Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 295 NOMINAL INDEX Murugan N v Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 Tmt M Nithya v The Head Master and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 250 Zee Media Corporation Limited v Mahendra Singh Dhoni, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 Mohammed...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
NOMINAL INDEX
Murugan N v Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
Tmt M Nithya v The Head Master and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
Zee Media Corporation Limited v Mahendra Singh Dhoni, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
Mohammed Hasan Kuthous v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
S Ramachandran v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
Dr. L Murugan v Murasoli Trust rep by its Trustee R.S. Bharathi, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
M Jeya v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
A Chinnaponnu v Union of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
Senthil Mallar v The Commissioner of Police and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
R Girija v S Ramalingam and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
Malaravan v Praveen Travels Private Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Lyca Productions v. Vishal Krishna Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
Mohamed Dayan v The District Collector and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
VP Sarathi v Kiruthigha, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
Lyca Productions v Vishal Krishna Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
M Rajendran v The Superintendant of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
M Arasupandi v The District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Vasanthi v Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
Elangovan v The Secretary, Home Department, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Prakash v District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
District Collector, Tirunelveli v Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
EDAC Engineering v. Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd, Application Nos 2080 and 4609 of 2021, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
Dr. V. Kalanidhi v State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
SV v. MR, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Selvam v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
Mariappan v Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
Ramya S Moorthy v Registrar of Trade Marks, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
Davidraj v Palanivel, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
S Zahir Hussain v The State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
C Raja v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education v The Appeal Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
H Kalyan Singh vs. Dr Nirmalkathri and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
M/s. Hotel Saravana Bhavan v. The Additional Chief Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
SA Syed Shaik Alaudeen v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
Mr Badhrisheshathiri v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
Kalyani v The Additional Director and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
Saibunisha (Died) and Another v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Mrs. Pista Kanwar v The Inspector of Police and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
Vinothini v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
Swamiji v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
Sri Kamatchi Amman Devasthanam v Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Wakf, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
Punjab National Bank v. R Lalitha and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
Dr. Krithika B v. Additional Chief Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
P Arunachalam(Died) and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
BSF Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v M/s. Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
REPORTS
Case Title: Murugan N v Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court on Thursday disposed of a plea seeking to confer Bharat Ratna posthumously on the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late M Karunanidhi.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice C Kumarappan of the Madurai bench observed that the court could not consider the request as it could not issue a direction to the executive to confer an award to a person.
“Such a direction would be beyond the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution”, the court said.
Case Title: Tmt M Nithya v The Head Master and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
In a pertinent judgment, the Madras High Court has ruled that government servants working in the State are governed by the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules and not the Maternity Benefits Act 1961. The court thus observed that such employees could not seek maternity leave for a third child as a matter of right when the State policy restricts the same.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed as under,
“...the facts of the present case that the Petitioner is having three biological children. When the state policy and fundamental rules restrict the maternity leave for 3rd child, this Court is of the view, as the matter of right the Petitioner cannot seek maternity leave on the basis of the Maternity Benefit Act. In view of the same, the impugned order has to be sustained.”
The court, looking into the laws and rules, held that the petitioner was governed only by the Fundamental Rules since the Maternity Benefit Act was not applicable to Government servants.
Case Title: Zee Media Corporation Limited v Mahendra Singh Dhoni
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by Zee Media against a single judge's order rejecting its challenge to the interrogatories raised by cricketer MS Dhoni in an ongoing defamation suit between them.
Interrogatories are covered under Section 30 and Order XI, Rules 1 to 11, 21, and 22 of the CPC. They are formal written questions that are administered by the parties to the opposite party with the leave of the Court. The objective is that parties disclose their case and ascertain the truth in a fair manner.
A bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that interrogatories should not be narrowed down to technical limits but should be used liberally, to serve the ends of justice. It remarked.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Principle Sessions Court in Chennai to hear the bail plea moved by Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that since the offence alleged to have been committed by Balaji was one punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, only a Special Court designated under Section 43(1) of the Act by the Central Government could try the same.
