Priyanka and Others v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
The Madras High Court recently remarked that Doctors, who undergo postgraduate studies at low cost by utilizing taxpayer's money should serve the poor and needy in the State.
Justice SM Subramaniam also remarked that doctors, who refused to work in government hospitals after completing the PG course, were infringing the fundamental rights of the poor and needy patients who were undergoing treatment in the government hospitals.
The court added that if the attitude of the doctors were allowed, it would encourage an attitude of not paying attention to poor people at whose expense they were educated which was unacceptable. The court also noted that in many cases, the candidates violated the bond period which already led to a considerable shortage of Doctors in Government Medical Institutions.
Case Title: AP Studio Enterprises Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
The Madras High Court has quashed the demand in respect of the input tax credit (ITC) mismatch as the department has failed to consider certificates obtained by buyers.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that important records, such as the supplier's and the chartered accountant's certificates, were disregarded in the issuance of the demand order. Interference with the order is warranted due to this crucial evidence being overlooked.
Case Title: R Rajamani v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Registrar of Madurai Kamaraj University reducing a former Lab Assistant's scale of pay and subsequently reducing the pension amount.
Justice RN Manjula that after retirement, the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the University had come to an end and the University held no authority to re-fix the salary and consequential benefits of the petitioner.
The court also observed that as far as universities were concerned, only a Syndicate had the power to appoint the university and fix their emoluments. Thus, in the court's view, the retrospective re-fixation of salary and subsequent reduction of pension amount based on Local fund audit objection was against the law and liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Sasikumar v Union Government of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
The Madras High Court has disposed of a plea to permanently debar Indian National Congress leader Manickam Tagore from contesting any elections in Tamil Nadu state.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq disposed of the plea after taking on record the Election Commission's submission that a competent authority had already considered the issue. The ECI further assured the court that the petitioner's representation would be considered and disposed of within a week.
The Madras High Court had also dismissed another plea seeking disqualification of Manickam Tagore based on a complaint filed by BJP IT Wing's Virudhunagar District President C Selvakumar.
Case Title: Arumugapandian @ Bala Vivekanandan @ Rocket Raja v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by gangster Rocket Raja seeking anticipatory bail.
While dismissing his plea, Justice B Pugalendhi observed that considering Raja's antecedents, recovery of weapons, a video showing his intention to kill, and considering the elections, the court was not inclined to grant bail.
The court remarked that the Tirunelveli region, which was prone to communal violence, was only free from violence for the past few years. The court added that though antecedents need not be considered at the time of bail, the same could not be followed in the present case as even a small spark may cause a catastrophe in light of the elections.
Case Title: Suthanthira Kannan v Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission to make arrangements for conducting special polling for those persons whose names were left out from the voter's list prepared for the Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
A bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice G Chandrasekharan noted that the Final Voters List was published in January while the provisional list was published even before that. The court then opined that it could not pass any orders at this point, after the polling, when the petitioner had not raised any objection to the voters list earlier.
Case Title: K Selvakumar v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
While denying bail to a man accused of murdering a person belonging to the marginalized community, the Madras High Court has stressed that while considering bail applications in connection with offenses under the SC/ST Act, the courts should refrain from granting bail merely based on period of detention.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar was not inclined to grant bail observing that the accused seemed to care more about the life of a domestic bird than that of a man merely because he belonged to a marginalised society. Thus, noting that the accused had committed a gruesome murder, the court rejected the bail application.
Case Title: A Sathiya Prakash v The Board of Control for Cricket in India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
The Madras High Court recently disposed of a plea seeking stringent action against the sale of IPL tickets in the black market at higher prices and to issue directions to the authorities concerned with the M.A. Chidambaram Stadium to conduct the cricket matches fairly.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu to look into the representation of the petitioner, A Sathiya Prakash and to decide the matter on its own merits.
In his plea, Prakash stated that since the IPL attracted fans wordwide, some anti-social elements were attempting to utilize the curiosity of the fans to watch the cricket match live In stadiums. He informed the court that anti-social elements were purchasing tickets in bulk and re-selling the same in several ways at huge costs.
Case Title: H Raja v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a second application filed by BJP leader H Raja to quash the FIR registered against him for making derogatory remarks against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Karunanidhi and his daughter Kanimozhi Karunanidhi.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the grounds raised in the quash petition were purely factual and were already canvassed in earlier quash petitions. Thus, finding no new merits in the plea, the court dismissed his plea.
Case Title: Safai Karamchari Andolan v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
Lamenting over the persistence of manual scavenging in today's day and age, the Madras High Court has issued a slew of guidelines to eradicate manual scavenging and to ensure compliance with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad remarked that though there might have been a need for manual scavenging in an age of absence of technology, continuing the practice in today's age with technological advancements was nothing but State sanctioned casteism which was against the constitutional ethos.
The court added that lack of funds could not be a justification to continue the practice and the Court, being the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights could not be a mute spectator and allow generational condemnation of the oppressed class to a life of poverty, ill-health, and indignity in complete disregard to their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the constitution.
Case Title: Ms. Monisha v The National Testing Agency and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras High Court recently paved the way for a student, with a special need of wearing adult diapers, to attend the NEET UG Examinations wearing the diaper. The court noted that the principle of reasonable accommodation was not restricted to those suffering disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 but to all persons having special needs.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that any candidate who was not necessarily suffering from any disability set out under the 2016 act but otherwise had special requirements or had a biological condition was entitled to reasonable accommodation.
The court also directed the examination authorities to ensure that all examination centres had suitable toilet facilities with water amenities and a minimum number of sanitary products so that the girls coming unprepared could use them. The court also suggested that the restrooms could be thoroughly inspected in advance and regularly thus limiting the frisking of candidates for a second time and thus, saving the candidates' precious time.
Case Name- State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice G. Arul Murugan while deciding a Writ Appeal in the case of State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold has held that application for compassionate appointment can be made by a minor under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023. However appointment to such an applicant can be given only once they attain the age of majority.
The court further observed that as per Rule 6 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, at the time of making the application of compassionate appointment, it is not mandatory that the applicant is of minimum years of age and an application can be made even on behalf of a minor. However, when such an application is considered, the appointment can be given to the legal heir only after they attain majority.
