Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 181 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 227 NOMINAL INDEX H Raja v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 181 Safai Karamchari Andolan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 182 Ms. Monisha v The National Testing Agency and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 183 State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 184 S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt....
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 181 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
NOMINAL INDEX
H Raja v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
Safai Karamchari Andolan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
Ms. Monisha v The National Testing Agency and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
D Madhumithra v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
Dr.Wanbor Sungoh v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
B. Saravanan v. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
P. Elilarasan v. The Executive Director, Air India Ltd. & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
A Kamala v Home Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
S Kesavan v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
A Balaguru v The Director Superintending Archaeologist, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
S. Achuthan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Educational Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
M Marannan v. The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
K Saravanan v The Joint Director of School Education and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Tantea Employees' Federation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
P Naveen Kumar v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
Anju v Home Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Branch Manager v Mrs Ramzan Begam, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
KK Ramesh v Union of Indians and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
G.Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
Riyana Begum v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
A Kamala v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
Infosys Limited v The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
Shalin v The District Registrar and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
N Lakshmi v IRDAI and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
High Court of Madras v P Dharmaraj and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
Uma Kant v The Inspector General, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
Balaji @ Panai Balaji v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
Saurav Das v Chief Information Commissioner and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
PK Manimandram Others v State Human Rights Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
Imrankan and others v The Sub Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Kalaiselvi and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
S Sasikala v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
Haj Mohamed v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
Samuel Tennyson v The Principal & Secretary, MCC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
M/s.V.R.Muthu & Bros. Versus State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
S Nithesh and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
Sudha Mathesan v The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
REPORTS
Case Title: H Raja v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a second application filed by BJP leader H Raja to quash the FIR registered against him for making derogatory remarks against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Karunanidhi and his daughter Kanimozhi Karunanidhi.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the grounds raised in the quash petition were purely factual and were already canvassed in earlier quash petitions. Thus, finding no new merits in the plea, the court dismissed his plea.
Case Title: Safai Karamchari Andolan v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
Lamenting over the persistence of manual scavenging in today's day and age, the Madras High Court has issued a slew of guidelines to eradicate manual scavenging and to ensure compliance with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad remarked that though there might have been a need for manual scavenging in an age of absence of technology, continuing the practice in today's age with technological advancements was nothing but State sanctioned casteism which was against the constitutional ethos.
The court added that lack of funds could not be a justification to continue the practice and the Court, being the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights could not be a mute spectator and allow generational condemnation of the oppressed class to a life of poverty, ill-health, and indignity in complete disregard to their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the constitution.
Case Title: Ms. Monisha v The National Testing Agency and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras High Court recently paved the way for a student, with a special need of wearing adult diapers, to attend the NEET UG Examinations wearing the diaper. The court noted that the principle of reasonable accommodation was not restricted to those suffering disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 but to all persons having special needs.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that any candidate who was not necessarily suffering from any disability set out under the 2016 act but otherwise had special requirements or had a biological condition was entitled to reasonable accommodation.
The court also directed the examination authorities to ensure that all examination centres had suitable toilet facilities with water amenities and a minimum number of sanitary products so that the girls coming unprepared could use them. The court also suggested that the restrooms could be thoroughly inspected in advance and regularly thus limiting the frisking of candidates for a second time and thus, saving the candidates' precious time.
Case Name- State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice G. Arul Murugan while deciding a Writ Appeal in the case of State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold has held that application for compassionate appointment can be made by a minor under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023. However appointment to such an applicant can be given only once they attain the age of majority.
The court further observed that as per Rule 6 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, at the time of making the application of compassionate appointment, it is not mandatory that the applicant is of minimum years of age and an application can be made even on behalf of a minor. However, when such an application is considered, the appointment can be given to the legal heir only after they attain majority.
Case Name- S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice N.Mala while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd. has held that a question that is referred to a labour court under section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act cannot be construed as an Industrial Dispute under section 2(k) of the ID Act.