Case Title: Mohammed Hasan Kuthous v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court has held that an order of trial court allowing an application filed by the prosecution seeking extension of remand of accused is not an interlocutory order but a final order and the same is amenable to appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel rejected the prosecutor’s argument that an order acceding to prayer for extension of remand is an interlocutory order. Prosecutor argued that while an order rejecting the extension of remand is appealable, an order allowing the same is not appealable. However, the court did not accept this view and referred to the age old adage “Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander too”.
Case Title: S Ramachandran v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court on Tuesday left it to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu MK Stalin to take a call on the continuation of Minister Senthil Balaji - who is now under custody in a money laundering case - in the cabinet as a Minister without portfolio. The court added that Balaji’s continuation in the cabinet without a portfolio did not serve any purpose and did not auger well with the purity of administration.
Calling it a “constitutional travesty” the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that the founding fathers of the constitution may not have comprehended corrosion of governance to such an extent that a elected member in custody was rewarded with the status of Minister.
Case Title: Dr. L Murugan v Murasoli Trust rep by its Trustee R.S. Bharathi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Madras High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a defamation case filed against Union Minister Dr. L Murugan by DMK mouthpiece Murasoli Trust. The court also directed the Special Court to complete the trial within a period of three months.
The trust had filed a private complaint against the Minister under Section 499 and Section 500 of the IPC, for the remarks made by him in a press meet. It was alleged that the Minister's statements gave an impression that the Trust was being run on Panchami land (land that is distributed for Dalits in Tamil Nadu).
While refusing to quash the proceedings pending before the Special Court, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that in cases of defamation, the statements had to be tested only from the point of view of common prudent man and that the statements put forward by the Minister would be understood as questioning the right and title of the property.
Case Title: M Jeya v The Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court recently directed the State government to pay a sum of Rs 25 Lakh to the parents of a 17-year-old boy who passed away as a result of alleged custodial torture by the Police.
Justice P Dhanabal added that since the trial against the erring officials was pending, the question of recovery from the erring officials could be decided by the Government.
The court noted that since it was prima facie established that the deceased died only while he was in custody of the police, it could invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to award compensation.
Case Title: A Chinnaponnu v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
The Madras High Court has made it clear that even though married daughters are equally eligible to be considered for compassionate employment, their appointment has to be considered on touchstone of criteria like dependency, financial status of the bereaved family, etc.
Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji observed as under,
“Undoubtedly, the principle of gender equality and non-discrimination is of paramount importance. We accept that no contrary view can be taken in considering compassionate appointment for married daughters of the family unless they satisfy other criteria viz., dependency, financial status, etc., as laid down in the relevant Rules or Act,”
Case Title: Senthil Mallar v The Commissioner of Police and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
The Madras High Court recently remarked that every person in a democratic person is entitled to his reservations and opinions about a particular ideology and no one can be compelled to follow the same ideology. The court also added that only dialogue could ensure scope for evolution in the Society.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution also included freedom to hold opinions and it could not be prevented on the mere apprehension that there may be law and order problem.
Using Political Power To Grab Land From Common Man Is Daylight Robbery: Madras High Court
Case Title: R Girija v S Ramalingam and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
“Using political power and influence to grab land from a powerless common man is nothing short of day-light robbery" the Madras High Court recently observed.
Justice SM Subramaniam added that large-scale exploitation of political power especially in land-grabbing matters would pave the way for unhealthy democracy and that this political power must be used for socially beneficial issues instead of personal gains.
The court also noted that politicians play an influential role in the lives of the common man and it was imperative that this power not be misused. The court noted that instead of having a positive and healthy impact on the lives of the people, the politicians these days were using their political connections to create nuisance to the public.
Case Title: Malaravan v Praveen Travels Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
The Madras High Court has recently observed that under the Motor Vehicle Act, the limitation period will not be applicable to claims made when the police have already filed a report under Section 159 of Motor Vehicle Act.
The provision stipulates that during investigation police officer shall prepare an accident information report to facilitate the settlement of claim and submit the same to the Claims Tribunal.
Justice V Lakshminarayan observed that when an FIR has already been registered in connection with a motor accident and details of the same is sent to the jurisdictional Tribunal, a claim petition has to be treated only as a reminder to the court to call for the FIR and register the same as Claim Petition.
