Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 234 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 370 NOMINAL INDEX The Project Director, National Highways Vs. R.KaThe Project Director, National Highways No.45E & 220, National Highways Authority of India vs M.Mallika Begam and anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334 BL Madhavan v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 335 ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 336 V Senthil...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 234 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
NOMINAL INDEX
The Project Director, National Highways Vs. R.KaThe Project Director, National Highways No.45E & 220, National Highways Authority of India vs M.Mallika Begam and anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
BL Madhavan v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
Tamil Selvan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
Shobha Karandlaje v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
Usha v The Director General of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
Thirumurugan v The State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai Murugan v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
M/s. Bala Bhavan Educational Trust v. Regional Transport Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
CS Nandhakumar v The Commissioner of Police (Traffic Wing) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
V Mahalakshmi v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Principal Secretary v Athipathi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
M/s. S. R. Steels v. The Deputy State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
Vijayraj Surana v Assistant Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
Mohammed Saifullah v Reserve Bank of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
Swiss Garniers Genexiaa Sciences Pvt Ltd v. Avant Garde Healthcare and Engg Solutions Pvt Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
Jaffer Sadiq v The Assistant Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
A.Nivetha v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
R Lalithsharma v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
Pallab Sinha and another v The Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
M/s Shivpad Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
Prof. Dr.Samy Thiyagarajan v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr.Sumit Srimal, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
S.Muralidharan v Madras High Court and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
TNEB Accounts and Executive Staff Union v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
Hameed Ibrahim v The Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
Marathal (Died) and Another v. Kanniammal (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
R.Gnana Sundari v T.Yesuraj, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
T.Muthu Irulappa v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
A. Guruvammal v The Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
Ankur Grand Owners Association v The District Registrar (Admin), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Principal & Secretary v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
Mr.Mani @ Velumani v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
REPORTS
Case Title: The Project Director, National Highways Vs. R.KaThe Project Director, National Highways No.45E & 220, National Highways Authority of India vs M.Mallika Begam and anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Sunder Mohan has held that the administrative reason alone cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 950 days in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that delays attributable to administrative factors, such as changes in project management or internal procedural adjustments, do not constitute valid grounds for extending the limitation period for filing an appeal.
Case Title: BL Madhavan v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
The Madras High Court has called for action against a lawyer who misused his position and forged rental agreements. The court observed that the lawyer was liable to be prosecuted for misconduct under the Advocates Act 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules 1975.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that lawyers enjoy a status in society and are expected to maintain good conduct. In the present case, the court noted that the lawyer had abused his position which would cause disrepute to the legal profession.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
The Madras High Court has ordered that courts have power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant interim maintenance to a Muslim woman who has filed for divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act 1939.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that though the Act does not have a provision for granting interim maintenance, the court cannot shut its eyes when the wife comes to the court saying that she has no means. The court added that the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act was introduced to ameliorate the status of Muslim women and thus had to be given a purposive interpretation.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
Former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji who has been in ED custody since June 2023 in connection with a cash-for-job money laundering case has withdrawn a revision petition filed by him challenging the decision of the Special Judge refusing to discharge him from the proceedings.
Balaji's counsel told the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam that since the trial in the PMLA case has already begun and the witness examination has already started, he wished to withdraw the revision petition. The court noted the submission and dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Case Title: Tamil Selvan v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
While refusing to set aside the conviction of a sports teacher who was convicted for harassing a 12th Standard student during a State-level match, the Madras High Court remarked that the right to enjoy a safe and supportive sports environment is a fundamental right of every female sports person.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that as per a report published by the Ungender titled 'Sexual Harassment in Sports in India', sexual harassment was at an all-time high. The court noted that perpetrators of such crimes had to be suitably dealt with. Noting that a prompt law to deal with such issues was required, the court issued directions to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to address the issue of protection of women participants in sports from sexual harassment in the interest of sports education and transparent participation of women in sports.
The court also directed the State Government to permit either parents or guardians of the girl participating in state competition to accompany them at state cost to prevent harassment.
Case Title: Shobha Karandlaje v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed the FIR registered against Union Minister Shobha Karandlaje for her remarks linking Rameshwaram Café bombers to the people of Tamil Nadu.
Justice G Jayachandran allowed Karandlaje's petition after Advocate General PS Raman informed the court that considering Karandlaje's profound apology, the state has taken a policy decision to not pursue the matter further.
