Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 465 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 492 NOMINAL INDEX Chandru and Others v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 465 R Thamaraiselvan v. Government of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 466 Sathish and Another v Food Safety Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 467 Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v The National Medical Commission, 2024 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 465 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
NOMINAL INDEX
Chandru and Others v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
R Thamaraiselvan v. Government of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
Sathish and Another v Food Safety Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v The National Medical Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
Mohamed Asaruthin v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
T. H. Rajmohan v The Secretary to the Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
Aathimoolam v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
C Pakkir Maideen and Others v The Principal Secretary To Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
VR Dakshin Private Limited Verus SCM Silks Private Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
P.Rajkumar v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
Deepu and Others v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
ABC v. XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
The Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
N Sasikala v The Assistant Director, ED, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
Amudha v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
K. Sundari v. C. A. R. P. Mari, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
KC Chandran and Others v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
Malliga (Died) and Others v. S Shanmugam (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
The Research Scholar v The Research Guide and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
B Stalin v The Registrar Genera, Madras HC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
Vignesh v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 485
Sr. Sagaya Mary v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v RPD Workstations Private Limited and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
M Venkatesan v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
Rangarajan Narasimnhan v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
M.Tamilselvan v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
H Raja v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
R Varalakshmi v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
REPORTS
Case Title: Chandru and Others v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
The Madras High Court has granted bail to four students who were allegedly involved in group rivalry clashes that resulted in the death of a student.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira ordered the students to be released on bail after executing a bond for Rs 15,000 with two sureties, one of whom should be the father or mother of the student. The court also asked all four students to assist in the Trauma ward of Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital & the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and to prepare a writeup of their experience.
Case Title: R Thamaraiselvan v. Government of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by former DMK MP challenging the government notification inviting tenders for quarry lease.
While doing so, the bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy also imposed a cost of Rs 4 Lakh (Rs 1 Lakh for each petition) for filing the petition without proper research. The court directed the cost to be donated to the Little Heart Training Centre for Intellectual Disabled Boys in Dharmapuri District.
Case Title: Sathish and Another v Food Safety Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
The Madras High Court recently allowed two men to contest their case before the trial court even after making a submission admitting their guilt.
Justice Anand Venkatesh made the order after noting that the men had admitted their guilt before the trial court without knowing the consequences. The court thus observed that the Magistrate must ensure that the accused persons have sufficient legal advice before pleading guilty and it was not necessary for the magistrate to immediately act upon the pleading of guilt especially when the punishment provided was quite serious.
Case Title: Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v The National Medical Commission
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
The Madras High Court has recently made it clear that linguistic minority self financing medical colleges are bound by the National Medical Council's 50% seat sharing rule. As per the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, medical colleges were to surrender 50% of the seats in PG Medical Courses to the State/Union Territory.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that only when the States and Union Territories had control over some seats, they could implement the reservation policies in its full effect. Thus, the court highlighted that seat sharing was unavoidable and was a sine-qua -non for the implementation of reservation policy.
Case Title: Mohamed Asaruthin v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
The Madras High Court recently observed that when an application for extension was filed by the prosecution, the presence of the accused was ensured only to inform him about the application and consider the objections, if any. The court added that there was no necessity for the court to call upon the counter of the accused.
Justice Sunder Mohan emphasized that while considering the application for extension, the court was only required to consider whether the report of the prosecutor satisfied the twin conditions – that there was appreciable progress in the investigation and that there are compelling reasons to justify further detention pending investigation.
Case Title: T. H. Rajmohan v The Secretary to the Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by a 62-year-old man and imposed a cost of Rs. 20 Lakh on him. The court also restrained the PIL petitioner from filing any PILs in the court without prior permission for 1 year.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ordered so after noting that the petition was not Bonafide and that the petitioner had willingly failed to disclose material information.
Case Title: Aathimoolam v State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
While refusing to set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against a school headmaster, the Madras High Court emphasised that the Headmaster was the guardian of the entire school and was expected to report any instances under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Justice P Velmurugan observed as under,
“The Head Master is the guardian of the entire school. If any incident covered under POCSO Act has taken place, the same has to be immediately intimated either to the District Child Protection Officer or to the Police concerned,” the court said.
Case Title: C Pakkir Maideen and Others v The Principal Secretary To Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has made it clear that the registration of an adoption deed is a futile exercise as it does not confer any rights on the parties to adoption and does not have any legal sanctity. The court thus observed that the registration of adoption deed could not be asked as a matter of right before the registering authority.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus directed the Inspector General (IG) of Registration to issue necessary circulars to all registrars asking them to refrain from registering any deed of adoption, irrespective of their religion.