Madras High Court Restrains Release Of Vishal-Starrer “Mark Antony” For Deflecting Judicial Orders
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
Case Title: Lyca Productions v. Vishal Krishna Reddy
The Madras High Court on Friday restrained the release of actor Vishal-starrer “Mark Antony” which is slated to release on September 15th.
Vishal was previously directed by a division bench of the court to deposit a sum of Rs 15 crore to the credit of a suit filed by entertainment company Lyca Productions. The court had also restrained Vishal from releasing any movie in Theatres or in the OTT platform which he has produced or financed, until then.
Calling his behaviour “unacceptable and aimed at deflecting court orders”, Justice PT Asha restrained the release of his upcoming movie and also directed Vishal to appear in court on the next hearing.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
Case Title: Mohamed Dayan v The District Collector and Others
The Madras High Court has observed that the phrase “subject to condition” employed in Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has to be understood holistically to mean an implied condition to maintain the senior citizen.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the phrase subject to condition should not be understood to mean that the Gift or Settlement Deed should contain an express condition but an implied condition, and any violation of the condition would be sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act.
The court added that “Love and Affection” was an implied condition and had to be construed as the consideration for executing the Gift or Settlement Deed. The court also observed that the provisions of the Act could not be mis-utilised for rejecting a compliant by a senior citizen merely on the ground that there was no express condition.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
Case Title: VP Sarathi v Kiruthigha
The Madras High Court has observed that expressing adverse views on platforms like Google Review for the services received by a person would not amount to defamation of the service provider, as it is covered under the freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Justice V Sivagnanam noted that the internet is a free platform and an important means of expression and communication. He added that though posting or canvassing false statements/remarks that are derogatory in nature would amount to defamation, mere expression of views in Google reviews would not amount to defamation.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
Case Title: Lyca Productions v Vishal Krishna Reddy
The Madras High Court on Tuesday vacated an injunction order that the court had earlier issued against the release of the "Mark Antony" movie starring Vishal Krishna, which is slated to release on September 15.
Justice PT Asha, who had made the order in a loan default suit concerning the actor, noted that the producer of "Mark Antony" was not a party to the suit and that he had already made payments to the Actor. The court thus deemed it fit to discharge the earlier injunction order.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
Case Title: M Rajendran v The Superintendant of Police
The Madras High Court on Wednesday strongly criticised a political party’s plea seeking protection and permission to celebrate Vinayaka Chathurthi by installing Vinayagar idol and carrying out processions.
Justice Anand Venkatesh criticized the political parties seeking police permission to carry out such processions without actually doing anything for the public. The court added that such issues are causing more public nuisance and also added that the police had much more productive work to do than provide protection for such political interests.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Case Title: M Arasupandi v The District Collector
The Madras High Court has directed the District Collector, District Environmental Officer, Commissioner of Madurai Corporation and Chief Engineer of Water Resource Organization of Madurai to ensure that the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board regarding immersion of idols during Vinayagar Chathurthi are properly adhered to and implemented.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice C Kumarappan also noted that it was for the authorities concerned to ensure that the processions are carried out in an orderly manner.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
Case Title: Vasanthi v Secretary to Government
The Madras High Court has made it clear that the five-day period for communicating the grounds of arrest to a detenu under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (TN act 14 of 1982) should be strictly adhered to as the right to make an effective representation against detention is sacrosanct under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Section 8(1) of the Act states that when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel noted that since detention curtails the liberty of a person without trial, it was important that the detenu be given the earliest opportunity to make an effective representation against such detention. The court also noted that the period of five days provided in the Statute must not be used as a leeway but was only the outer limit.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Case Title: Elangovan v The Secretary, Home Department
The Madras High Court on Friday observed that “Sanadhana Dharma” is a set of eternal duties including duty to the nation, duty to the King, Duty to parents and Gurus, etc. and in that context, opposition to Sanadhana Dharma would have to mean that all these duties were liable to be destroyed.