Case Title: Usha v The Director General of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
The Madras High Court has remarked against High Courts entertaining premature petitions for ordinary leave of prisoners. The court noted that the competent authorities must be allowed to take a decision by following due procedure as per the statutory time limit provided under the Act.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar also observed that the authorities were duty-bound to follow the time limits stipulated in the rules and process the applications for ordinary leave. The court added that any lapse, on the part of the authorities, must be viewed as a dereliction of duty and disciplinary action should be initiated against the concerned officer. The court stressed that the prison authorities should protect the rights of the prisoners.
Case Title: Thirumurugan v The State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever opinions are expressed about the functioning of the Government, the members of the ruling party could not assume that the same would amount to promoting enmity.
Justice G Jayachandran added that the police should be responsible while registering FIR in such cases and must proceed with registering FIR only upon getting a proper legal opinion.
Case Title: Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai Murugan v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to Naam Tamilar Katchi functionary Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai Murugan. Murugan had approached the court apprehending arrest in a crime booked after his party members made objectionable comments on a post made by a police officer criticising Murugan's speech.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was inclined to grant anticipatory bail as Murgan had not personally made any comments. Thus, the court granted him bail on some conditions. It however criticised the remarks made by Murugan's party men calling it unparliamentary, sexually coloured and vilifying. The court added that before responding online, people should be cautious and ask themselves if the response was necessary.
Case Title: M/s. Bala Bhavan Educational Trust v. Regional Transport Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court stated that the Tax Concession cannot be denied just because the vehicle is registered in the name of Trust and not school.
The Bench consists of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that “the Regional Transport Officer, Chennai failed to see the objects of the assessee/petitioner Trust, it is an educational Trust. That apart, the Regional Transport Officer made demand with retrospective effect. The permits of the assessee/petitioner buses were already renewed under the caption of Educational Institution Bus.”
Case Title: CS Nandhakumar v The Commissioner of Police (Traffic Wing) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
The Tamil Nadu government has informed the Madras High Court that it would take action to remove all unauthorized and illegal no-parking signs, mud bags, and no parking barricades put up by private building owners in public roads.
The submissions were made before a bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation seeking government action to remove such illegal sign boards. The petitioner had also sought for publications through print and visual media to remove the encroachments.
The AAG assured the court that necessary instructions would be issued by the Commissioner to the officials concerned for issuing necessary guidelines and directions in the official website within two weeks.
The court then asked the AAG to also indicate in the guidelines that penal consequences would be taken against those occupying public places without any authority. Recording the State's submission, the court disposed the plea.
Case Title: V Mahalakshmi v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Madras High Court has asked the State Government to create a common centralized portal for applying for community certificates, verifying the communal status, and issuing community certificates. The court observed that there was a need for simplifying the whole process so that citizens have easy access to the facilities.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji observed that through the centralized system, an applicant should be able to apply to the authority concerned in the district he/she resides in without relegating to the native district. The court added that the system could also introduce a provision enabling the authorities to verify the communal status of the applicant based on their family's communal status who resides in the district even if the applicant is not living in that district.
The court added that a time limit should also be fixed to conclude the entire procedure so that no unnecessary delay is caused and the applicant is able to be given access to educational and employment opportunities.
Case Title: The Principal Secretary v Athipathi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
The Madras High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against an order directing the state to pay Rs 5,00,000 as compensation to the family of a child who died in the Srilankan Refugee camp.
Calling the state action “unpardonable and inexcusable”, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice Victoria Gowri dismissed the appeal and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the state to be paid to the victim child's family within two weeks.
The court also remarked that when the state government could pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation to the dependants of persons who died by consuming illicit liquor, they should not have challenged the order to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for the child who died due to the collapse of a poorly constructed and poorly maintained wall.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Order Passed Against A Dead Person
Case Title: M/s. S. R. Steels v. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madras High Court sets aside an order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer against a dead person.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “the impugned order was passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer/respondent against a dead person, who was passed away on 21.11.2019. In such case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”
The bench stated that it appears that the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 was passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer against a dead person, who was passed away on 21.11.2019. In such case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Further, since the assessee/petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the assessee to establish his case on merits, added the bench.
Case Title: Vijayraj Surana v Assistant Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
The Madras High Court has ruled that when an FIR in the predicate offense is quashed on technical grounds, it will not lead to an automatic quashing of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam ruled that the judgments in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary cannot have a blanket application and shall be applied depending on the facts of each case. The court observed that when the FIR is quashed on mere technicalities or procedural irregularities, the ECIR would not be automatically quashed.