Case Name- S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice N.Mala while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd. has held that a question that is referred to a labour court under section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act cannot be construed as an Industrial Dispute under section 2(k) of the ID Act.
The court observed that the phrase “as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act or law” cannot convert a question referred under section 17(2) of the ID Act into an Industrial Dispute as defined under section 2(k) of the ID Act. The above-mentioned phrase would only mean that while answering the question referred, the Labour Court would adjudicate it in the same manner as it would adjudicate a reference under the ID Act. Thus, a question that is referred to a Labour Court under section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act cannot be construed as an Industrial Dispute under section 2(k) of the ID Act.
Case Title: D Madhumithra v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
The Madras High Court recently refused to hand over a 3-year-old minor boy's custody to his biological mother considering the child's welfare.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the child had never lived with his biological mother, who was infected with HIV and was handed over to the private respondent when he was born. The court thus opined that it would be in the welfare of the child to continue being in the custody of the private respondent.
Case Title: Dr.Wanbor Sungoh v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
While directing the Thanjavur Medical College to return the original certificates of a PG Doctor, the Madras High Court underlined that the COVID duty performed by the PG doctors should be treated as part of the bond period.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus took a different view than that of a single judge of the Madras High Court recently. The court also observed that educational certificates were not marketable commodities under Section 171 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872. The court thus directed the Directorate of Medical Education to formally relieve the petitioner for the bonded service.
Case Name- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice R. Vijayakumar while deciding a Writ Appeal in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors has held that , Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is empowered to reduce or waive damages imposed on the employer as per the EPF Act and EPF Scheme.
The court observed that as per section 14B of the EPF Act, the Provident Fund Commissioner or any other officer authorized by the Central Government may recover such damages which do not exceed the amount of arrears which may be specified in the scheme contemplated under Paragraph No. 32A of the EPF Scheme.
The court held that as per Section 7I and 14B of the EPF Act, order passed by the Central Board under Section 14B are also appealable to the Appellate Tribunal. Thus when the orders of Central Board are appealable to the Appellate Tribunal, it is not legally acceptable to say that the Central Board has exclusive power to reduce/waive damages but the Appellate Tribunal does not have such powers.
Case Name- C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R.N.Manjula while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors. has held that non-consideration of a representation made to a statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty.
The court observed that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, a duty is cast upon them to consider the same on merits and pass and appropriate order instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. The court further held that non-consideration of a representation made to a statutory authority would amount to dereliction of duty.
Petitioner's Qualifications Should Not Be A Barrier To Compassionate Appointment: Madras HC
Case: B. Saravanan v. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice L. Victoria Gowri while deciding a writ petition in the case of B. Saravanan v. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission & Ors has held that the petitioner's qualifications should not be a barrier to compassionate appointment.
The court observed that the petitioner's qualifications should not be a barrier to compassionate appointment and directed the Respondents to consider the representations and appoint the Petitioner in a suitable post in terms of seniority list maintained by the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, District Collectorate and the Directorate of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai.
Case: P. Elilarasan v. The Executive Director, Air India Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
A Single-Judge bench of Madras High Court comprising of Justice Battu Devanand while deciding a writ petition in the case of P. Elilarasan v. The Executive Director, Air India Ltd. & Ors. has held that as long as there is a manpower requirement by the employer, the services of the employee ought to be utilized and at no point of time should he be replaced by any other causal arrangement by resorting to employ other persons.
The court observed that the Petitioners' employment should be maintained as long as there is a genuine requirement for their services by the Respondent. The court also emphasized that the Petitioners should not be replaced by casual arrangements and that their employment should continue with the terms and conditions stipulated by the Respondent. Additionally, the court prohibited the termination of the petitioners' employment through unfair means or labour practices.
Case Title: A Kamala v Home Secretary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras High Court has closed the habeas corpus plea file by the mother of Youtuber and whistle blower “Savukku” Shankar.
The vacation bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice R Kalaimathi closed the plea and directed the authorities to consider Shankar's mother's representation to move him to a different prison.
The court had previously directed the Coimbatore DLSA to submit a report on Shankar's health. Following this, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the report and informed the court that Shankar had also been taken to the Coimbatore Government Medical College as per the instructions of the Judicial Magistrate.
The APP also stressed that Shankar had sustained the injuries before being locked in the prison and refuted the allegations of custodial torture.
Case Name: Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry, held that Employees are not automatically entitled to pension benefits based on deductions made under the GPF scheme.
The court observed that while the GPF Scheme was in place, it did not included provisions for pension benefits. The court emphasized that deductions made under the GPF Scheme do not automatically entitle employees to pension benefits. The court acknowledged that any decision regarding the extension of pension benefits to employees of the respondent organization required approval from the government.
The court relied on the W.P.No.1264 of 2019 wherein the Division bench of Madras High Court held that the employees of Autonomous Bodies cannot claim pension unless there is a specific pension scheme in place, and requests for a pension scheme similar to the government's do not grant them the same rights as government employees.
Case Name: G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., held that in order to qualify for promotion, employees must satisfy the necessary practical experience and the required number of years of service.
The court observed that petitioner was appointed as a Senior Superintendent as a fresh entrant on May 30, 2015, as a result, he had not completed the required five years of service in this position, as mandated by Rule 60(d)(i) of the Common Service Rules, to be eligible for promotion to Assistant Manager (Legal). The court observed that petitioner lacked the necessary practical experience in civil or mofsel courts as an advocate, which was a requirement for the Assistant Manager (Legal) position.
The court found that the seniority list prepared by the corporation was in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. The court further observed that the promotions within the TSTC were based on merit and eligibility criteria, including the completion of the requisite years of service and possession of necessary qualifications in compliance with the Common Service Rules.
Case Title: S Kesavan v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras High Court recently noted that the authorities could not deny permission to conduct a temple festival on the grounds of the existence of a Model Code of Conduct.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu was hearing a plea challenging the rejection of permission and to grant permission to conduct a music and dance program at night during the temple festival. The authorities had denied permission given the model code of conduct existing due to the Assembly Elections.