Justice N Seshasayee was hearing a challenge against a Circular issued by the Principal of Thiru Vi. Ka. Government Arts College requesting the girl students in the college to share their views on the topic “Opposition to Sanadhana” on the occasion of commemorating birth anniversary of former Tamil Nadu CM Annadurai.
The court also noted that presently the idea that had been appearing was that Sanadhana Dharma is all about promoting casteism and untouchability. The court emphasised that untouchability, which has been abolished under Article 15 of the Constitution should not be tolerated even within or outside Sanadhana Dharma.
Ganesh Idols Containing Plaster Of Paris Can't Be Immersed, But Can Be Sold : Madras High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
Case Title: Prakash v District Collector
While trying to strike a balance between the right to carry on trade and the need to protect the environment, the Madras High Court has observed that while the sale of Vinayaka idols made of plaster of Paris cannot be restricted, their immersion in water bodies can be restricted.
Justice GR Swaminathan of Madurai bench on Saturday thus came to the relief of an artisan from Rajasthan who was engaged in making Vinayaka idols. The artisan had approached the court after the District Collector and the Commissioner of Police of Tirunelveli prevented him for selling Vinayaka idols.
The court thus directed the artisan to furnish details of purchasers by keeping an account of every sale and keeping a register containing particulars of buyers. The court added that the authorities could inspect this register.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
Case Title: District Collector, Tirunelveli v Prakash
In a special Sunday sitting, a division bench of the Madras High Court has stayed an order of a single judge allowing the sale of Ganesh idols made using Plaster of Paris.
However, a division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy has now stayed the order.
The bench relied upon orders of the National Green Tribunal and a division bench order upholding the guidelines of the Pollution Control Board and noted that these guidelines were applicable in the State even in the absence of specific rules by the State Government.
The bench also opined that the order of the Single Judge could not be sustained as every Vinayaka idol that was worshipped had to be immersed. The bench emphasized that idols were traditionally made using clay and added that the prohibition was only with respect to the use of Plaster of Paris.
Though it was argued that such prohibition would cause financial hardship to the artisans, the court rejected this argument and opined that the loss would be less since there was only a day left for the festival
Case Title: EDAC Engineering v. Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd, Application Nos 2080 and 4609 of 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
The High Court of Madras has held that once a party has unconditionally accepted the fees fixed by the arbitral tribunal during the arbitral proceeding cannot later challenge the fees of the arbitral tribunal by filing petition under Section 39(2) of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose clarified that as per Section 39(1) of the Act, the arbitral tribunal possesses a lien on the award to cover any outstanding arbitration costs, and it has the authority to withhold the award's delivery until these costs are settled. Additionally, the Court emphasized that once a party unconditionally accepts the fees set by the tribunal during arbitration, they cannot later challenge the fees as unreasonable and request the release of the lien under Section 39(2).
Case Title: Dr. V. Kalanidhi v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
The Madras High Court recently directed DMK MP Dr. V Kalanidhi to vacate the Government Land, where he was running a private hospital, within one month and directed the government authorities to initiate actions to recover all; lawful dues from him as per law.
Justice SM Subramaniam rejected Kalanidhi’s submission that the land was “Grama Natham” which he had acquired from Vendors who were the owners of the property and hence the Government did not have any right over the land. The court noted that the land had been classified as “Government Puramboke” land and thus, the MP was encroaching on the land.
The court added that even assuming the land was not reclassified as Government Puramboke land, the Grama Natham lands were meant for housing the poor and could not be used for commercial purposes. Thus, the court noted that the Government was duty-bound to regulate the Grama Natham lands for the benefit of homeless poor people without any discrimination.
Case Title: SV v. MR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
While refusing to interfere with an order of maintenance made by the Family Court, the Madras High Court has observed that a husband is liable to pay maintenance to his wife and child even if he is on an academic break to pursue a Ph.D.
“The amount awarded in our opinion would be just about sufficient for sustainance of one human being at the cost of living today. Merely because the petitioner has taken a study holiday or an Academic break, his duty to maintain his wife and child cannot take the back seat,” the court observed.