The court observed that when the courts are dealing with applications to quash the ECIR, it should look into the grounds on which the FIR concerning the scheduled offense is quashed and after careful examination, if it is found that the FIR was quashed on substantive grounds such as absence of prima facie offense, the ECIR would also lose its significance and could be quashed. The court added that if, on careful examination, the court finds that the FIR was quashed purely on technical grounds or procedural irregularities, then the PMLA proceedings would not end.
Case Title: Mohammed Saifullah v Reserve Bank of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that the investigating agency cannot order freezing the entire bank account of a person involved in a financial fraud without quantifying the amount involved in the fraud.
Justice G Jayachandran ruled that such orders freezing the entire amount would be construed as a violation of the fundamental right of trade and business as well as a violation of livelihood. The court added that though the statute empowers investigation agencies to request banks to freeze accounts, it was a looming question whether this power was being exercised properly.
The court added that the freezing of accounts was an issue faced by many citizens of the country and the citizens were often taken by surprise by orders of freezing their accounts. The court added that in many cases, by the time the account holders come to know of the purpose for which their accounts are frozen, enough damage would have been caused to their financial life since their business itself gets affected by the unilateral orders.
Case Title: Swiss Garniers Genexiaa Sciences Pvt Ltd v. Avant Garde Healthcare and Engg Solutions Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
The Madras High Court recently ruled that the statutory authority under the Micro, Small, Medium, Enterprises Development Act, 2006 would have jurisdiction to entertain disputes only when the supplier had been registered under the Act at the relevant point of time.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu thus allowed an application filed by Swiss Garniers Genexiaa Sciences Pvt Ltd to waive off the requirement to pay 75% pre-deposit amount under Section 19 of the Act.
Case Title: Jaffer Sadiq v The Assistant Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
The Madras High Court recently dismissed the petition filed by former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a PMLA case.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that requirements under the Act had been met when Sadiq, who was already in judicial custody, was formally arrested. Thus, the court said that the petition was devoid of merits and dismissed the same.
Case Title: A.Nivetha v The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University not to reject a candidate's application on the grounds of being transgender.
Justice M Dhandapani was hearing a petition filed by A Nivetha challenging the prospectus issued by the University for admission to undergraduate degree programs. Nivetha had sought to quash the prospectus as being illegal as it did not categorize transgenders as a special category.
Nivetha had applied for the course of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry on June 26, 2024 which was received by the university. However, on noting that the admission notification issued by the University had no clauses regarding the admission of transgender persons, Nivetha approached the High Court.
Case Title: R Lalithsharma v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, which had allowed a petition filed by the prosecution to receive two documents as additional documents, one of which was a letter admitting guilt given to the police.
Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that any letter given to a police officer admitting guilt is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court observed that in the present case, though it was said by the prosecution, it appeared that the letters were brought in only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution, which could not be allowed.
Case Title: Pallab Sinha and another v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
The Madras High Court recently observed that Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act had wider reach and that money laundering would include any activity or process of dealing with proceeds of crime, either directly or indirectly. The court made it clear that the offence was not limited to the final act of integrating tainted money into the economy.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that the wording of Section 3 should not be read conjunctively merely because the definition uses the word 'and'. The court added that if such an interpretation was accepted, the whole Section would be rendered less effective as one person would possess the proceeds of crime and another would project it as tainted money so that neither would be covered under the Act. The court thus observed that PMLA could be invoked against a person, who was no longer in possession and enjoyment of proceeds of crime.
Case Title: M/s Shivpad Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
The Madras High Court stated that an appeal cannot be rejected solely due to the failure to upload documents on the GST portal if the delay or failure is due to technical errors on the portal.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “….an appeal should not be rejected without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, particularly when the rejection arises from technical issues beyond their control.”
Case Title: Prof. Dr.Samy Thiyagarajan v The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu celebrating the birthday of Thiruvalluvar on the 2nd day of Thai which was also declared a public holiday. The petitioner had sought to celebrate Thiruvalluvar's birthday on the Tamil star “Anusham” in the Tamil Month of “Vaikasi”.
Justice M Dhandapani said that since there was no evidence to know the exact birth date of Thiruvalluvar, the court could not issue such directions to the State.