The court observed that the phrase “as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act or law” cannot convert a question referred under section 17(2) of the ID Act into an Industrial Dispute as defined under section 2(k) of the ID Act. The above-mentioned phrase would only mean that while answering the question referred, the Labour Court would adjudicate it in the same manner as it would adjudicate a reference under the ID Act. Thus, a question that is referred to a Labour Court under section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act cannot be construed as an Industrial Dispute under section 2(k) of the ID Act.
Case Title: D Madhumithra v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
The Madras High Court recently refused to hand over a 3-year-old minor boy's custody to his biological mother considering the child's welfare.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the child had never lived with his biological mother, who was infected with HIV and was handed over to the private respondent when he was born. The court thus opined that it would be in the welfare of the child to continue being in the custody of the private respondent.
Case Title: Dr.Wanbor Sungoh v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
While directing the Thanjavur Medical College to return the original certificates of a PG Doctor, the Madras High Court underlined that the COVID duty performed by the PG doctors should be treated as part of the bond period.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus took a different view than that of a single judge of the Madras High Court recently. The court also observed that educational certificates were not marketable commodities under Section 171 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872. The court thus directed the Directorate of Medical Education to formally relieve the petitioner for the bonded service.
Case Name- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice R. Vijayakumar while deciding a Writ Appeal in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors has held that , Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is empowered to reduce or waive damages imposed on the employer as per the EPF Act and EPF Scheme.
The court observed that as per section 14B of the EPF Act, the Provident Fund Commissioner or any other officer authorized by the Central Government may recover such damages which do not exceed the amount of arrears which may be specified in the scheme contemplated under Paragraph No. 32A of the EPF Scheme.
The court held that as per Section 7I and 14B of the EPF Act, order passed by the Central Board under Section 14B are also appealable to the Appellate Tribunal. Thus when the orders of Central Board are appealable to the Appellate Tribunal, it is not legally acceptable to say that the Central Board has exclusive power to reduce/waive damages but the Appellate Tribunal does not have such powers.
Case Name- C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R.N.Manjula while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors. has held that non-consideration of a representation made to a statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty.
The court observed that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, a duty is cast upon them to consider the same on merits and pass and appropriate order instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. The court further held that non-consideration of a representation made to a statutory authority would amount to dereliction of duty.
Petitioner's Qualifications Should Not Be A Barrier To Compassionate Appointment: Madras HC
Case: B. Saravanan v. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice L. Victoria Gowri while deciding a writ petition in the case of B. Saravanan v. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission & Ors has held that the petitioner's qualifications should not be a barrier to compassionate appointment.
The court observed that the petitioner's qualifications should not be a barrier to compassionate appointment and directed the Respondents to consider the representations and appoint the Petitioner in a suitable post in terms of seniority list maintained by the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, District Collectorate and the Directorate of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai.
Case: P. Elilarasan v. The Executive Director, Air India Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
A Single-Judge bench of Madras High Court comprising of Justice Battu Devanand while deciding a writ petition in the case of P. Elilarasan v. The Executive Director, Air India Ltd. & Ors. has held that as long as there is a manpower requirement by the employer, the services of the employee ought to be utilized and at no point of time should he be replaced by any other causal arrangement by resorting to employ other persons.
The court observed that the Petitioners' employment should be maintained as long as there is a genuine requirement for their services by the Respondent. The court also emphasized that the Petitioners should not be replaced by casual arrangements and that their employment should continue with the terms and conditions stipulated by the Respondent. Additionally, the court prohibited the termination of the petitioners' employment through unfair means or labour practices.
Case Title: A Kamala v Home Secretary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras High Court has closed the habeas corpus plea file by the mother of Youtuber and whistle blower “Savukku” Shankar.
The vacation bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice R Kalaimathi closed the plea and directed the authorities to consider Shankar's mother's representation to move him to a different prison.
The court had previously directed the Coimbatore DLSA to submit a report on Shankar's health. Following this, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the report and informed the court that Shankar had also been taken to the Coimbatore Government Medical College as per the instructions of the Judicial Magistrate.