The court however noted that the elections in the State of Tamil Nadu had concluded and the polling was already over. The court was also not in favor of denying permission because of the Model Code of Conduct.
Case Title: A Balaguru v The Director Superintending Archaeologist
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Madras High Court had recently observed that the Archaeological Department had an incumbent duty to maintain the archaeological monuments in the State and should not do acts that would endanger the archaeological monuments.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad was hearing a plea against the construction of a toilet and cafeteria near the Arulmigu Gangaikonda Cholisvarar Temple.
Case Name: S. Achuthan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Educational Department
Citation:2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Battu Devanand, while deciding a writ petition in the case of S. Achuthan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Educational Department, held that pensionary benefits cannot be denied to employees on the basis of administrative delays that are not attributable to the employees themselves.
The court observed that it was important to consider the commencement date of the selection process rather than the date of issuing appointment orders, for determining pension scheme eligibility. The court relied on the previous judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, where they have emphasized the importance of considering the commencement date of the selection process rather than the date of issuing appointment orders or joining duty, for determining pension scheme eligibility.
Case Name: V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
A Single Judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Hon'ble Justice Battu Devanand while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu held that it would be unjustified to recover from employees any excess payment made to them by mistake and where there had been inordinate delay in initiating the recovery.
The court relied on the case of State of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) wherein the Supreme Court set aside the proceedings of recovery observing that the recovery would be impermissible in law from employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery or when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
Case Name : C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
A single bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, held that when an employee changes regions and accepts the lowest administrative rank, their seniority in the transferred region is counted from the transfer date, not the original date of entry into service.
The court looked at the eligibility of the petitioner for the position of “Superintendent (Legal)” based on the Common Service Rules as he hadn't worked as “Superintendent (Admin and Accounts)” neither held positions relevant for consideration. Despite claiming since 1992, the petitioner lacked eligibility or rights for consideration or promotion as per the rules. Even if irregularities existed in appointments to the post, the petitioner lacked the standing to object or make claims. Thus, the court deemed the petitioner's claim baseless and rejected it.
Case Title: M Marannan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The Madras High Court has directed the revenue authorities to take criminal action against persons furnishing false information to get a legal heirship certificate.
Justice SM Subramanian added that if the authorities failed to take action against such persons, the competent authority shall initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the officers for dereliction of duty.
The court noted that a legal heirship certificate had civil consequences and suppression of facts while seeking a legal heirship certificate would lead to infringement of the civil rights of persons. The court thus noted that those persons who suppressed material facts were liable to be prosecuted under criminal law.
Case Title: K Saravanan v The Joint Director of School Education and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
The Madras High Court has reiterated that an employer cannot suspend an employee on the date of his retirement or at the verge of his retirement and initiate disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of considerable time.
Justice RN Manjula observed that suspending the employee and issuing a charge memo after a considerable time would not only be a mockery but would also cause inconvenience to the Government and discourage the morale of the Government employees who rendered their services till the attainment of superannuation.
The court observed that the Department's delayed action was in complete contradiction to its own Government orders which would vitiate all the subsequent proceedings including the charge memo. The court added that allowing the departmental proceedings to continue would only be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. The court added that there could not be any other mental agony to an employee than placing him under suspension exactly on the date of superannuation.
Case Name: Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and K. Kumaresh Babu, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan, held that upon the death of the employee, the purpose of compassionate appointment is to reduce the immediate financial hardship faced by their family.
The court observed that the deceased employee had been granted temporary status before his death, indicating some level of recognition by the authorities. This fact was considered relevant to the eligibility of the family for compassionate appointment.
The court noted that the petitioners had failed to comply with previous tribunal orders directing them to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment. The court deemed this non-compliance as contemptuous and indicated that the petitioners did not have the right to reject the deceased employee for regularization.
Case Name: Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Tantea Employees' Federation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, while deciding Writ Appeal in the case of Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Tantea Employees' Federation, held that order passed by the Government to revise the pay scale on recommendations of an expert committee cannot be refused by the employer on grounds of disparity in employees' qualifications.
The court rejected the appellant's contention regarding the disparity in qualifications. It emphasized that when the government accepted the recommendations of an expert committee and issued a subsequent order rectifying anomalies, such orders modified the original government order accepting the recommendations of the pay commission. Therefore, the appellant could not refuse to implement the subsequent order based on qualification differences. The court agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the order and upheld it.
Case Title: P Naveen Kumar v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court recently observed that if the right to privacy includes one's sexual and gender orientation, it would also include one's spiritual orientation and thus allow a person to perform such religious practices as one deemed fit.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus observed that a man had every right to perform Angapradakshinam, a ritual where one rolls over the plantain leaves left behind by other devotees after eating. The court noted that his right to perform the practice was protected under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution.
Looking into the earlier judicial pronouncements regarding religious practices, the court said that the petitioner had a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution to carry out the religious vow undertaken by him when he believed that such an act would confer a spiritual benefit on him.
The court noted that the matter was also covered by the right to privacy. The court added that one's personal choices governing the way of life were intrinsic to privacy and that privacy was not lost or surrendered merely because the individual was in a public place.
Case Title: Anju v Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras High Court recently ordered the Villupuram District Collector to exhume the dead body of a man after his family approached the court alleging that the man had died as a result of custodial torture.
Justice R Sakthivel noted that the actions of the police personnel created a serious suspicion around the death of the man and thus the family's suspicion couldn't be brushed aside. Thus, finding that an enquiry would be necessary to unearth the truth and noting that the same should not cause any prejudice to the authorities, the court directed the exhumation of the body and ordered re-postmortem.
Case Title: The Branch Manager v Mrs Ramzan Begam
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
The Madras High Court has recently observed that any certificate including salary certificates, appointment letters, etc of a person in foreign employment that has been duly attested by the Consular of India can be accepted as evidence without examining any person associated with the documents.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji noted that as per Section 3(2) Diplomatic and Consular (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 any document affixed, impressed, or subscribed with the seal and signature of the Consular shall be admitted in evidence without proof of seal or signature.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
The Madras High Court has suggested prescribing a period of limitation for filing counter reliefs of divorce or restitution of conjugal rights in matrimonial disputes.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji noted that in the last few years, it had become a trend for parties to file applications seeking counter-relief for divorce petitions or counter-relief of restitution of conjugal rights towards the fag end of the trial thereby delaying the disposal of the case. The court thus suggested a period of limitation of 9 months to 1 year for filing applications for counter relief.