The court agreed with the State's submission that the government policy was only to celebrate Thiruvalluvar and his greatness and nowhere the State mentioned that the day was to be celebrated as the birthday of Thiruvalluvar.
Case Title: Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr.Sumit Srimal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
The Madras High Court has observed that the trial courts should not, on its own, extend the time for filing written statements after the expiry of 30 days. The court said that the courts could extend the time only at the request of the defendant which was made in writing containing reasons. The court added that condoning delay on its own would be contrary to Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC
Justice GR Swaminathan also noted that the orders condoning delay for filing written statements should not be passed mechanically and must contain the reasons. The court added that while condoning delay was discretionary, it was mandatory for the courts to record reasons in the order. The court also said that the trial courts could consider awarding costs while condoning the delay.
Case Title: S.Muralidharan v Madras High Court and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the constitution of special benches for hearing cases related to public-spirited persons, journalists, and YouTubers.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji said that no person had a right to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to constitute a special bench. The court added that the petitioner's grievance could not be redressed by way of a public interest litigation.
The court also observed that various factors had to be considered before establishing a separate bench to deal with particular types of cases. The court noted that while the petitioner sought for a special bench, he had not argued that there was a huge backlog of cases against public-spirited individuals, journalists, or Youtubers and had neither placed any evidence pointing to the pendency of the cases.
Case Title: TNEB Accounts and Executive Staff Union v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) Accounts and Executive Staff Union challenging an order of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO) through which company employees were transferred to the newly formed Tamil Nadu Power Generation Corporation Ltd (TNPGCL) and Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Limited (TNGECL).
Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the transfer was made pursuant to a tripartite agreement entered into between the State Government, TNEB, TANTRANSO, TANGEDCO, and the trade unions. The court thus ruled that the trade unions could not challenge the transfer when they were already a part of the tripartite agreement. The court also noted transfer was an incidental part of employment and even assuming that some employees had difficulty with the transfer, it could not be a ground to challenge the transfers.
Case Title: Hameed Ibrahim v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant a clearance certificate to a man against whom PMLA proceedings were initiated based on a letter from the US Government.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that the Enforcement Directorate had initiated an investigation based on a letter issued by the US Government and the Government of India had to honour the bilateral treaties/agreements with the US Government.
Case Title: Marathal (Died) and Another v. Kanniammal (Died) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a Will, which is more than 30 years old, is produced from proper custody, the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act would be applicable to such will.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan observed that the Section did not exclude a will. The court added that by the very texture of Section 90, the document that requires execution and attestation like a will is presumed to be duly executed and attested if it is more than 30 years old and produced from proper custody.
The court added that if the will is more than 30 years old and produced from proper custody and it is shown that the attesting witnesses are alive and not produced before the court, it may resort to the presumption under Section 114 illustration (g) instead of one under Section 90. The court added that the presumption under Section 90 or under Section 114 illustration (g) should be guided by the principle governing “may presume” under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court also made it clear that the presumption under Section 90 is not wide and is limited to the signature, execution, and attestation of the document. The court added that the presumption does not apply to the contents of the document which would have to be proved like other facts.
Case Title: R.Gnana Sundari v T.Yesuraj
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
The Madras High Court has directed the Family Court in Chennai to number a petition filed by a wife for restitution of conjugal rights without insisting on evidence that she and her husband are Hindus.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that though the husband had filed a divorce petition claiming that the couples were Christians while the wife had filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights claiming that the couple were Hindus, the issue had to be decided by the court at the time of disposal. The court added that if proof is demanded at the time of numbering, it would lead to a trial before the registry and another trial before the court which could not be allowed.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
Granting divorce to a husband, the Madras High Court recently observed that a wife threatening to commit suicide would amount to cruelty.
Justice S Srimathy noted that in the case, the husband had written letters to his mother, within 8 months of marriage indicating his agony wherein he had stated that the wife was threatening to commit suicide. The court noted that there was an element of mental cruelty present in the case.
The court also noted that the wife had filed false dowry harassment case against the husband and his family which had tarnished the family's image. The court thus noted that the wife had used the false dowry harassment case as a tool to threaten the husband which amounted to cruelty.
Case Title: T.Muthu Irulappa v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
The Madras High Court has ordered compensation to a man whose cow died to electrocution after it stepped into a puddle into which electricity had leaked from a nearby transformer.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that though animals did not have any rights as such, the State had a duty to ensure a safe environment for them. The judge added that courts have a duty to invoke parens patriae jurisdiction to take care of the rights of animals since they were unable to take care of themselves.