Case Title: VR Dakshin Private Limited Verus SCM Silks Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
The Madras High Court bench of of Chief justice Mr. K.R.Shriram and Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy has held that the ineligibility of the Arbitrator cannot be challenged for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act when there were enough opportunities to challenge the same in the earlier proceedings.
It also noted that section 4 of the Act provides that when a party knows that any requirement under the arbitration agreement has not been complied with and yet proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to such non-compliance, such party shall be deemed to have waived his right to so object.
Case Title: P.Rajkumar v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
The Madras High Court recently held that while considering bail applications, an informal opinion rendered by an expert was not binding on the court. It reiterated that while exercising bail jurisdiction, the court had to consider the language adopted in the enactment and only had to be prima facie satisfied whether there was a reasonable chance of conviction.
Justice Anand Venkatesh made the observations while discussing a recent judgment rendered by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in which the latter had an informal interaction with an expert and concluded that every cell of a magic mushroom contained chemicals and that entire quantity had to be measured to determine the commercial quantity.
The court reiterated that while considering the bail application, the court must prima facie satisfy itself on whether there was a reasonable chance for the accused to be held guilty. The court added that at the stage of bail, the court was not expected to meticulously examine the materials collected at the stage of investigation. The court added that while considering bail, the court had to look into the language adopted in the enactment.
Case Title: Deepu and Others v State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
The Madras High Court has allowed a criminal revision petition filed by three accused in the Kodanadu heist and murder case allowing them to summon and examine former Tamil Nadu CM Edappadi Palaniswami and VK Sasikala among others as witnesses.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that the application of the accused to examine the witnesses was not without reason and the same would not cause any delay as further investigation had been ordered in the case. The court thus directed the Sessions Judge to comlete the trial by giving opportunity to both the parties and give an opportunity to the accused to examine the 8 witnesses as sought for.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that the concept of cruelty under matrimonial cases has undergone substantial change and there could not be any fixed parameters for determining what constitutes acts of cruelty.
A division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Kalaimathi said that what amounted to acts of cruelty would differ from person to person, man to woman and thus, a broad approach was needed. The court also added that the matters had to be dealt with latitudinarianism in the modern era.
The high court, while making the observations, refused relief to a husband who had claimed divorce on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty. The court noted that though the husband had made allegations of physical and mental cruelty, he had not specified even one instance or given evidence in support of the same. The court noted that it could not infer anything from the facts of the case which could prove that there were alleged acts of cruelty by the wife and thereby dismissed the husband's plea.
Case Title: The Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
The Madras High Court has set aside a single judge order restrainig The Music Academy and The Hindu group from conferring the Sangita Kalanidhi Award to musical TM Krishna in Late MS Subbulakshmi's name.
The division bench of Justice SS Sunthar and Justice P Dhanabal passed the order on an appeal preferred by The Music Academy and the Hindu Group. Though a mention was made against the division bench order before the Supreme Court, the CJI directed the matter to be posted on Monday.
Madras High Court Expedites Trial Against Sasikala In FERA Case
Case Title: N Sasikala v The Assistant Director, ED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
The Madras High on Thursday dismissed three petitions filed by Sasikala, a close aide of former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa, challenging certain questions put forward by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Economic Offences – I at Egmore.
While doing so, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman also directed the court to expedite the trial if the and asked the parties to cooperate with the trial and to refrain from filing frivolous petitions to delay the trial.
The Enforcement Directorate had registered the case in 1996 against Sasikala (as Chairperson and Director of J Jaya TV), V Bhaskaran (Managing Director of Jaya TV), and J Jaya TV Private Limited. The cases were registered under Sections 8(1), 9(1) (c) and 9(1) (a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for allegedly making payments to the tune of 10.45 Singapore Dollars, without the RBI's approval, to make payment for transponders and to secure uplinking facilities for the channel.
Case Title: Amudha v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
Dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by AIADMK's State Deputy Secretary of the Women's Wing- Amudha, the Madras High Court highlighted that though the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right of speech and expression however this right cannot be taken advantage of to cross the limits of decency.
While doing so, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira also noted that the petitioner had used derogatory statements against the former Chief Minister, present Chief Minister and his family members, uttering "unethical, filthy and unparliamentary" words.