The APP also stressed that Shankar had sustained the injuries before being locked in the prison and refuted the allegations of custodial torture.
Case Name: Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry, held that Employees are not automatically entitled to pension benefits based on deductions made under the GPF scheme.
The court observed that while the GPF Scheme was in place, it did not included provisions for pension benefits. The court emphasized that deductions made under the GPF Scheme do not automatically entitle employees to pension benefits. The court acknowledged that any decision regarding the extension of pension benefits to employees of the respondent organization required approval from the government.
The court relied on the W.P.No.1264 of 2019 wherein the Division bench of Madras High Court held that the employees of Autonomous Bodies cannot claim pension unless there is a specific pension scheme in place, and requests for a pension scheme similar to the government's do not grant them the same rights as government employees.
Case Name: G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., held that in order to qualify for promotion, employees must satisfy the necessary practical experience and the required number of years of service.
The court observed that petitioner was appointed as a Senior Superintendent as a fresh entrant on May 30, 2015, as a result, he had not completed the required five years of service in this position, as mandated by Rule 60(d)(i) of the Common Service Rules, to be eligible for promotion to Assistant Manager (Legal). The court observed that petitioner lacked the necessary practical experience in civil or mofsel courts as an advocate, which was a requirement for the Assistant Manager (Legal) position.
The court found that the seniority list prepared by the corporation was in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. The court further observed that the promotions within the TSTC were based on merit and eligibility criteria, including the completion of the requisite years of service and possession of necessary qualifications in compliance with the Common Service Rules.
Case Title: S Kesavan v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras High Court recently noted that the authorities could not deny permission to conduct a temple festival on the grounds of the existence of a Model Code of Conduct.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu was hearing a plea challenging the rejection of permission and to grant permission to conduct a music and dance program at night during the temple festival. The authorities had denied permission given the model code of conduct existing due to the Assembly Elections.
The court however noted that the elections in the State of Tamil Nadu had concluded and the polling was already over. The court was also not in favor of denying permission because of the Model Code of Conduct.
Case Title: A Balaguru v The Director Superintending Archaeologist
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Madras High Court had recently observed that the Archaeological Department had an incumbent duty to maintain the archaeological monuments in the State and should not do acts that would endanger the archaeological monuments.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad was hearing a plea against the construction of a toilet and cafeteria near the Arulmigu Gangaikonda Cholisvarar Temple.
Case Name: S. Achuthan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Educational Department
Citation:2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Battu Devanand, while deciding a writ petition in the case of S. Achuthan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Educational Department, held that pensionary benefits cannot be denied to employees on the basis of administrative delays that are not attributable to the employees themselves.
The court observed that it was important to consider the commencement date of the selection process rather than the date of issuing appointment orders, for determining pension scheme eligibility. The court relied on the previous judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, where they have emphasized the importance of considering the commencement date of the selection process rather than the date of issuing appointment orders or joining duty, for determining pension scheme eligibility.
Case Name: V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
A Single Judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Hon'ble Justice Battu Devanand while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu held that it would be unjustified to recover from employees any excess payment made to them by mistake and where there had been inordinate delay in initiating the recovery.
The court relied on the case of State of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) wherein the Supreme Court set aside the proceedings of recovery observing that the recovery would be impermissible in law from employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery or when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
Case Name : C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
A single bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, held that when an employee changes regions and accepts the lowest administrative rank, their seniority in the transferred region is counted from the transfer date, not the original date of entry into service.
The court looked at the eligibility of the petitioner for the position of “Superintendent (Legal)” based on the Common Service Rules as he hadn't worked as “Superintendent (Admin and Accounts)” neither held positions relevant for consideration. Despite claiming since 1992, the petitioner lacked eligibility or rights for consideration or promotion as per the rules. Even if irregularities existed in appointments to the post, the petitioner lacked the standing to object or make claims. Thus, the court deemed the petitioner's claim baseless and rejected it.