The court noted that of late, the natural life span of cows was also cut short due to the consumption of plastic. The court noted that death due to consumption of plastic was different as in such cases, death came gradually and insidiously accompanied by severe pain. The court also noted that the law relating to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was silent on this aspect and time had come to take note of the disturbing reality and remedy the solution. The court said that the municipalities and corporations had a duty to keep the streets litter-free and action should be taken for damages against erring entities.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
The Madras High court recently observed that not impleading wife's alleged paramour as a co-respondent is not fatal to a plea for divorce on the ground of adultery, when the DNA test already proves that the husband is not the father of the child.
Justice P Velmurugan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that once it is proved that the wife was leading an adulterous life, the husband would be entitled to divorce on that ground.
The court noted that the medical evidence and the expert advice clearly showed that the child was not born to the husband. The court also noted that the wife had not disputed the DNA test or the expert report on the DNA test. Thus, the court noted that even though there was no direct evidence, the expert advise would indicate that the wife had illegal intimacy with another man.
Case Title: A. Guruvammal v The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court today lamented the rising trend of police encounters in the state of Tamil Nadu. The court observed that despite being one of the better law enforcement State, there was an increase in incidents of criminals allegedly attempting to attack police officials and ending up being shot or injured.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that oftentimes, the family, who might have been affected by the criminals would applaud the encounter killings without realizing that the same is fundamentally wrong and retrograde thinking.
The court noted that the issue of appreciation for encounter killings had to be taken seriously as the same points to a lack of faith in the law enforcing agencies in the rule of law, constitutional rights and protection, and the criminal justice system. The court further noted that such an attitude reminisces the colonial past of the police and is an affront to democracy.
The court added that people's belief that instant death is an appropriate punishment that would have a deterrent effect is not true and was only a myth. The court emphasized that the means should be as legal as the end.
Case Title: Ankur Grand Owners Association v The District Registrar (Admin)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Madras High Court has stayed the order of a single judge which had ruled that the flat owners could not charge a transfer fee on every resale of the flat.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji have stayed by 8 weeks the order passed by the single judge. The stay was granted on an appeal filed by the Ankur Grand Owners Association challenging the May 2023 decision of Justice SM Subramaniam.
The single judge had observed that if the association was permitted to collect a transfer fee on every resale of a flat, it would not only result in discrimination but also result in multiple collections of corpus funds on every resale or transfer of property. The court had ruled that in the absence of any statutory provision, the association could not be allowed to levy and collect transfer fees on the purchase of pre-owned flats.
Case Title: The Principal & Secretary v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court recently held that the UGC regulations prescribing setting up of a selection committee for the appointment of assistant professor was not applicable to minority institutions.
Justice RN Manjula noted that since the selection committee includes outsiders, giving them the power to select the appointees for the post of Assistant Professors would amount to interfering with the administration of the minority institution. The court added that the administration of the affairs of the institution cannot be given in the hands of outsiders.
The court also observed that mandating the UGC regulation of selection committees to these institutions would interfere with their autonomous status. The court thus noted that the selection of faculties in minority institutions could not be compelled to be made through the selection committee contemplated in the UGC regulations.
Case Title: Mr.Mani @ Velumani v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court recently asked the State government to reconsider and recirculate its decision to reject a life convict's pre-mature release.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that the State had rejected the request of the prisoner by merely stating that he had committed a heinous crime and that he had not served 14 years in prison. Noting that reasons were the lifeline for administrative decisions, the court observed that the government should assign proper reasons in each and every case.
The court observed that under Article 226 of the Constitution, though the court could not test the policy of the State government, the court had to see if the State had exercised its power of discretion in compliance with the rules of natural justice.
Case Title: Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
The Madras High Court recently stayed a lookout circular issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation against a Seychelles citizen. The court thus permitted the man to travel to Malaysia.
Justice N Seshasayee noted that when Article 21 of the Constitution extended to non-citizens, it would also include the dignified existence of a foreign national facing a criminal charge in India.
The court also opined that the object of the criminal justice system was only to secure the presence of the accused at the trial and it should not be taken as a license to interfere with the personal life of the accused. The court remarked that the criminal justice system was best administered when the inconvenience to the personal life of the accused was the least.