Case Title: Selvam v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
While allowing the plea of a life convict prisoner to go on ordinary leave for 40 days, the Madras High Court emphasized that the fundamental rights of a prisoner do not end at the prison gates. The court noted that the prisoner had sought leave to make arrangements for the admission of his children and to repair his homestead both of which were covered by the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Shakthivel also emphasized that the rules governing leave were subordinate legislation that could not interfere with the constitutional powers of the court especially when it pertained to Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Mariappan v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court has recently observed that though there is a statutory presumption with respect to the guilt of an accused under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), this presumption will not operate when the prosecution has failed to prove some foundational facts with respect to the case.
Justice K Murali Shankar thus acquitted a man, Mariappan, convicted under the Act after noting that the prosecution had failed to prima facie prove that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl.
The court also lamented that the police had failed to identify the real culprit even after knowing that the accused was not the biological father of the child born to the victim. The court added that it was painful that the police had stopped their investigation with the accused, because of which the real culprit was roaming in the society.
Noting that no child should be allowed to be bastardized, the court directed the police to proceed with further investigation to find out the real culprit within a period of four months. To negate the possibility of implicating other innocent persons by the police agency, the court also directed the police to conduct DNA test on the suspected accused without arresting them, and proceed with law only if the test proves positive.
Case Title: Ramya S Moorthy v Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court recently observed that the time limit of two months prescribed under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 for filing a counter-statement to a notice of opposition would run from the date of receipt of the E-mail and not from the date of sending the E-mail.
While Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act says that the applicant should send the counter-statement of the grounds for application within two months of “receipt of notice”, Rule 18(2) of the Trade Mark Rules 2017 says that the document would be deemed to be served at the time of sending the e-mail.
Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy said Rule 18 created a legal fiction with regard to service of notice and was not in consonance with Section 21(2) of the Act. Considering that the substantive right of an applicant was at stake, the court concluded that the time limit would run from the date of receipt of the email.
Case Title: Davidraj v Palanivel
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a client who had been proceeded against the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a complaint by a lawyer for dishonor of cheque by observing that a fee, which is per se illegal as per the Legal Practitioners Rules, will not be a legal claim and a legal liability could not be fastened upon the client to pay the same.
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai Bench thus quashed the proceedings before the Fast Track Court in Madurai after observing that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the client would be an abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: S Zahir Hussain v The State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
While setting aside a preventive detention order made by the State for detention of a lawyer in connection with smuggling under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, the Madras High Court noted that the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention had snapped.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel noted that while the proposal was made by the Sponsoring Authority on November 6, 2010, the detention order was made by the Detaining Authority only on December 30, 2010, after nearly eight weeks. Thus, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others, the court observed that the live and proximate link had snapped.
Case Title: C Raja v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
While quashing an FIR filed against an advocate for obstructing revenue officials from carrying out a survey, the Madras High Court noted that though the advocate had acted strongly, his intention was not to prevent the Government Officials from performing their duties but to protect and safeguard the rights of his client.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that since the legal profession involves fighting for client’s rights, Advocates usually tend to act more aggressively even outside courts. He added that the demeanour of an advocate was always different from that of a layman due to the nature of his work which requires him to react to situations boisteriously.
Case Title: Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education v The Appeal Committee
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University to conduct special exams for the students of Arulmighu Kalasalingam College of Education who were admitted in the academic year 2021-2022, while the college did not have recognition.
Considering the plight of the students, the bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the university to conduct the examinations as soon as possible within a period of three months and to declare the results within a further period of two months. The court also directed the college to bear the expenses. The court thus set aside an order of the single judge imposing cost of five lakh on the college saying that the college should suffer the consequences of its actions.
Case title: H Kalyan Singh vs. Dr Nirmalkathri and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a Revision plea filed against a December 2016 order of the Magistrate Court in Chennai dismissing a complaint filed against former Congress MP Nirmal Khatri and ABP News for posting an alleged defamatory post against an RSS worker.
“In the considered view of this Court, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from apparent illegality or infirmity and it does not require the interference of this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction,” the bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed as it underscored that reviving the complaint at this stage would be like ‘whipping a dead horse’.