Case Title: M Marannan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The Madras High Court has directed the revenue authorities to take criminal action against persons furnishing false information to get a legal heirship certificate.
Justice SM Subramanian added that if the authorities failed to take action against such persons, the competent authority shall initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the officers for dereliction of duty.
The court noted that a legal heirship certificate had civil consequences and suppression of facts while seeking a legal heirship certificate would lead to infringement of the civil rights of persons. The court thus noted that those persons who suppressed material facts were liable to be prosecuted under criminal law.
Case Title: K Saravanan v The Joint Director of School Education and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
The Madras High Court has reiterated that an employer cannot suspend an employee on the date of his retirement or at the verge of his retirement and initiate disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of considerable time.
Justice RN Manjula observed that suspending the employee and issuing a charge memo after a considerable time would not only be a mockery but would also cause inconvenience to the Government and discourage the morale of the Government employees who rendered their services till the attainment of superannuation.
The court observed that the Department's delayed action was in complete contradiction to its own Government orders which would vitiate all the subsequent proceedings including the charge memo. The court added that allowing the departmental proceedings to continue would only be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. The court added that there could not be any other mental agony to an employee than placing him under suspension exactly on the date of superannuation.
Case Name: Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and K. Kumaresh Babu, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan, held that upon the death of the employee, the purpose of compassionate appointment is to reduce the immediate financial hardship faced by their family.
The court observed that the deceased employee had been granted temporary status before his death, indicating some level of recognition by the authorities. This fact was considered relevant to the eligibility of the family for compassionate appointment.
The court noted that the petitioners had failed to comply with previous tribunal orders directing them to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment. The court deemed this non-compliance as contemptuous and indicated that the petitioners did not have the right to reject the deceased employee for regularization.
Case Name: Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Tantea Employees' Federation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, while deciding Writ Appeal in the case of Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Tantea Employees' Federation, held that order passed by the Government to revise the pay scale on recommendations of an expert committee cannot be refused by the employer on grounds of disparity in employees' qualifications.
The court rejected the appellant's contention regarding the disparity in qualifications. It emphasized that when the government accepted the recommendations of an expert committee and issued a subsequent order rectifying anomalies, such orders modified the original government order accepting the recommendations of the pay commission. Therefore, the appellant could not refuse to implement the subsequent order based on qualification differences. The court agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the order and upheld it.
Case Title: P Naveen Kumar v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court recently observed that if the right to privacy includes one's sexual and gender orientation, it would also include one's spiritual orientation and thus allow a person to perform such religious practices as one deemed fit.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus observed that a man had every right to perform Angapradakshinam, a ritual where one rolls over the plantain leaves left behind by other devotees after eating. The court noted that his right to perform the practice was protected under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution.
Looking into the earlier judicial pronouncements regarding religious practices, the court said that the petitioner had a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution to carry out the religious vow undertaken by him when he believed that such an act would confer a spiritual benefit on him.
The court noted that the matter was also covered by the right to privacy. The court added that one's personal choices governing the way of life were intrinsic to privacy and that privacy was not lost or surrendered merely because the individual was in a public place.
Case Title: Anju v Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras High Court recently ordered the Villupuram District Collector to exhume the dead body of a man after his family approached the court alleging that the man had died as a result of custodial torture.
Justice R Sakthivel noted that the actions of the police personnel created a serious suspicion around the death of the man and thus the family's suspicion couldn't be brushed aside. Thus, finding that an enquiry would be necessary to unearth the truth and noting that the same should not cause any prejudice to the authorities, the court directed the exhumation of the body and ordered re-postmortem.
