Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 132 NOMINAL INDEX X v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109 Priya Dharshini and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 110 K Marimuthu v. The Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 111 Vishal Krishna Reddy v Lyca Productions, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 112 Neyatitus...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
NOMINAL INDEX
X v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
Priya Dharshini and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
K Marimuthu v. The Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Vishal Krishna Reddy v Lyca Productions, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
Neyatitus v. The Regional Passport Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sri. R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
Sankar v The State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
Sivaprakasam v. The District Collector and 5 othrs, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
V Senthil Balaji v. Nirmal Kumar and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
Kudankulam Nuclear Power Employees Union v. Government of India and ors, 2023 LiveLaw Mad 118
Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education v. The Appeal Committee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
A Muthupandi v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
Susamma Baby v. State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
K Udhayakumar v. The District Collector and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
M Syed Ali Fathima v. State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
R Radha and another v The State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
Susila and others v. S Thirumalai and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
XYZ and others v. Kalakshetra Foundation and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
P. Cheran vs M/s Gemini Industries & Imaging Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited v. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
Ziyavudeen Baqavi v. The Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
Annadurai v Jaya, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
Vasuki v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
REPORTS
Case Title: X v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakh to a woman who was falsely implicated in a case under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956.
Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai bench noted that the State could not shirk its liability by claiming that the officers involved were not performing their official duty. Further, the court rejected the State's defence that the charge sheet was quashed on the basis of a detailed enquiry conducted by it and thus it was not liable to pay compensation.
Case Title: Priya Dharshini and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to form District Medical Boards in all districts under the provisions of the Surrogacy Act 2021. The court added that members of these Boards may not necessarily be from the medical colleges as the Act does not contain such stipulation.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench also noted that the authorities should be well versed with the procedures under the Act so that the applications are disposed of expeditiously. Further, since the intending parties had to approach the Judicial Magistrate for matters concerning parentage and custody, it was necessary to sensitise the judicial officers also.
Case Title: K Marimuthu v. The Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Observing that the right to be considered for "appointment/empanelment" in a bank is a fundamental right of citizens, the Madras High Court recently directed all the Nationalised and Public Sector Banks to review their existing procedures for empanelment of lawyers.
Justice SM Subramaniam said that the existing procedures are not in consonance with the established procedure and are against the constitutional mandate. The court added that the prevailing procedures enable the banks to empanel lawyers as per their whims and fancies, thus depriving opportunity for rightful candidates.
The court also added that absence of a definite procedure will lead to corruption, favouritism and nepotism. The court observed that while those lawyers, who had God Fathers could solicit the authorities and seek empanelment, the other lawyers, would lose out on opportunities thus affecting their fundamental rights.
Case Title: Vishal Krishna Reddy v Lyca Productions
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High Court has directed Actor and Producer Vishal Krishna Reddy, more popularly known as Vishal to deposit a sum of Rs 15 crore to the credit of suit filed by entertainment company Lyca Productions. The court has also restrained Vishal from releasing any movie in Theatres or in the OTT platform which he has produced or financed, until then.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing the original side appeal filed by the actor challenging this direction by the single judge directing him to make a fixed deposit for ₹15 crore to the credit of the civil suit and hand over the original FD receipts to the Registrar of the High Court in connection with a suit regarding non payment of loan amount.
Case Title: Neyatitus v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court recently directed the Regional Passport authority to consider the representation of a man who had applied for an Indian Passport. Since his birth certificate showed him as a Srilankan refugee, he was called upon by the passport authorities to give an explanation.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench noted that though the petitioner's father was also a Srilankan refugee, the fact that his mother was an Indian citizen was not disputed. The court noted that we were still stuck in patriarchal notions as the authorities automatically assumed the petitioner will partake his father's nationality while his mother remained an Indian citizen making him eligible for an Indian passport. The court was thus convinced that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of relief and directed the authorities to process his application within a period of three weeks.
Madras High Court Quashes Reassessment Made After The Limitation Period
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sri. R. Rajagopal Tondaiman
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court has held that the assessment was reopened on the basis of the error pointed out by the revenue audit, but it was done after the period prescribed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that reopening the assessment in light of factual errors pointed out by the audit party is permissible under the law.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Four Accused Of Obstructing Temple Demolition
Case Title: Sankar v The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
Recently, while disposing of a bail application preferred by two men including a lawyer who were alleged to have trespassed into a temple property and prevented the revenue officials from removing the illegal encroachments, the Madras High Court noted that the court could not be a silent spectator to the act of bulldozing.
