Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 156 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 180 NOMINAL INDEX Vediyappan v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 156 Salem District Nature and Environment Protection Society v. Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 157 Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 158 Yuvaraj v Additional Superintendent of Police and other...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 156 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
NOMINAL INDEX
Vediyappan v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
Salem District Nature and Environment Protection Society v. Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 158
Yuvaraj v Additional Superintendent of Police and other (batch cases), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Director of School Education and Others v. M Velayutham and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
S Raja v M/s.Hindustan Unilever Ltd and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
Abubakkar Shithik v State and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
Saravanan v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Kennel Club of India and others v. The Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
K. Mubeena Banu v. Tamil Nadu Health & Family Welfare Department and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
Ditty Mathew v. The Secretary and others (and connected case), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
S Megala v The State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
Senthil Balaji v. A Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
Aarur Tamilnadam v S Sankar and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 169
Sudha Sarveshkumar v Chief Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
Elephant G Rajendran v The Registrar General and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 171
Kannaian Naidu and others v Kamsala Ammal and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
V Sundararaj v. The Registrar General and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation v. The State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
Muthu Subramania Gurukkal v The Commissioner, HR&CE Department and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
Mr. Ramasaravanan v. Udayanidhi Stalin and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
AP Ramalingam v The Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
Satheesh Kumar v Inspector of Police, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 178
MA Ranjith v The Director General of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
K Janarthan v Mrs Vimala, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
REPORTS
Case Title: Vediyappan v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
While setting aside the conviction of a man for the offence of acid attack and house trespass, the Madras High Court observed that the courts must be bound by legal evidence and not moral conviction.
Justice V Sivagnanam said that administration of justice in the country was founded on the principle that an accused person must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In the present case, citing lack of evidence to connect the accused with the crime, the court noted that the appellant Vediyappan is entitled to acquittal.
Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Increase In Sports Quota In Higher Educational Institutions
Case Title: Salem District Nature and Environment Protection Society v. Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
The Madras High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking increase in the number of seats under the Sports Quota in higher education institutions in Tamil Nadu.
The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that the matter is beyond the purview of writ jurisdiction of the court as it is a policy decision of the government.
The petitioner, Salem District Nature and Environment Protection Society submitted that there is no regulated quota to the sports persons in higher studies in Tamil Nadu. The president of the society, Arthanari also submitted that even though in Tamil Nadu a lot of students are taking sports as a career, no proper reservation or regularised reservation is being given to them causing great injustice.
Case Title: Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 158
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has ordered an interim stay on the press communique issued by the Joint Committee on the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill 2023 which had invited suggestions from the public in general and NGOs / experts / stakeholders and institutions in particular about the bill.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice PT Asha agreed with the submissions of Theeran Thirumurugan, who has filed a public interest litigation seeking direction for translating the bill in Tamil and for accepting suggestions in Tamil language.
The court, though appreciated the endeavour of calling for suggestions, also noted that the object would be defeated if bill or the press communique does not reach the sections of the public who were unaware of English or Hindi.
Case Title: Yuvaraj v Additional Superintendent of Police and other (batch cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Madras High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of eight accused in the Gokul Raj murder case. The court altered the charges against two other accused to imprisonment of five years.
The division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the prosecution had proved the chain of circumstances that had led to the murder of Gokulraj by the accused persons.
Case Title: The Director of School Education and Others v. M Velayutham and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
The Madras High Court recently held that any teachers who have been appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher or a Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant prior to July 29, 2011, are eligible to continue in service even if they have not qualified Teacher’s Eligibility Test but they must possess the TET to be eligible for consideration to future promotional prospects.
The court struck down a Government Order issued by the School Education Department prescribing that a pass in TET was mandatory only for direct recruitment to the post of BT Assistant and not for promotion. The court said that TET is mandatory for all teachers appointed after July 29, 2011, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion.
Case Title: S Raja v M/s.Hindustan Unilever Ltd and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
The Madras High Court recently observed that use of abusive language is not of such a serious nature so as to impose the "capital punishment" of dismissal from service.