Case Title: The Branch Manager v Mrs Ramzan Begam
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
The Madras High Court has recently observed that any certificate including salary certificates, appointment letters, etc of a person in foreign employment that has been duly attested by the Consular of India can be accepted as evidence without examining any person associated with the documents.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji noted that as per Section 3(2) Diplomatic and Consular (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 any document affixed, impressed, or subscribed with the seal and signature of the Consular shall be admitted in evidence without proof of seal or signature.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
The Madras High Court has suggested prescribing a period of limitation for filing counter reliefs of divorce or restitution of conjugal rights in matrimonial disputes.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji noted that in the last few years, it had become a trend for parties to file applications seeking counter-relief for divorce petitions or counter-relief of restitution of conjugal rights towards the fag end of the trial thereby delaying the disposal of the case. The court thus suggested a period of limitation of 9 months to 1 year for filing applications for counter relief.
The court thus directed the registry to place the recommendations before the Administrative Side of the High Court for amending the rules under Section 123 of the CPC which empowers the High Court Rule Committee to make rules regarding the limitations governing the field under the Family Court Act.
Case Title: KK Ramesh v Union of Indians and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a complete review had to be taken by the management of Transport Corporations in a phased manner to control air pollution in Madurai city.
Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice G Arul Murugan suggested that the existing old vehicles could be replaced by new eco-friendly vehicles depending upon the financial status of the corporations.
The court was hearing petitions to set up flying squads at the Taluk Level, District level, and state level in Tamil Nadu and to impose a heavy fine on vehicles emitting huge black and white Carbon Monoxide from the nozzle. Another plea also sought to ensure proper maintenance of the engine of Government buses in Madurai to prevent excess usage of fuel and emission of unwanted gases and particular matters from the exhaust.
Case Title: G.Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary to Government, Secretary to Government, Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu, and the Director General of Police to constitute a High-Level Secret Committee consisting of officers with integrity to monitor police officials who were suspected to be hand in glove with the drug offenders.
Though the bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Rajasekar appreciated the efforts taken by the state to control the free movement of drugs in the State, the court also noted that if the police officers were efficient and more vigilant, the free movement would be impossible. The court thus suggested setting up the secret committee.
Case Title: Riyana Begum v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras High Court recently directed the railways to compensate the family of a man who was hit by a train while sitting on the railway platform and succumbed to injuries.
Justice K Rajasekar observed that since the accident had taken place while the man was sitting on the railway platform, the burden was on the Railways to prove that the incident was not one within the definition of an untoward incident. The court added that if the accident had taken place while the man was crossing the track, the contention of the railways could have been accepted but since there was no evidence to prove that the man was sitting on the edge of the platform, it could not be termed as 'self-inflicted injury'.
Case Title: A Kamala v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court on Thursday delivered a split verdict in the habeas corpus plea filed by the mother of Youtuber and whistle-blower Savukku Shankar.
While Justice GR Swaminathan wanted to set aside the detention order passed against Shankar, Justice PB Balaji wanted to give more time for the police to file their counter.
While delivering the judgment, Justice Swaminathan also added that the reason why he wanted to take up the habeas corpus plea and pass orders on Thursday itself was because some high-ranking men had personally met him requesting him not to take up the HCP for final disposal. This prompted him to take up the case.
Madras High Court Dismisses Infosys's Plea Challenging ₹6.7 Crore Demand By TANGEDCO
Case Title: Infosys Limited v The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court recently rejected a petition filed by IT major Infosys challenging an order of TANGEDCO demanding around 6.7 crores as Shortfall Amount/Adjustment charges.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that there was no infirmity or illegality in the proceedings and that the petition was devoid of any merits. The court noted that the demand made by TANGEDCO was not barred by limitation as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.
Infosys had approached the court after TANGEDCO raised a demand of Rs. 6,76,09,540.12 as Shortfall Amount/Adjustment charges.
The court noted that as per the certificate issued by MEPZ, Infosys was engaged in both software development and Information Technology Enabled Service within the same premises and it was appropriate to adopt a higher tariff.