The court thus directed the registry to place the recommendations before the Administrative Side of the High Court for amending the rules under Section 123 of the CPC which empowers the High Court Rule Committee to make rules regarding the limitations governing the field under the Family Court Act.
Case Title: KK Ramesh v Union of Indians and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a complete review had to be taken by the management of Transport Corporations in a phased manner to control air pollution in Madurai city.
Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice G Arul Murugan suggested that the existing old vehicles could be replaced by new eco-friendly vehicles depending upon the financial status of the corporations.
The court was hearing petitions to set up flying squads at the Taluk Level, District level, and state level in Tamil Nadu and to impose a heavy fine on vehicles emitting huge black and white Carbon Monoxide from the nozzle. Another plea also sought to ensure proper maintenance of the engine of Government buses in Madurai to prevent excess usage of fuel and emission of unwanted gases and particular matters from the exhaust.
Case Title: G.Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary to Government, Secretary to Government, Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu, and the Director General of Police to constitute a High-Level Secret Committee consisting of officers with integrity to monitor police officials who were suspected to be hand in glove with the drug offenders.
Though the bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Rajasekar appreciated the efforts taken by the state to control the free movement of drugs in the State, the court also noted that if the police officers were efficient and more vigilant, the free movement would be impossible. The court thus suggested setting up the secret committee.
Case Title: Riyana Begum v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras High Court recently directed the railways to compensate the family of a man who was hit by a train while sitting on the railway platform and succumbed to injuries.
Justice K Rajasekar observed that since the accident had taken place while the man was sitting on the railway platform, the burden was on the Railways to prove that the incident was not one within the definition of an untoward incident. The court added that if the accident had taken place while the man was crossing the track, the contention of the railways could have been accepted but since there was no evidence to prove that the man was sitting on the edge of the platform, it could not be termed as 'self-inflicted injury'.
Case Title: A Kamala v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court on Thursday delivered a split verdict in the habeas corpus plea filed by the mother of Youtuber and whistle-blower Savukku Shankar.
While Justice GR Swaminathan wanted to set aside the detention order passed against Shankar, Justice PB Balaji wanted to give more time for the police to file their counter.
While delivering the judgment, Justice Swaminathan also added that the reason why he wanted to take up the habeas corpus plea and pass orders on Thursday itself was because some high-ranking men had personally met him requesting him not to take up the HCP for final disposal. This prompted him to take up the case.
Madras High Court Dismisses Infosys's Plea Challenging ₹6.7 Crore Demand By TANGEDCO
Case Title: Infosys Limited v The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court recently rejected a petition filed by IT major Infosys challenging an order of TANGEDCO demanding around 6.7 crores as Shortfall Amount/Adjustment charges.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that there was no infirmity or illegality in the proceedings and that the petition was devoid of any merits. The court noted that the demand made by TANGEDCO was not barred by limitation as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.
Infosys had approached the court after TANGEDCO raised a demand of Rs. 6,76,09,540.12 as Shortfall Amount/Adjustment charges.
The court noted that as per the certificate issued by MEPZ, Infosys was engaged in both software development and Information Technology Enabled Service within the same premises and it was appropriate to adopt a higher tariff.
Thus, the court found no infirmity in the order of TANGEDCO and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Shalin v The District Registrar and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras High Court recently noted that it was time to include the Church Properties under Section 22 A of the Registration Act 1908 which protects certain properties like temple and wakf properties from registration.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that while temple properties are protected under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and the Wakf properties are covered under the Wakf Act 1995, a similar law with respect to church properties was absent. The court noted that in India, being a secular country, the state was expected to treat all religions alike and thus suggested bringing church properties under the ambit of Section 22A of the Registration Act.
Case Title: N Lakshmi v IRDAI and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court recently remarked that often Insurance companies wilfully refuse reimbursements to the insured, forcing them to pay the court to get their rights enforced. The court added that individuals usually do not have the legal knowledge to understand the ambiguous language used in the policy documents which helps the company's intention to waive their liability.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus came to the rescue of a woman challenging an order of the authorized officer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance rejecting the insurance claim with respect to her Husband, who died of cardiac arrest during the second wave of COVID-19.
The court noted that as per the policy, the first occurrence of a heart attack of specified severity was covered under the policy. The court also noted that as per the orders of the Apex Court, an insurance company could not be too technical and reject a claim on technical grounds.
Case Title: High Court of Madras v P Dharmaraj and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
The Madras High Court criticized the members of the Madurai Bar Association for passing resolutions condemning a judicial order mandating the wearing of helmets by riders of two-wheelers and for subsequently holding a procession and making allegations against the Judge.
Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the members had attempted to take the law into their own hands when they should have resorted to the alternate remedies available if the order was found to be unacceptable or unimplementable. The court made the remarks in a suo moto contempt petition initiated against the President and Secretary of the Madurai bar Association.
Case Title: Uma Kant v The Inspector General
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court recently dismissed the removal of a CISF Constable for using another CISF Constable's ATM card without permission and withdrawing money.
Justice RN Manjula noted that though there was no previous similar instance, a charge of this nature was so severe and serious, that no soft approach could be taken. The court observed that taking away someone's ATM card for withdrawing money without his permission was nothing but stealing money and thus, the dismissal from service was appropriate.
Case Title: Balaji @ Panai Balaji v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Madras High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against a 21-year-old man who had eloped with a 18 year old girl.
Calling it a case of Romeo and Juliet which ended successfully in marriage, Justice G Jayachandran noted that the inherent power of the court under Section 482 of CrPC was meant for cases like this to meet the ends of justice. The court added that if the prosecution was not quashed, it would create vulnerability to the girl and force her exploitation, which was intended to be prevented under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Saurav Das v Chief Information Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Information Commissioner to conduct a fresh inquiry into alleged non-disclosure of information pertaining to the actions taken by the Central Government during the COVID pandemic, including the actions taken, treatment given etc.