Case Title: K. Sundari v. C. A. R. P. Mari
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
The Madras High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against a Principal of a college under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments for signing a cheque that was returned for “insufficient funds”.
While doing so, Justice Anand Venkatesh held that the Principal had not signed the cheque in his individual capacity, and since a college could not be equated to a company, vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act would not come into effect in the present case.
The court explained that the concept of vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act could not be applied in cases that did not fall under the ambit of a Company or a Partnership firm. The court noted that the Principal was only an authorised signatory and had signed the cheque in connection with the liability of the college. Thus, the court was inclined to quash the case against the Principal.
Case Title: KC Chandran and Others v Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
The Madras High Court recently held that since the concealment of proceeds of crime itself is an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Enforcement Directorate is not required to establish where the money eventually went.
A division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima added that the accused, who would have engineered the disappearance of the money, could not be exonerated from the charges merely because the proceeds of the crime had not been identified. The court thus underscored that it was enough if the prosecution established the generation of the proceeds of crime and the involvement of the accused in the process.
Case Title: Malliga (Died) and Others v. S Shanmugam (Died) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
The Madras High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Hindu Succession Act that prohibits a widow from inheriting or taking share in the property of her deceased husband, upon remarriage.
The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that though the Hindu Remarriage Act, 1856 disqualified a widow from inheriting properties upon remarriage, this Act was repealed after the Hindu Succession Act came into effect. The bench further noted that as per the Hindu Succession Act, only the widow of a pre-deceased son or widow of a predeceased son of the predeceased son or widow of the brother was disqualified upon remarriage. However, by way of the 2005 amendment, even this provision was repealed.
Case Title: The Research Scholar v The Research Guide and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
The Madras High Court recently suggested bringing in Standard Operating procedures and Practice Directions to mask the name and identities of every victim of mental, emotional, and sexual harassment in all proceedings.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Poornima observed that observed that the privacy of parties to a litigation should be respected and thus, in the best interest, such directions could be issued. The court suggested that when matters of such nature are filed, a practice direction could be issued ensuring that the name and identity are given in the original copy, which could be retained by the Registry in a sealed cover and the identity could be redacted in all other copies. Further, if there is a challenge to the identity of the party, a reference could be made to the original copy retained in the sealed cover.
Case Title: B Stalin v The Registrar Genera, Madras HC and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed in 2011 seeking to restrain retired high court judge Justice CS Karnanfrom making public statements, wither written or oral against constitutional authorities or any wing of the judiciary or advocates in public media.
A division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that the prayer in the plea south to restrain a sitting Judge of the High Court was impermissible in law.
Noting that the plea had been listed with regard to its maintainability the court said that under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, no court shall entertain any proceeding against a Judge for any act thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial function.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Stabbing Doctor For Alleged Poor Treatment Of Mother
Case Title: Vignesh v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 485
The Madras High Court on Tuesday granted bail to Vignesh, accused of stabbing a doctor at the Kalaignar Centenary Super Speciality Hospital in Guindy, Chennai in November this year.
Considering the period of incarceration, the materials and the arguments, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira was inclined to grant conditional bail to Vignesh. The court thus ordered him to be released upon executing a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties. The court also directed Vignesh to stay at Vellore and report before the Inspector of Police, Sathavachari Police Station every day until further orders.
Case Title: Sr. Sagaya Mary v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
The Madras High Court has refused to quash the chargesheet filed against Sister Sagaya Mary, hostel warden of St. Michael's Girls Hostel attached to the Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Thanjavur for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 12th Standard Student.
In January 2022, a 12th Standard girl of the Sacred Heart School attempted to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. Though the girl was taken to the hospital, she died during treatment. In her dying declaration, she stated that the hostel warden had tortured her mentally by making her do additional work in the hostel and not allowing her to study properly.
Though the warden contended that she had never intended the child to commit suicide, Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench noted that the warden's intention, whether good or bad, had to be looked into at the time of trial. The court also added that other points raised by the warden also could be considered at the time of trial and the case was not fit to be quashed.
While an attempt was made to bring in a forcible religious conversion angle to the issue, the CBI had ruled out the same. The court appreciated the CBI for bringing out the truth in an honest manner and noted that there was no ground to suspect the allegations of conversion. The court added that the allegations of conversion should have been avoided by those responsible and lamented that the damage already done could not be repaired.