Thus, the court found no infirmity in the order of TANGEDCO and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Shalin v The District Registrar and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras High Court recently noted that it was time to include the Church Properties under Section 22 A of the Registration Act 1908 which protects certain properties like temple and wakf properties from registration.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that while temple properties are protected under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and the Wakf properties are covered under the Wakf Act 1995, a similar law with respect to church properties was absent. The court noted that in India, being a secular country, the state was expected to treat all religions alike and thus suggested bringing church properties under the ambit of Section 22A of the Registration Act.
Case Title: N Lakshmi v IRDAI and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court recently remarked that often Insurance companies wilfully refuse reimbursements to the insured, forcing them to pay the court to get their rights enforced. The court added that individuals usually do not have the legal knowledge to understand the ambiguous language used in the policy documents which helps the company's intention to waive their liability.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus came to the rescue of a woman challenging an order of the authorized officer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance rejecting the insurance claim with respect to her Husband, who died of cardiac arrest during the second wave of COVID-19.
The court noted that as per the policy, the first occurrence of a heart attack of specified severity was covered under the policy. The court also noted that as per the orders of the Apex Court, an insurance company could not be too technical and reject a claim on technical grounds.
Case Title: High Court of Madras v P Dharmaraj and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
The Madras High Court criticized the members of the Madurai Bar Association for passing resolutions condemning a judicial order mandating the wearing of helmets by riders of two-wheelers and for subsequently holding a procession and making allegations against the Judge.
Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the members had attempted to take the law into their own hands when they should have resorted to the alternate remedies available if the order was found to be unacceptable or unimplementable. The court made the remarks in a suo moto contempt petition initiated against the President and Secretary of the Madurai bar Association.
Case Title: Uma Kant v The Inspector General
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court recently dismissed the removal of a CISF Constable for using another CISF Constable's ATM card without permission and withdrawing money.
Justice RN Manjula noted that though there was no previous similar instance, a charge of this nature was so severe and serious, that no soft approach could be taken. The court observed that taking away someone's ATM card for withdrawing money without his permission was nothing but stealing money and thus, the dismissal from service was appropriate.
Case Title: Balaji @ Panai Balaji v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Madras High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against a 21-year-old man who had eloped with a 18 year old girl.
Calling it a case of Romeo and Juliet which ended successfully in marriage, Justice G Jayachandran noted that the inherent power of the court under Section 482 of CrPC was meant for cases like this to meet the ends of justice. The court added that if the prosecution was not quashed, it would create vulnerability to the girl and force her exploitation, which was intended to be prevented under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Saurav Das v Chief Information Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Information Commissioner to conduct a fresh inquiry into alleged non-disclosure of information pertaining to the actions taken by the Central Government during the COVID pandemic, including the actions taken, treatment given etc.
In the order made on 7th December 2023, the copy of which was uploaded today, Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the Chief Information Commissioner had arrived at a conclusion without any discussion or material proof. Finding this order to be unsustainable, the court directed the Commissioner to conduct a fresh inquiry following the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: PK Manimandram Others v State Human Rights Commission
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court has observed that a person discharging his official duty cannot be held up for violation of Human Rights based on false and frivolous allegations.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar thus set aside an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission directing the Central and State governments to compensate a former Junior Clerk of the Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture (CIBA).
The bench was hearing petitions filed by the Director and the Administrative Officer of the CIBA and a petition filed by the Inspector of Police, CB-CID challenging an order of the SHRC.
Case Title: Imrankan and others v The Sub Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court has observed that the court cannot be a mute spectator when the trial is delayed through attempts of the accused under the guise of fair opportunity.
Justice G Jayachandran thus refused to entertain a plea for recalling witnesses. The court noted that the case was registered in the year 2009 and was yet to reach finality even after 15 years. The court thus opined that the petition to recall witnesses was only for delaying the process and would not be in the interest of justice.
Case Title: IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Kalaiselvi and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court has observed that the Motor Vehicle Act is beneficial legislation and should be interpreted in favor of the affected persons.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel thus enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased minor boy in an accident involving vehicles driven by minor boys.
The court noted that since the deceased was covered under the insurance policy at the time of the accident, the tribunal had rightly concluded that the insurance company was liable to pay the award amount and recover it from the owners equally.