In the order made on 7th December 2023, the copy of which was uploaded today, Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the Chief Information Commissioner had arrived at a conclusion without any discussion or material proof. Finding this order to be unsustainable, the court directed the Commissioner to conduct a fresh inquiry following the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: PK Manimandram Others v State Human Rights Commission
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court has observed that a person discharging his official duty cannot be held up for violation of Human Rights based on false and frivolous allegations.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar thus set aside an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission directing the Central and State governments to compensate a former Junior Clerk of the Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture (CIBA).
The bench was hearing petitions filed by the Director and the Administrative Officer of the CIBA and a petition filed by the Inspector of Police, CB-CID challenging an order of the SHRC.
Case Title: Imrankan and others v The Sub Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court has observed that the court cannot be a mute spectator when the trial is delayed through attempts of the accused under the guise of fair opportunity.
Justice G Jayachandran thus refused to entertain a plea for recalling witnesses. The court noted that the case was registered in the year 2009 and was yet to reach finality even after 15 years. The court thus opined that the petition to recall witnesses was only for delaying the process and would not be in the interest of justice.
Case Title: IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Kalaiselvi and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court has observed that the Motor Vehicle Act is beneficial legislation and should be interpreted in favor of the affected persons.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel thus enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased minor boy in an accident involving vehicles driven by minor boys.
The court noted that since the deceased was covered under the insurance policy at the time of the accident, the tribunal had rightly concluded that the insurance company was liable to pay the award amount and recover it from the owners equally.
However, the court decided to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded and awarded an enhanced compensation including future prospects of the deceased. The court thus directed the insurance company to deposit the modified award to the credit of the case on the file of the Chief Judge, MACT, Court of Small Cases, Chennai with interest within a period of eight weeks.
Case Title: S Sasikala v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court has recently appointed a wife as the guardian of her husband, who was in a vegetative state, thereby allowing her to dispose of the properties in her husband's name to meet the medical expenses.
Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji thus set aside the order of a single judge who had opined that the relief could not be granted under Article 226 and gave liberty to the woman to approach the jurisdictional civil court. The division bench, however, observed that driving the woman, who was already burdened with taking care of her comatose husband, was not proper.
The court also noted that taking care of a person in a comatose condition was not easy and required funds. Thus, the court opined that the property, which was in the name of the husband should be put to better use by allowing the wife to deal with them.
Case Title: Haj Mohamed v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant bail to a man booked for morphing and uploading a woman's picture on social media. The court said that the act not only affected the morality of the woman and her family but may also deviate others using social media, especially the younger generation.
Justice B Pugalendhi noted that while all the other offenses alleged were bailable, the accused was also booked under Section 67 A of the Information Technology Act. Thus, considering the gravity/ impact of the offence and the period of imprisonment provided under the Information Technology Act, the court was not inclined the grant bail.
Case Title: Samuel Tennyson v The Principal & Secretary, MCC and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has held that the disciplinary committee is bound by the decisions of the Internal Complaints Committee with respect to allegations of sexual harassment at workplace.
Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that as per the observations of the Apex Court, the findings and the report of the Complaints Committee shall not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or an inquiry leading to disciplinary action, but as a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent in the sexual harassment case.
The court noted that as per Section 13 of the POSH Act and Rule 9 of the POSH Rules, if the Complaints Committee concludes that the allegations have been proven, it could recommend to the employer to take action for sexual harassment, as misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service law and take action, including termination.
Case Title: M/s.V.R.Muthu & Bros. Versus State Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
The Madras High Court has held that merely because the assessment is deemed to have been completed in both cases, it does not mean that the officers are precluded from exercising the power under Section 25 or Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
The court, while dismissing the petition, held that the issuance of summons is for ascertaining and producing information. Whether the petitioners have complied with all the requirements of Section 22(2) and whether the declarations in the returns filed by the petitioners are correct or not can be ascertained only if records are summoned.
Case Title: S Nithesh and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court recently dismissed pleas challenging the Government Order issued by the Human Resource Management Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu mandating the candidates to secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% in Tamil Paper in the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that sufficient knowledge in Tamil was a sine qua non for the efficient discharge of the functions and duties as the persons placed in Group-IV posts will have to have direct interaction with the people.
The court noted that the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which was enacted to regulate the service conditions, in Section 21 mandates the Government Servants to have adequate knowledge of Tamil. The court noted that as per Section 21A of the Act, which was introduced in 2021, any person who applies for recruitment to any post in any service by direct recruitment shall pass the Tamil Language paper with not less than 40%.
Case Title: Sudha Mathesan v The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court has held that while dealing with giving approvals for organ donation, the Authorisation Committee should take the statements made by donors, who are not near relatives of the patients, at its face value without insisting on producing evidence.
Justice GR Swaminathan underlined that all religions proclaimed love and charity at highest value and not all human endeavor was underlined with selfish consideration. The court thus held that unless evidence was shown to the contrary, the committee should accept the statement made by the donor that the organ was being donated out of love and affection.
The court observed that too much burden could not be laid on the shoulders of the applicants to prove that there was no commercial dealings. The court added that unless there was definite material to show that there was financial dealings, permission ought not to be rejected or withheld. The court said that the committee need not always take a cynical view that a non-near relative will not donate out of altruistic consideration. The court underlined that altruism was present in humans, who, in times of danger and calamity were known to save others even at the cost of their own lives.
Case Title: Rakshika Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court has struck down a Government Order issued by the Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes & Minorities Welfare (BCC) Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu including transgender persons under the Most Backward Class community for providing reservation.
Justice GK Ilanthraiyan noted that the State had failed to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Nalsa case properly. The court noted that by bringing transgender persons into the Most Backward Class community, the state was treating gender as a caste which was against the judgment of the Supreme Court. The court added that only horizontal reservation could be granted to the community for complying with the order of the Apex Court.
Case Title: Deivanayaki v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court has refused to set aside the conviction of the wife of a Sub-Inspector of Police accused of accumulating wealth disproportionate to his income.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that though the Public Servant was no more, his wife should face consequences under Section 109 read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court added that it was the duty of the wife to discourage her public servant husband from receiving bribes. The court remarked that corruption had pervaded to an unimaginable ratio and if homemakers also become party to corruption, there would be no end to it. The court thus observed that the appellant, whose life was a “bed of roses” with the ill-gotten money should face the consequences also.
