Madras High Court Monthly Digest - April 2024 [Citations 143 - 180]

NOMINAL INDEX

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

REPORTS

Giving Police Protection To People With Criminal Background Will Send Wrong Signal, Make Public Lose Faith In System: Madras High Court

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.

MSMED Act | Imposition Of Three Times Bank Interest By MSME Facilitation Council Is Violation Of Principles Of Reasonableness And Fairness: Madras High Court

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.

Age Relaxation Can Be Provided To Compete In Recruitment Process By Giving The Weightage For Being Engaged For A Significant Period Of Time: Madras High Court

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.

Transport Corporation Which Supported Bus Driver Before MACT Not Precluded From Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings Against Him: Madras HC

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.

Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied Solely On The Ground That The Petitioner Was An Illegitimate Child Born To Second Wife: Madras High Court Reiterates

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.

Appointment Of Near Relative Of An Officer In A Co-Operative Society, Violates Rules: Madras High Court

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.

Not Appropriate To Restrict To Principal Bench: Madras High Court Restores Madurai Bench's Power To Hear Pan-State Matters

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.

'When Reputation Is Hurt, Man Is Half Dead': Madras HC Tells Press To Be More Cautious While Making Allegations Against Religious Leaders

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.

State Can't Insist On Sex Reassignment Surgery Certificate Of Transgender Person For Publishing Change Of Name, Gender In Gazette: Madras HC

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.

State Can't Deny Permission For Book Launch Event Merely Due To Participant's Candidature In Elections: Madras High 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.

High Court Can Transfer Rectification Petition Pending In Trademark Registry Outside Its Jurisdiction To Its File: Madras High Court

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.

“Order Limiting Passport Validity Bereft Of Reasons”: Madras HC Directs Passport Office To Issue Regular Passport To Karti Chidambaram With 10-Year Validity

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.

CBDT Circular Not Extending Time To File Application For Regular Registration Of New Provisionally Registered Trusts U/S 80G Violative Of Constitution: Madras High Court

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.

Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana | Provisions Of Policy Must Be Interpreted To Benefit Policy Holder: Madras High Court

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.

Madras High Court Allows BJP President JP Nadda's Rally; Says Hindrance To Traffic, Free Movement Of People Not In Itself A Ground To Deny Permission

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.

Madras High Court Restrains Dept. From Appropriating Interest Liability Against Eicher Motors Until Matter Is Taken Up By Appellate Court

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.

Madras High Court Appoints Committee Of Retd Judges To Takeover Administration Of CSI, Directs Committee To Conduct Elections To The Synod

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.

Lok Sabha Election 2024 | Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tirunelveli BJP Candidate's Nomination

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.

Opportunity For Hearing Was Refused Due To Assessee's Failure To Click On Appropriate Button, Madras High Court Quashes Faceless Assessment Order

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.

Discriminatory Ancient Practises Must Give Way After Adoption Of Constitution: Madras HC Bins Plea Challenging Handing Over Of Sceptre To Widow In Meenakshi Temple

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.

[Road Accident] Smelling Alcohol In Breath Not Itself Ground To Attribute Contributory Negligence, Must Assess Alcohol Level In Blood: Madras HC

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.

Assessee Can't Be Absolved Of Responsibility AsRegistered Person To Monitor The GST Portal: Madras High Court

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.

If Arbitration Award Not Challenged UnderSection 34, Can't Be Challenged At Execution: Madras High Court

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.

“Degraded The Morale Of Police Force”: Madras High Court Dismisses Ex-DGP Rajesh Das's Plea To Suspend Sentence In Sexual Harassment Case

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.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Initiate PMLA Proceedings Against BJP And Congress Candidates In Tirunelveli

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.

When Plea Regarding Lack Of Jurisdiction Not Raised Before The Arbitrator, It Cannot Be Raised In Appeal: Madras High Court

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.

Evidence Taken Behind The Back Of A Party After Completion Of Arguments, Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Award

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.

Madras High Court Strikes Down 2010 Amendment To Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act Bringing Wakf Properties Under Its Ambit

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.

Corporal Punishment Is Not A Solution To Guide Children, They Should Be Better Heard And Treated With Respect: Madras High Court

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.

PG Doctors' Refusal To Work In Govt Hospitals Infringe Fundamental Rights Of Poor Patients: Madras High Court Upholds Bond Agreement

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.

Dept's Failure To Consider Certificate Obtained From Supplier; Madras High Court Quashes ITC Mismatch Demand

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.

Retrospective Re-Fixing Of Salary And Pension Benefits After Retirement Is Against Law: Madras High Court

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.

Madras High Court Disposes Plea To Permanently Debar Congress Leader Manickam Tagore From Contesting Any Election In Tamil Nadu

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.

Small Spark May Lead To Catastrophe During Elections: Madras High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Gangster Rocket Raja

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.

"Did Not Object To Final List": Madras High Court Dismisses Plea For Conducting Special Polling In Coimbatore For Those Left From Voters' List

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.

SC/ST Act | Bail Can't Be Granted Merely Based On Period Of Detention, Nature & Gravity Of Offence Must Be Considered: Madras High Court

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.

Madras High Court Directs BCCI And TN Sports Development Authority To Consider Plea Against Black Marketing Of IPL Tickets

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.