Case Title: M/s. Hotel Saravana Bhavan v. The Additional Chief Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
While lamenting that lang grabbing by the powerful is an offence against the State and in turn an offence against the people of the State, the Madras High Court stressed on the need to bring in a legislation against land grabbing to ensure criminal prosecution against land grabbers.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that lands under Government custody had to be used for public welfare but some land grabbers were using the lands for commercial exploitation and personal gains using backhand techniques. This, according to the court is nothing short of “thieving” and such land grabbers should not be permitted to go scot-free.
The court also directed the State Government to appoint a High-Level Committee to identify grabbing of government lands, illegalities and irregularities in dealing with the Government property, recovery of arrears of lease rent, unlawful occupation of Government properties etc., and initiate all appropriate actions including Criminal prosecutions, to protect the financial interest of the State and to safeguard the poor and voiceless people of the State.
Case Title: SA Syed Shaik Alaudeen v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
While refusing relief to a lawyer seeking compensation for the injuries he sustained at the hands of the police in connection with a PFI march, the Madras High Court emphasised that law applies not only to the State machinery but also to individuals.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench was constrained to make the statement after noting that the petitioner and other members of the organisation had conducted march from a different site than which was allowed by the police and when the police rushed to the spot, instead of responding in a peaceful manner, the members had exhibited defiance. Thus, the court opined that the assembly was unlawful and the conduct of the organisers was illegal.
Case Title: Mr Badhrisheshathiri v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
The Madras High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against political commentator Badri Seshadri for making adverse comments about the Chief Justice of India for taking up suo moto cognisance of the violence in Manipur. Seshadri was arrested on July 29, 2023 and later granted bail on August 1, 2023 by the District Munisff-cum-Judicial Magistrate court in Kunnam.
Justice Anand Venkatesh, who was hearing a plea by Seshadri for quashing the criminal proceedings, observed that the judiciary has very broad shoulders to take on criticism unless they directly interfered with the administration of justice.
The court also said that Seshadri’s comments had to be looked at from the context in which it was made and though he used some expressions which seemed like a verbal attack on the CJI, he had later filed an affidavit in court expressing regret for such statement.
Case Title: Kalyani v The Additional Director and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
Coming to the aid of a mother seeking a share of the terminal and pensionary benefits of her deceased son, the Madras High court observed that the mother, being a senior citizen and one of the legal heirs was entitled to a share in the terminal and pensionary benefits.
Though the Director of Ex-Service Men Welfare submitted that the deceased had nominated his wife to receive the death-cum-retirement benefits and gratuity under Rule Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules making the mother disentitled to claim any share, the court found the argument to be non-sustainable.
Justice Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench thus observed,
“The submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader is not sustainable, since the mother/petitioner, being a senior citizen and one of the four legal heirs of the deceased Subramanian, she is entitled to ¼ th share in the all the terminal and pensionary benefits of her son.”
Case Title: Saibunisha (Died) and Another v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Complying with an earlier order of the Supreme Court and in the interest of criminal justice system, the Madras High court has directed the Principal Secretary, Home Department and the Director General of Police to record statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC using audio-visual electronic means, at least in matters involving serious offences.
The court noted that in order to facilitate recording true version of witness’ statement and to prevent growing tendencies of witnesses being threatened, induced, influenced etc, Section 161 CrPC was amended to record statements using electronic means. However, noting that the same was not being implemented the court made the direction.
Case Title: Mrs. Pista Kanwar v The Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
While setting aside the acquittal of a man in a case involving death of his wife by self-immolation, the Madras High Court has observed that the husband’s illicit relation with his elder brother’s wife would amount to cruelty on the wife within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC.
The High Court disagreed with the view taken by the trial court that such relation was only immoral and did not amount to cruelty. The court added that when such illicit relationship was happening inside the house under the pretext of “motherly affection” and which was witnessed by the victim herself, the trial court had erred in rendering such a find.
Case Title: Vinothini v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
The Madras High Court has made it clear that the habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of a person who is accused of committing offences under the Schedules Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not a 'connected proceeding' for the purposes of Section 15-A(3) and (5) of the Act.