Case Title: J Rajkumar v The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court has called for taking a uniform liberal approach while dealing with applications for transplantation of Human organs.
Calling Medicare a huge business, Justice GR Swaminathan noted that while the applications from some hospitals were easily accepted, the applications from some hospitals were rejected. The court added that it was necessary to comply with the principles of natural justice as the rights of the patients were at stake.
Case Title: Antony Clement Rubin v M Vignesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Madras High Court has directed the state government to consider a representation for regulating the Pet Boarding Facilities in the state.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq thus disposed of a plea field by Antony Clement Rubin, an animal rights activist. The court directed the State to consider Rubin's representation and pass orders on merit within eight weeks.
In his plea, Rubin highlighted that post Covid- there has been a substantial increase in the number of pet owners who would require pet boarding facilities for a number of reasons. He added that with the increase in demand for pet boarding facility, there was also an imperative demand that these facilities be governed by a separate set of rules and regulations to prevent the horrendous abuse of the animals.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
While denying relief to a husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, the Madras High Court has observed that a wife merely filing a complaint in the police station would not amount to cruelty, unless the husband proves that the complaint was a false dowry demand complaint.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel thus observed that they could not find fault with the conduct of the wife, filing a police complaint with the intention of living together with her husband.
The court further noted that there was no evidence available on record to show that the wife had committed cruelty. The court held that the husband had failed to establish “animus deserendi” of wife and thus, finding no fault with the order of the trial court, dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Kanthavel and Others v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court recently remarked that an investigating officer is expected to conduct the investigation in a fair manner and find out the genuineness of a complaint.
Justice B. Pugalendhi remarked that the motto of the Government is Truth alone triumphs and thus, it is the responsibility of every government servant to ensure the same.
The court was hearing a plea for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated for illegally harvesting crops planted by the de facto complainant. The petitioner contended that the police had registered a case for a civil dispute. The court added that it expected the investigating officer to conduct the investigation in a fair manner by considering the evidence produced by the parties. The court thus disposed of the petition granting liberty to the investigating officer to conduct the investigation fairly by verifying the materials and completing the investigation as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: A Kamala v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court on Thursday ruled that the split verdict passed concerning the detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar was without following the principles of natural justice granting fair opportunity. The court thus directed the matter to be heard afresh by the bench dealing with habeas corpus pleas.
The order was made by Justice G Jayachandran, the third judge appointed by the Acting Chief Justice following the split verdict. Justice Jayachandran noted that while the court was not bound by a hard and fast rule of granting 4 weeks to file counter, especially in cases dealing with detention orders, the authority needed to be given a reasonable opportunity to justify the detention order. He noted that the impugned order suffered from a violation of natural justice as the state was not allowed to file a counter.
The judge added that if Justice Swaminathan was affected by external factors, he should have recused himself from hearing the case, thereby not allowing a negative bias.
Case Title: Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
The Madras High Court has suggested the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to fix a minimum stipend for engaging a junior lawyer to ensure his livelihood is protected.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that often, young lawyers were unable to survive due to meager payments from their senior lawyers. The court added that senior lawyers who extracted work from junior lawyers without paying them a minimum stipend were in fact exploiting the young lawyers and directly violating their fundamental rights, which the court could not allow.
The court added that one of the functions of the State Bar Council was to safeguard the rights, privileges, interest, and livelihoods of the advocates who have enrolled with great ambitions. The court observed that it could not permit the exploitation of young lawyers in any circumstance and thus directed the state to fix the minimum stipend.
Case Title: National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Seshasayee urged the Parliament to assess and evaluate the working efficiency of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') and questioned whether the Parliament has considered the general recovery percentage achieved from a successful corporate debtor resolution process.
The High Court observed that the issue is not what constitutes a statutory liability, but rather why the corporate debtor's liability should be distributed socially when the debtor likely did not share its profits with society during prosperous times, aside from legally mandated Corporate Social Responsibility.
Case Title: Kesava Vinayagam v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court has refused to quash the FIR registered against Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) Organising Secretary Kesava Vinayagam in connection with the seizure of Rs.3.99 crore from a train for alleged bribing of voters during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that though the plea for quashing the FIR was not maintainable, the court needed to ensure that the person's liberty was protected. The court thus directed the investigating agency to seek the court's permission to summon Vinayagam, if they found any materials in connection with the case.
Case Title: The President v The State Information Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court has recently held that co-operative societies registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act do not fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act and thus are not bound by the Act.
Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan thus set aside an order passed by the State Information Commissioner directing Madhanam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society to furnish all information sought by a man under the RTI Act.
Case Title: MRF Ltd v Competition Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Competition Commission of India allowing an investigation to be carried out into a suspected rigging involving tyre manufacturer MRF Ltd.
Noting that MRF was not a “party” to the proceeding and yet the CCI allowed an investigation against MRF, Justice Anita Sumanth noted that an entity was entitled to know the status under which its presence and participation was sought in a statutory proceeding. The court noted that the applications and their consequences would vary depending on the status of a party in a proceeding and thus, unless a party was aware of the provision under which it was involved, it would not be able to pursue appropriate legal remedy.
Pay Rs.15Kto 20K To Junior Advocates As Monthly Stipend : Madras High Court Directs Advocates
Case Title: Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court has asked advocates and senior advocates in the State rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to pay a monthly stipend of Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 to Junior Advocates engaged with them.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan thus modified an earlier direction that the court had issued on Wednesday (12th June) asking the bar associations in the state to pay the monthly stipend. In its order released on Thursday, the court directed the Advocates to pay this amount.
The court thus fixed a minimum stipend of Rs. 20,000 for young lawyers practicing in Chennai, Madurai, and Coimbatore and a minimum stipend of Rs 15,000 for lawyers in other districts. The court added that the amounts were fixed by taking into account the basic cost of living and the expenditure costs prevalent in the state.