The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice R Kalaimathi interfered with an order of single judge who had set aside the labour court order for reinstating the workman with backwages. The court noted that while awarding punishment, the management has to take into account the gravity of the offence and the previous record of the workman along with other circumstances
Case Title: Abubakkar Shithik v State and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
The Madras High Court recently observed that the offence under Section 127A of the Representation of Peoples Act is a non cognizable one.
Justice Sunder Mohan held that since the punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment for a period of six months, as per Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code, it would be a non cognizable offence.
Case Title: Saravanan v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Madras High Court has directed the State Public Prosecutor to give instructions to the police officers appearing before court to come prepared with the particulars of the case.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandra passed the direction in a bail petition after noting that the police officer who was deputed by the investigation agency to assist the public prosecutor was fumbling in the court without knowing the particulars of the case.
Madras High Court Quashes Notification Banning Import Of Dogs For Commercial Activities
Case Title: The Kennel Club of India and others v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a notification issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade imposing a ban on import of dogs in the country for commercial breeding or other commercial activities.
“The absolute ban now imposed is on the basis that import of dogs for commercial breeding will bring foreign diseases to India as well as contaminate native gene pool. As far as import of alien diseases is concerned, there are effective measures for quarantine and testing of the animals prior to permitting entry into India. Thus, this can be no reason to justify the ban,” Justice Anita Sumanth said.
The court observed that the impugned notification has no legs to stand and that the alleged deliberations of the concerned ministries who were involved in the impugned ban are stated to have been destroyed.
Case Title: K.MubeenaBanu v. Tamil Nadu Health & Family Welfare Department and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
While refusing relief to a mother alleging medical negligence, the Madras High Court said the government hospitals in the country are already flooded with patients and the courts cannot be expected to interfere with the decisions of the specialist doctors with respect to the treatment to be provided to patients.
Justice SM Subramaniam also observed that High Courts, under Article 226, cannot be expected to act as an expert body and pass directions for treatment as the same would amount to excess exercise of judicial review.
Case Title: Ditty Mathew v. The Secretary and others (and connected case)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
The Madras High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation filed by students of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras seeking action against police officials who allegedly attacked students during a protest in 2017. The students were protesting against an attack on a PhD Scholar who had participated in a Beef Fest conducted by some students of the institute in light of the Union government's notification regulating the sale of cattle for slaughter.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu closed the petitions after noting that six FIRs have already been registered and that the cases are pending before the trial court. The court also said that even though students have the right to protest but they must do so in a peaceful manner in accordance with law.
Case Title: S Megala v The State and others
Citation 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
The Madras High Court denied interim bail to Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji but allowed his family's request to transfer him to a private hospital — Kauvery Hospital, for treatment.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the orders on the habeas corpus petition filed by Meghala, Balaji's wife.
The court said that since a challenge has been raised in the manner of his arrest, the question would be whether all the procedures have been followed and whether there was any illegality. The court said that it would take up the petition and issued notices to the respondent authorities to be returnable by June 22.
The court also noted that in matters concerning health, one should be allowed to get treatment at a place of his choice.
The court noted that since both the doctors at Omandurar Government Hospital and the ESI doctors have suggested immediate treatment to Balaji, it would be better of he is given such treatment. At the same time, the court said that the medical expenses should be met by Balaji himself.
Since ED had objected to Balaji's transfer to a private hospital, the court, while allowing the transfer, also directed that the team of doctors constituted by ED can regularly monitor Balaji's treatment at the private hospital.
Case Title: Senthil Balaji v. A Shankar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
The Madras High Court has vacated an interim order which had restrained Youtuber Shankar alias Savukku Shankar from making derogatory videos and statements against Minister V Senthil Balaji.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that as per previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, only statements of a person dealing with private life would be subject to scrutiny in a pretrial stage. The court added that in the present case, the videos and comments were made against the Minister in his official duty and thus the court was not inclined to grant the relief of injunction prayed for.
At the same time, in another petition moved by the Minister claiming that Shankar had violated the earlier order of the court and continued to make derogatory comments, the court directed Shankar to pay a sum of One Lakh rupees for his remorseless conduct "impinging the majesty of the court".