The Sections make provision of notice and opportunity of hearing to the victim for any Court proceeding connected to his/her case, including bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused.
Court held that habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy available under Article 226(1) of the Constitution and thus, would not be covered under “proceedings” under the SC/ST Act.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel also observed that though sub-section 5 of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act talks about connected proceedings, such proceedings would mean conviction, acquittal or sentence and will not cover “connected proceedings”.
Case Title: Swamiji v The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
Granting compensation to man whose son died due to electrocution while on a temple pilgrimage, the Madras High Court emphasised that as per the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, the local body was obligated to make arrangements for the well-being of the devotees.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench noted that the municipality could not remain content with the collection of license fee and tolls and that it is duty bound to make arrangements for the pilgrims without fear of violation of secularism.
Case Title: Sri Kamatchi Amman Devasthanam v Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Wakf
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court has directed two BJP MLAs from Puducherry and their family members to return vacant possession of a temple land allegedly grabbed by them illegally, to Sri Kamatchi Amman Devasthanam.
Justice SM Subramaniam also asked the father-son duo, A John Kumar and Vivilian Richards John Kumar, to subject themselves to probe being conducted by the Crime-Branch of Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) to initiate action under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. This was after Court formed a prima facie view that the preliminary investigation conducted by the agency reveals involvement of criminality.
Case Title: Punjab National Bank v. R Lalitha and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
While dismissing an application filed under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act to reject a plaint on the ground that the court's jurisdiction was ousted, the Madras High Court observed that the civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted when the remedy sought cannot be effectively addressed by the Tribunal.
Justice RN Manjula noted that the case, which involved rights relating to property could be proved only through an exhaustive trial which was possible only before the Civil court and not the tribunal.
Case Title: Dr. Krithika B v. Additional Chief Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
The Madras High Court recently observed that the state authorities including the Home department, transport department and police are bound to ensure that stickers and artifacts having “Emblem”, “G”, “Govt of India”, “Government of Tamil Nadu”, “High Court”, “Police” are not used on private vehicles.
Calling such monitoring a continuous process, Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed as under,
“Monitoring and survey of such vehicles is a continuous process. The respondent authorities are bound to ensure that the stickers and artifacts containing “Emblem”, “G”, “Govt of India”, “Government of Tamil Nadu”, “High Court” and “Police” and such other institutions, are not being misused and upon detection of the same, action is required to be taken by the authorities.”
Case Title: P Arunachalam(Died) and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court on Friday (September 29) dismissed the appeals preferred by 126 forest officials, 84 police personnel and 5 revenue officials against their convictions and sentence for various crimes that took place in Vachathi, in Dharmapuri District of Tamil Nadu. Coincidentally, the Sessions Court judgment finding the accused guilty was also passed on September 29 in the year 2011.
Justice P Velmurugan called for stringent action against the then District Collector, District Forest Officer, and the Superintendent of Police.
The bench also directed the state to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakh each to the rape victims, of which 50% was to be recovered from the accused who were convicted for the offence of rape. The court also directed the state to give suitable employment to the victims whose houses were destroyed by the officials.
Case Title: BSF Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court recently observed that it could not treat retired personnel from the Border Security Force (BSF) as Ex-Servicemen for extending the benefits of exemption and concession granted to Ex-Servicemen as per the The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, for the benefits of purchase and consumption of liquor in the State.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that as per the existing Act and Rules, the term “Ex-Servicemen” did not include personnel who retired from the para-military force and it was for the Government to make such amendments.
Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v M/s. Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court has recently granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Sangeetha Hotel chain, thus restraining its former franchisee from using marks like 'GEETHAM', 'GEETHAM VEG' , 'SANGEETHAM', or any GEETHAM or SANGEETHA formative marks or such similar marks.
Allowing an application filed by Sangeetha, Justice PT Asha observed that a prima facie case was made out and the balance of convenience was in favour of Sangeetha. The court was also satisfied that there was some suppression on the part of the respondents and some of their actions had created confusion in the mind of the public.