Case Title: Gurunathan v The Deputy Director and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court has observed that the State is expected to take care of the mentally disabled persons who are without any family support. The court added that though Section 9(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act deals with a child with disability lacking family support, the provisions could be extended to even adults who are suffering from mental disability and are lacking family support.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus came to the rescue of a father, whose son was suffering from mental illness. The court directed the Deputy Director of Directorate of Public Health, The Chief Administrative Officer of Tamil Nadu Institute of Mental Health and the Dean of Tirunelveli Medical College to take appropriate steps to take the couple's son in their custody and provide lifelong medicare to him.
Case Title: R Anushri v The Secretary TNPSC and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
The Madras High Court has directed the state government to prescribe separate norms for transgender persons in employment and educational avenues. The court added that transgender persons should not be clubbed under male or female categories and should instead be treated as a special category and the norms extended to other special categories should be extended to them.
Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan remarked that the state government was still confused about how to place transgender persons and perpetuating this confusion by placing transgender persons under the male or female category.
The court thus came to the rescue of a transwoman who wished to participate in the recruitment for a post included in Combined Civil Service Examination – II (Non-Interview Post). She had contended that by not including her under the special category, the TNPSC had denied her the opportunity to be considered.
Measurement Of Individual's Height Also Depends On Timing Of Measurement: Madras High Court
Case Title: MM Karthikeyan v Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court has recently noted that the measurement of an individual's height also depends upon the measurement's timing and that the issue regarding height should be resolved by standards and principles laid down by the court.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing the plea of a man, who was rejected from the recruitment to the Assistant Conservator of Forest post as he fell short of the minimum prescribed height by 0.5 cm. The court directed the TNPSC to round off the height and declare him as having qualified with the minimum physical standards as far as height was concerned.
Case Title: High Court of Madras v PU Venkatesan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court has held a former loco pilot guilty of committing criminal contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1971 by calling the judges criminals and sending letters to the Chief Justice of India making scandalous and reckless allegations against sitting judges of the High Court and a former judge of the Supreme Court.
Bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan deemed it appropriate to impose a maximum sentence on the man, PU Venkatesan, and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The court also directed the Inspector of Police to arrest the Venkatesan and present him before the jail authorities.
The court observed that Venkatesan's acts were contemptuous not only against the concerned judges but also the entire justice delivery system. The court also took note that Venkatesan had not shown any remorse for his actions and had rather challenged the judges to punish him.
Case Title: R Mohanakrishnan v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
The Madras High Court has recently observed that an allegation of rape of continuous molestation and harassment, unlike a lewd inappropriate remark, is a continuing misconduct and every day till the situation is redressed, a fresh cause of action arises.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that in these instances, the injury did not end by forced physical intercourse but added up every day when the victim was made to remain silent and face the molester at the workplace. The court observed that this injury was further confounded by fear of victimization and thus would amount to continuous sexual harassment.
he court added that sexual harassment caused considerable harm to women and affected their physical and mental health. The court added that often, the mental deterioration included depression, self-doubt, withdrawal from employment, fear of being labeled as a troublemaker, spoiling the organization's reputation, etc. The court added that the victims also feared being blamed for the harassment and the victimization from the employer and society.
Case Title: Kennel Club of India v The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
While closing a plea filed by the Kennel Club Of India against the Central Government's notification banning the import of certain dogs by classifying them as ferocious and dangerous, the Madras High Court remarked that the process involved public policy and thus had to be transparent.
Justice Anitha Sumanth noted that the process of classifying the dogs is related to public policy and thus attempts should be made to make the whole process transparent. The court added that the committee, to be constituted by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying for classifying the dogs should be made known to the public, thus ensuring that there are no future challenges to thwart the process.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar v The Inspector General of Registration and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court has observed that a woman's marital status should not be a determining factor while considering her child's adoption.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 which mandates consent of the other parent would not apply when the mother/father of the child to be given in adoption is absent.
The court added that when the father was wholly indifferent to the minor's matter and the mother was exclusively in charge the father could be considered to be absent as was the present case.
Case Title: P Jayachandran v A Yesuranthinam (Died) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a live-in relationship between a married man and an unmarried woman was not one "in the nature of marriage" giving rights to the parties. The court added that in the absence of any codified law, the live in partner could not seek any succession or inheritance of the property of the other part.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman thus refused relief to a man who had entered into a live-in relationship with a woman despite being married. The court noted that a relationship in the nature of marriage required that the couple held themselves out in the society akin to spouses, voluntarily cohabited, must be of legal age to marry, and must be otherwise qualified to enter into marriage. The court noted that since the man's marriage with his wife still existed at the time of the live-in relationship, the live-in relationship could not be termed as one in the nature of marriage.
Madras High Court Grants Conditional Bail To Temple Priest Accused Of Sexually Harassing Devotee
Case Title: Karthick Munusamy v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to Karthick Munusamy, temple priest of Kalikampal temple accused of raping and threatening of kill a woman devotee.
Justice TV Tamilselvi granted bail but directed Karthick to appear before the investigating officer regularly and cooperate with the investigation.
The case against Karthick was that while he was working as the Guru of the temple, he had befriended a woman devotee, who had moved to Chennai in search of work and later sexually harassed her after offering her spiked drink.
Case Title: State v P Ponnusamy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
While setting aside the conviction of all 9 accused in the infamous Dr. Subbiah murder case, the Madras High Court recently observed that the trial court had taken a callous approach in the case, by not appreciating the evidence before it and disregarding the settled legal proposition.
Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, and directed them to be released unless their presence was otherwise required for the case.
Case Title: R Sasikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court recently set aside the order cancelling the appointment of a Jeep Driver who was wrongly appointed to a post earmarked for members from the Scheduled Castes community. (Arunthathiyars on Preferential Basis)
Justice RN Manjula held that the employee had not suppressed any material facts and he could not be penalized or made a scapegoat for the appointing authority's failure to follow the guidelines of communal rotation. Noting that the appointment was cancelled after 14 years, the court added that the Government was a model employer and could not adopt such atrocious practices.
Case Title: Tmt. Sabeena Beevi v The Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court recently observed that detaining authority was expected to show sensitivity while dealing with representations relating to preventive detention. The court added that when there was unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority in forwarding representations to the sponsoring authority, the least safeguards guaranteed by the constitution were denied to the detenu.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that since preventive detention was a serious encroachment of one's personal liberty, it was necessary to ensure certain minimum safeguards for the protection of the person sought to be preventively detained.