Justice G Jayachandran made the remarks on coming to know that the government officials had, in the guise of evicting the encroachers, demolished the age-old structure.
Case Title: Sivaprakasam v. The District Collector and 5 othrs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
While dismissing a Public Interest Litigation seeking a prohibitory order in the Pattavarthi village of Nagapattinam district, the Madras High Court asked why the birth anniversary of Dr. BR Ambedkar and a temple festival can not be held on the same day.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said it is for the police to ensure that both the events happen on the same day and that the police is equipped to make the necessary arrangements.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v. Nirmal Kumar and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
While disposing of the application filed by DMK Minister V Senthil Balaji seeking to restrain Tamil Nadu BJP IT Wing head CTR Nirmal Kumar from making defamatory allegations against him, the Madras High Court noted that when application are filed for deletion of alleged defamatory tweets, follower counts, speed and frequency with which the messages are disseminated and the interactive nature of the platforms form material consideration.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy looked into each of the 17 alleged tweets and the Youtube videos posted by Kumar which according to Balaji were defamatory in nature. The court concluded that six of the tweets were “per se defamatory” while the remaining related to the “public function” of Balaji as the Minister. The court thus ordered for removal of the said six tweets.
Case Title: Kudankulam Nuclear Power Employees Union v. Government of India and ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw Mad 118
Dealing with Kudankulam Nuclear Power Employees Union petition's seeking benefit of wages for the work done on a holiday, the Madras High Court remarked that public servants are like school children who always welcome holidays and exemption from work. The court was hearing a plea claiming double wages for working on a declared holiday (Ambedkar Jayanti).
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench said that though Dr. Ambedkar was someone who would have wanted people to work hard instead of declaring holiday on his anniversary, and that a system of sentiments and symbolism is prevalent.
Case Title: Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education v. The Appeal Committee and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
While refusing to grant relief to Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education, the Madras High Court heavily criticised the college for admitting students in the 2021-2022 academic year when it did not have any affiliation.
Imposing a cost of five lakh rupees, Justice CV Karthikeyan said that the college should suffer the consequences of its actions and also left it open to the students to litigate against the college for the damages made.
Case Title: A Muthupandi v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
While dealing with an appeal challenging the conviction in a rape case, the Madras High Court recorded its displeasure at the manner in which cross-examination is being carried out in the trial courts. It is quite unfortunate that the trial court advocates are not developing their skills of cross examination, said the court.
Justice Anand Venkatesh said that the art of cross-examination was considered a crown in advocacy skills and if this art is lost, the charm of conducting a trial before a court will also be lost.
Case Title: Susamma Baby v. State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
While dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a pastor who was detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, for sexually assaulting a physically and mentally challenged minor girl, the Madras High Court observed that the facts of the case "shocked the judicial conscience".
The division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice KK Ramakrishnan added that, for invoking the Detention Act, the propensity of the act was more important than the habitual nature of the offence as the definition of “Sexual Offender” did not demand habituality.
Case Title: K Udhayakumar v. The District Collector and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
While dealing with a Public Interest Litigation seeking action against government officials for alleged misappropriation of funds under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojaya – Gramin (PMAY-G), the Madras High Court observed that the scheme was intended to provide houses to weaker sections of the society and strict action must be taken against officials who were misappropriating the funds under the scheme.
The division bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench took note of the submissions made by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department that steps have been taken to appoint verification officers in the cadre of Assistant Directors and Deputy Collectors to ensure proper implementation of the scheme.
Case Title: M Syed Ali Fathima v. State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
The Madras High Court recently observed that rehabilitation or de-addiction centres can be run only after obtaining proper permission and necessary licenses and that the social welfare officer is duty-bound to inspect such places regularly to safeguard the public interest.
Justice SM Subramaniam made the observation on a plea by a woman claiming compensation from the Director of the Institute of Mental Health for her husband’s death while he was admitted at the Ever Green Rehabilitation Centre in Kovilambakkam, Chennai. It was alleged that the petitioner’s husband was brutally attacked by the management of the Centre before his death.
Case Title: R Radha and another v The State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
Citing the delay in listing 'vacate stay' applications, the Madras High Court recently came down heavily on its Registry. The court remarked that the Registry should ensure that these applications are listed periodically to ensure speedy disposal of the same as contemplated under Article 226(3) of the Constitution.
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that the pendency of such vacate stay petitions has caused huge financial loss to the State Exchequer and that parties should not be allowed to take advantage of these interim stays depriving the other party of its rights.