The court noted that even after the interim order passed in August last year, Shankar had reposted the earlier statements which were found to be defamatory. This, in the opinion of the court, was wilful disobedience which was liable to be punished.
Case Title: Aarur Tamilnadam v S Sankar and others
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 169
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a civil suit claiming that the story of Enthiran movie is based on the story “Jugiba” originally written by writer Aarur Tamilnadan. The suit sought a declaration that "Enthiran" is the infringing copy "Jugiba" and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from distributing or screening the film.
Justice S Sounthar dismissed the plea by Aarur after noting that as per settled law, copyright cannot not be claimed over an idea or a concept.
Aarur claimed that the movie Enthiran is based on his novel and that the makers of the movie illegally stole his story. He sought damages to the tune of one crore rupees and for stopping the screening of the movie. In his support, he also produced letters written by readers claiming that the film was based on his story.
Case Title: Sudha Sarveshkumar v Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a plea filed by a native of Villupuram to reopen the Sri Dharmaraja Draupadi Amman Temple sealed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
The temple, situated in Villupuram District, was sealed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on June 7 following a dispute over the entry of Scheduled Caste members into the temple.
When a plea regarding reopening of the temple came up before the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu, the court disposed of the same, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.
Case Title: Elephant G Rajendran v The Registrar General and others
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 171
The Madras High Court recently came down heavily on the Madras Bar Association, for its strict bye-laws making it difficult for an ordinary lawyer to become a member of the association. The court also directed the Association to pay five lakh rupees as compensation to Senior Advocate Elephant G Rajendran for denial of drinking water to his son in 2012 by a senior lawyer.
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that the bye-laws of the Association have been formulated in such a manner that ordinary Advocates find it difficult to get membership thus resulting in class discrimination. The court also noted that since the association was functioning inside the court premises and enjoying all the benefits including free electricity, such elitism could not be allowed in a public place using the money.
Observing that practicing lawyers cannot be deprived of access to drinking water merely on the ground of membership, the court added that the present case was regretful and that both bar and bench should avoid such trivial and unwarranted situations.
Case Title: Kannaian Naidu and others v Kamsala Ammal and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court recently held that a wife, who contributed to the acquisition of family assets by performing the household chores, would be entitled to an equal share in the properties, as she had indirectly contributed to its purchase.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that though there was no legislation at present that recognized the contribution made by the wife, the court could very well recognize the same. The Court added that the law does not prevent a Judge from recognizing the contributions.
The court agreed with the wife’s submission that she had contributed to the family by taking care of the household and the children. The court noted that the wife, though did not make direct financial contributions, had played a vital role in managing the household chores by looking after the children, cooking, cleaning and managing day-to-day affairs of the family without giving any inconvenience to the plaintiff abroad and moreover, she sacrificed her dreams and spent her entire life towards the family and children.
Case Title: V Sundararaj v. The Registrar General and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
The Madras High Court has set aside two notifications issued by Tamil Nadu's Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department inviting applications for appointment as Members in the District Consumer Redressal Commission and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, observing that the notifications were based on Rules already struck down by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.
The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai Bench noted that the notifications were based on Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of President and Member of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 which were already struck down on the date of the notification.
The court reiterated that once a Central Law or rule was held to be unconstitutional by a High Court, the same would stand effaced from the statute book in respect of the whole nation.
Case Title: Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation v. The State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
The Madras High Court recently directed the authorities to abide by the orders of the District Green Committee on felling and transplantation of trees for the expansion of the Chennai Egmore Railway Station.
The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the District Green Committee, headed by the District Collector has granted permission for felling of 182 trees, transplantation of 103 trees and pruning of 33 trees, totalling 318 trees.
The court said that though it does not doubt the bonafide of the authorities, it was necessary to follow the orders of the District Green Committee. The court also directed the authorities to report compliance with the committee and asked the latter to verify the same.