However, the court decided to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded and awarded an enhanced compensation including future prospects of the deceased. The court thus directed the insurance company to deposit the modified award to the credit of the case on the file of the Chief Judge, MACT, Court of Small Cases, Chennai with interest within a period of eight weeks.
Case Title: S Sasikala v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court has recently appointed a wife as the guardian of her husband, who was in a vegetative state, thereby allowing her to dispose of the properties in her husband's name to meet the medical expenses.
Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji thus set aside the order of a single judge who had opined that the relief could not be granted under Article 226 and gave liberty to the woman to approach the jurisdictional civil court. The division bench, however, observed that driving the woman, who was already burdened with taking care of her comatose husband, was not proper.
The court also noted that taking care of a person in a comatose condition was not easy and required funds. Thus, the court opined that the property, which was in the name of the husband should be put to better use by allowing the wife to deal with them.
Case Title: Haj Mohamed v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant bail to a man booked for morphing and uploading a woman's picture on social media. The court said that the act not only affected the morality of the woman and her family but may also deviate others using social media, especially the younger generation.
Justice B Pugalendhi noted that while all the other offenses alleged were bailable, the accused was also booked under Section 67 A of the Information Technology Act. Thus, considering the gravity/ impact of the offence and the period of imprisonment provided under the Information Technology Act, the court was not inclined the grant bail.
Case Title: Samuel Tennyson v The Principal & Secretary, MCC and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has held that the disciplinary committee is bound by the decisions of the Internal Complaints Committee with respect to allegations of sexual harassment at workplace.
Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that as per the observations of the Apex Court, the findings and the report of the Complaints Committee shall not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or an inquiry leading to disciplinary action, but as a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent in the sexual harassment case.
The court noted that as per Section 13 of the POSH Act and Rule 9 of the POSH Rules, if the Complaints Committee concludes that the allegations have been proven, it could recommend to the employer to take action for sexual harassment, as misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service law and take action, including termination.
Case Title: M/s.V.R.Muthu & Bros. Versus State Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
The Madras High Court has held that merely because the assessment is deemed to have been completed in both cases, it does not mean that the officers are precluded from exercising the power under Section 25 or Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
The court, while dismissing the petition, held that the issuance of summons is for ascertaining and producing information. Whether the petitioners have complied with all the requirements of Section 22(2) and whether the declarations in the returns filed by the petitioners are correct or not can be ascertained only if records are summoned.
Case Title: S Nithesh and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court recently dismissed pleas challenging the Government Order issued by the Human Resource Management Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu mandating the candidates to secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% in Tamil Paper in the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that sufficient knowledge in Tamil was a sine qua non for the efficient discharge of the functions and duties as the persons placed in Group-IV posts will have to have direct interaction with the people.
The court noted that the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which was enacted to regulate the service conditions, in Section 21 mandates the Government Servants to have adequate knowledge of Tamil. The court noted that as per Section 21A of the Act, which was introduced in 2021, any person who applies for recruitment to any post in any service by direct recruitment shall pass the Tamil Language paper with not less than 40%.
Case Title: Sudha Mathesan v The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court has held that while dealing with giving approvals for organ donation, the Authorisation Committee should take the statements made by donors, who are not near relatives of the patients, at its face value without insisting on producing evidence.
Justice GR Swaminathan underlined that all religions proclaimed love and charity at highest value and not all human endeavor was underlined with selfish consideration. The court thus held that unless evidence was shown to the contrary, the committee should accept the statement made by the donor that the organ was being donated out of love and affection.
The court observed that too much burden could not be laid on the shoulders of the applicants to prove that there was no commercial dealings. The court added that unless there was definite material to show that there was financial dealings, permission ought not to be rejected or withheld. The court said that the committee need not always take a cynical view that a non-near relative will not donate out of altruistic consideration. The court underlined that altruism was present in humans, who, in times of danger and calamity were known to save others even at the cost of their own lives.