The court also pointed out that collusion by the Registry staff could not be ruled out and that such corrupt practices should not prevail. The court added that periodical inspections and thorough inquiry was necessary to ensure that case papers are properly maintained. The court also added that sometimes, the case papers are intentionally mixed up with other case papers to ensure that the cases remain unlisted.
Case Title: Susila and others v. S Thirumalai and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
While upholding the compensation awarded to the second wife of a man who died in a road accident, the Madras High Court recently observed that for the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the establishment of loss of dependency was sufficient.
Justice R Vijayakumar pointed out that under the Act, the basis for entitlement of compensation was dependency. Thus, even a legal heir who was not dependent upon the deceased would not be entitled to receive compensation.
The court added that the Act was a benevolent legislation and thus it should be interpreted in a liberal manner to provide monetary relief to the victims and thus serve its real purpose.
Case Title: XYZ and others v. Kalakshetra Foundation and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court has directed the Kalakshetra Foundation to frame a policy against sexual harassment and to constitute a Complaints Committee with respect to its schools, both under the CBSE and the State Board.
The court also directed the foundation to submit the profiles of the members that are presently part of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted by the foundation on April 3.
The court further added that the interim protection that was granted to the students against any coercive action by the management for talking about the assault or participating in the Dharna, would also be applicable to the faculty members who came in support of the students.
Case Title: P. Cheran vs M/s Gemini Industries & Imaging Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
The Madras High Court has ruled that a party is entitled to challenge the appointment of the Arbitrator at any stage, if there is any violation of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The court remarked that even if the award debtor had participated in the arbitral proceedings or, after having knowledge of the appointment of the sole Arbitrator, had failed to challenge the said appointment in terms of Section 13, the same would not deprive him of the right to challenge the said appointment under Section 34 for violation of the provisions of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that when the very appointment of the Arbitrator unilaterally, is improper and impermissible by virtue of Section 12(5), the arbitration proceedings are liable to be vitiated from the stage of the appointment of the Arbitrator. Further, a decision by an authority having no jurisdiction is non est in law and its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be acted upon.
Case Title: Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained Google from delisting the mobile applications of Matrimony.com Ltd, the parent company of Bharath Matrimony from its Google Play Store.
Justice S Sounthar has passed the interim order in a suit filed by Matrimony.com challenging the new payment policy of Google. Matrimony.Com had sought an injunction restraining Alphabet Inc and other subsidiaries of Google from removing/delisting its matchmaking app from the Google Play Store for its refusal to accept Google's new payment policy. Finding a balance of convenience in favor of Matrimony.com, the court has granted the interim order till June 1.
Case Title: Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited v. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Madras High Court recently set aside a single judge order restraining Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited from proceeding with a defamation suit against former MP Dr. Subramaniam Swamy in the High Court of Singapore.
The division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice PB Balaji noted that the single judge had erred in holding that the company, incorporated and carrying out its operations in Singapore, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Indian court as it was the subsidiary of an Indian company (which was one of the defendants in the suit by Swamy).
Case Title: Ziyavudeen Baqavi v. The Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
While setting aside an NIA Court's order rejecting the discharge plea of a man accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), the Madras High Court has reiterated that courts should refrain from using crowd-sourced websites such as Wikipedia in legal dispute resolution.
The division bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Nirmal Kumar relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Acer India case and Hewlett Packard case where the Apex court has cautioned against courts using sources like Wikipedia in legal dispute resolution.
Mother Entitled To Arrears Of Maintenance Accrued To Deceased Daughter: Madras High Court
Case Title: Annadurai v Jaya
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court recently held that a mother is entitled to claim the arrears of maintenance that accrued to her deceased daughter before her death. The court noted that arrears of maintenance was the property of the deceased daughter and after her death, her mother, being a legal guardian, is entitled to this property.
Justice V Sivagnanam thus dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the ex-husband of the deceased daughter challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate wherein the court allowed the mother to be impleaded to collect the arrears of maintenance.
Madras High Court Directs State To Meet Expenses Of Child Born To Woman After Failed Tubectomy
Case Title: Vasuki v The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court recently directed the state government to compensate a woman who had given birth to a third child after a failed tubectomy procedure. The court also directed the State to give free education to the third child in Government or Private school and to pay a sum of Rs 10000 per month to meet the expenses of the child.
Justice B Pugalendhi observed that Family Planning was a national program implemented by the Government and that it was the duty of medical officers to implement the scheme.