Caste Has No Role To Play In Appointment Of Temple Priests: Madras High Court
Case Title: Muthu Subramania Gurukkal v The Commissioner, HR&CE Department and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
The Madras High Court has reiterated that while appointing Archakas to a temple, the caste has no role to play when the person otherwise fulfills all the requirements.
The court added that in temples governed by the Agama, the Trustees/Fit Person only have to ensure that the Archaka/Sthanikam to be appointed is well-versed and properly trained to perform the pooja as per the Agama.
Justice Anand Venkatesh made the above observations on a plea filed by Muthu Subramania Gurukkal challenging an advertisement issued by the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, and the Executive Officer of Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, calling for applications to fill up the position of Archakas/Sthanikam at Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem.
Madras High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of Udayanidhi Stalin Starrer 'Maamannan' Movie
Case Title: Mr. Ramasaravanan v. Udayanidhi Stalin and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
The Madras High Court has refused to stall the relese of Udayanidhi starrer movie “Maamannan”. The court passed orders on a plea filed by Producer Ramasaravanan seeking injunction against the release of the movie and further to direct Udayanidhi Stalin to complete the shooting in a previously agreed upon film titled “Angel”.
When the case came up before Justice K Kumaresh Babu, the judge observed that the agreement between Udayanidhi and Ramasaravan was completely different from the one entered into between Udayanidhi and the producers of Maamannan movie ie, Red Giant Movies, and hence an injunction could not be granted to implement merely because on the parties to both the agreements was same person. The court added that it could not entertain an injunction against third parties from implementing their agreements.
Case Title: AP Ramalingam v The Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
The Madras High Court has refused to ban the offering of Namaz in a Nellithopu (pathway) towards the Kasi Viswanthar Temple situated at Thirupparankundram in Madurai District.
A bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice L Victoria Gowri refused to grant an interim stay on the offering of prayers at Nellithopu and asked the Hindu Religious & Charitable endowment to file their counters to the petition by four weeks. The court also remarked that there was no harm in offering Namaz for 30 minutes and that it would not affect any person.
Case Title: Satheesh Kumar v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 178
The Madras High Court recently observed that even though the law does not require investigating officers to take the opinion of the Public Prosecutors before filing Final Reports, it may sometimes prove to be counterproductive. Thus, the court noted that some methodology could be devised to ensure that the final reports are scrutinized by legally trained minds before they are filed in courts at least in cases involving serious offences.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh had earlier directed the Tamil Nadu government and the Director General of Police to respond to an order for establishing a specialised wing to improve the quality of investigation.
The court directed the Director of Prosecution to issue a circular to all Public Prosecutors sensitizing them to deal with Final Reports at the earliest. The court added that the prosecutors can inform the investigating officers about any defects which can be rectified before filing it in the Jurisdictional Courts. The court added that the circular shall make it abundantly clear that delay in scrutinization should not be the cause for delay in filing of Final reports beyond the Statutory period.
Case Title: MA Ranjith v The Director General of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
While providing relief to a Police Inspector with respect to his pending salary, the Madras High Court criticized the Director General of Police for not considering the representation made by him in 2019.
Justice Battu Devanand also said that the action of the DGP is not only illegal but also in violation of the Inspector’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“This is one of the classic cases of lethargic attitude of the bureaucrats in our country. Every employee, who discharges his duties honestly, he would expect payment of his salary regularly from the employer, without any unreasonable delay. The employee has to survive himself and he has to feed his family and also to take care of all necessities of his family members, from the salary, he is getting,” the court said.
Case Title: K Janarthan v Mrs Vimala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
The Madras High Court recently criticised the manner in which All Women Police Stations across the State were functioning. The court noted that in Tamil Nadu, the police stations were reduced to places of corruption where the authorities proceeded to side with powerful parties. The court lamented that these institutions which were introduced to contribute to the society were now reduced to shameless "kangaroo courts".
Justice R Subramanian and Justice Victoria Gowri made these observations on a contempt petition filed by one K Janarthan alleging that the Inspector of All Women Police Station (Thilagar Thidal), Vimala, had arrested him without following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Lalitha Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh and had thus committed contempt of court.