Case Title: Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v RPD Workstations Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
While hearing a plea moved by computer manufacturer Lenovo protection of its "THINK" Family of Marks, the Madras High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration given to a Hyderabad based company for its “THINBOOK” mark finding it deceptive.
Justice Abdul Quddhose opined that the petitioner, Lenovo, who had been using the THINK family of marks had obtained a distinctiveness in the field. The court thus ruled that Lenovo was the exclusive proprietor of the mark and continued usage of a similar mark by the respondent company would create confusion in the minds of the people.
The court, on perusing the materials, was convinced that Lenovo had gained a reputation in India and abroad in respect of products – Laptops, Notebooks, iPad etc by using the THINK family of marks. The court added that the respondent company had misrepresented the Registry and the Registry, by total non-application of mind had registered the trademark.
Thus, noting that Lenovo had satisfied the requirements of Section 57 of the Act, the court was inclined to grant the relief and ordered accordingly.
Case Title: M Venkatesan v Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
The Madras High Court has clarified that the trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is distinct and different from the trial of the predicate offence and thus the accused cannot seek for a simultaneous or joint trial even if both are pending before the same court.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that since the procedures contemplated under the PMLA for trial are different, there was no question of joint or simultaneous trial. The court also added that there was no impediment for the special court to continue the trial even if the trial for a predicate offence was pending.
The court noted that as per Explanation (i) to Section 44 of the PMLA, the jurisdiction of the Special Court, while dealing with the offence under the Act shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the Scheduled offence and the trial in both the sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial.
Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimnhan v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
The Madras High Court has granted bail to temple activist Rangarajan Narasimham for allegedly making derogatory comments against a woman on social media.
While granting interim bail, Justice V Lakshminarayanan asked Narasimham to delete all the offensive messages and refrain from making any vituperative comments against women in any of the social media forums. The court also directed Narasimhan not to commit any similar offences.
Previously, in another case, the High Court had also ordered a two-week 'social media detox' for Narasimhan for his distasteful comments against an industrialist. The court had also imposed a fine on him and commented that protectors of Sanatana Dharma should refrain from using such unsavoury words.
Case Title: M.Tamilselvan v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
The Madras High Court recently held that the service register of a public servant could not be completely exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. Section 8(j) of the RTI Act exempts personal information from disclosure.
Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the service register of the public servant contains details of the assets and liabilities of the employee which were not private information. The court noted that these details could not be shielded from the public scrutiny. However, the court added that though this information had to be disclosed, there had to be some reasonable restrictions.
The court also added that the materials in the service register had to be scrutinized and if the disclosure is denied, necessary reasons for such denial should be provided.
Madras High Court Suspends Sentence Imposed On BJP's H Raja Over Comments Against Periyar, Kanimozhi
Case Title: H Raja v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
The Madras High Court on Friday suspended the sentence imposed on BJP's H Raja for his derogatory speech against Periyar and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi. The special court had imposed the sentence on December 2.
Justice L Victoria Gowri suspended the 6-month sentence imposed on him by the Special Court for Trial of Cases Against MLAs/MPs in Chennai The special court had sentenced Raja for the comments made by him in 2018. The orders were passed after the High Court refused to quash the case against him and directed the Special Court to complete the case within 3 months.
Raja had tweeted against EV Ramasamy, popularly known as Periyar saying that the Atheist leader's statues should be broken and also addressing Periyar as a caste fanatic. Raja had also made insensitive remarks against Kanimozhi, calling her the illegitimate child of former TN CM Karunanidhi.
Case Title: R Varalakshmi v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
Madras High Court on Saturday (December 28) formed a Special Investigation Team comprising of women IPS officers to investigate into the alleged sexual assault of a 2nd Year Engineering Student inside the Anna Univeristy campus in Chennai earlier on Monday.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held a special sitting on Saturday and passed the orders on a batch of pleas seeking a CBI probe into the incident. The court said that there were lapses on the part of the police and the University and was thus inclined to form the SIT.
The court also remarked that the leaking of the FIR, containing the personal details of the victim has to be viewed seriously and investigated into. The court said that the FIR leak was a serious lapse on the part of the police which caused trauma for the victim and her family. The court directed the State to pay an interim compensation of Rs. 25 Lakh to the victim girl, which could be recovered from those who were responsible for the dereliction of duty and leaking of the FIR. The court added that the compensation ordered presently, would not prevent the victim from seeking compensation in the criminal cases.