Case Title: K Paranthaman v The Secretary, TNPSC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court recently observed that numeric illustrations inserted in a provision for clarity and as abundant caution could not add, modify or override the provision itself.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus ruled that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission could not hold a Master of Library and Information Science degree as an invalid degree merely because it was of one-year duration and the same would be a pedantic approach.
Case Title: V Sakthivel v The Revenue Divisional Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court has recently observed that when a child is adopted, all ties of the child with his or her biological family is deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus noted that the biological family of the adopted child cannot be called the legal heirs of the adopted child and have a claim over the property inherited by him/her from the adoptive family.
ITC Wrongfully Availed But No Fraud/Misstatement Proven; Madras High Court Imposes Token Penalty
Case Title: M/s.Greenstar Fertilisers Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Madras High Court has imposed a token penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee instead of a higher penalty as the assessee wrongfully availed of the input tax credit (ITC), but the department could not prove fraud or misstatement on the part of the assessee.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the assessee reversed the ITC. Penalties under Section 74 deal with situations where credit is availed or utilized by reason of fraud or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts that was not proved by the department.
Case Title: Felix Jerald v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed the bail petition filed by Youtuber Felix Jerald in a case relating to the interview of Savukku Shankar in which Savukku made derogatory remarks against women police officers.
Justice TV Thamilselvi agreed with the prosecution that by interviewing Shankar, Jerald had provided a platform to the latter, to make such objectionable statements. The judge also pointed out that being a journalist, Jerald was expected to behave in a dignified manner and he could have edited out the derogatory portions of the interview before making it public.
Case Title: Indian Institute of Technology v The Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
The Madras High Court has affirmed an order passed by the Controller of Patents & designs rejecting the patent application filed by Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras's method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that there was no experimental data to show that the method had an economic significance. Further, the court also noted that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.
The court noted that the invention merely employed dissolution, filtration, heating, drying and reheating and the resultant product was also a mere variant of an already existing product. Thus, noting that a new reactant was not used while adopting the known process, the court conclude that the claimed invention was excluded from patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
While setting aside a conviction in a sexual harassment case, the Madras High Court recently observed that when the victim already knew that the accused was a married man and father of a child, she could not allege that the consent was obtained on a false promise of marriage.
Justice M Dhandapani observed that while dealing with cases of such nature, the courts had a two-fold duty- firstly to see that women are not misused and secondly and equally that the law is not misused against the male folk. The court noted that though the courts had to give a soft touch to the evidence of the victims on the premise that women would not be the aggressors against males, it was also important to note that no innocent male was subjected to the vagaries of the women folk.
Case Title: Gokul Abhimanyu v Union of India and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking to reduce the application fee for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) conducted by the Bar Council of India.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice GR Swaminathan observed that unlike the enrolment fee prescribed under the Advocates Act, there was no statutory provision relating to the examination fee for the All India Bar Examination. In such a situation, the court noted that there was no legal right, for which a mandamus could be issued.
The court further noted that even in cases where there was no legal right, the court could interfere if it opined that the quantum of fee was exorbitant. In the present case however, the court noted that the application fee was Rs. 3,500/- which could not be called exorbitant.
Case Title: B Anantha Lakshmi and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
While dealing with a case relating to the bond period of PG Doctors, the Madras High Court stressed that a poor person, who is unable to afford paid treatment should not be treated differently.
The court added that while all medical services could not be rendered free of cost to the citizens, the goal of a welfare state must be to move towards affordable and easily accessible healthcare to all of its citizens.
Justice SM Subramaniam added that the postgraduate doctors' plea to count services rendered during the COVID-19 period under their bond policy was unsustainable. The court noted that during such an immense crisis, individuals from different wings of the government came forward and rendered invaluable services and to use this period of selfless service as a way of out-of-bond police was unjustifiable and unacceptable.
Case Title: S Shanmugasundaram v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court recently allowed a man to file a copy application seeking copies of a disproportionate asset case involving a politician which ended in the acquittal of the public servant. The man had sought copies of a case in which P Geetha Jeevan, the Minister for Social Welfare and Women Empowerment in Tamil Nadu was acquitted.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that when the case involved misconduct by a public servant who was elected in a democratic process, the voters should not be prevented from perusing the records and arriving at a conclusion on whether his representative was falsely prosecuted or had gained un-meritorious acquittal.
Case Title: Dr. TV Swaminathan v State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court recently observed that teachers protesting in colleges violently was a serious matter that could not be condoned merely by receiving an apology letter.
Justice G Jayachandran thus dismissed a petition seeking to quash a criminal case registered against the teaching staff of Pachaiyappa's Trust for protesting. The court added that bypassing the criminal law procedures by obtaining an apology letter for an act of violence inside the college campus was not in the interest of justice.
Case Title: S Chandan Babu v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
The Madras High Court recently directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to facilitate elections to the Efmore Court Advocate's Association (ECAA).
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan directed the State Bar Council to appoint an Election Commissioner and the required number of officers to assist the election commissioner in peacefully conducting the election as per the existing approved byelaws of ECAA. The court noted that the Bar Council was bound to take responsibility for conducting peaceful elections to the recognized bar associations and take appropriate disciplinary action in case of any unruly behavior.
The court also directed the Commissioner of Police to provide necessary police protection for the smooth conduct of the elections in the Association premises.
Case Title: M/s. SRM Hotels Private Limited v The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
While setting aside the State Government's letter rejecting to renew a lease to SRM Hotels Private Limited, the Madras High Court observed that though the State claimed that the hotel could be managed by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation (TTDC), the Government staff and institutions were not suited for the hospitality industry which required courteous treatment from the staff.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that one of the reasons for disinvestment and outsourcing in the hospitality industry was the State's inability to manage the industry. The court added that certain businesses should be run by private persons.
Case Title: Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
The Madras High Court has quashed the order imposing tax demands on post-sale discounts received by way of financial credit notes on the ground that receiving a discount is not tenable in law.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that the assessing officer concluded that the taxable person is providing a service to the supplier while taking advantage of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier. This conclusion is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law.