CITATIONS: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 371 to 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 492 NOMINAL INDEX K Sethuraj v State of Tamil Nadu (and other connected cases), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 371 Suo Motu v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 372 M/s.Sterling Futures and Holidays Ltd. v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 373 AR Dairy Food Private Limited v The Central...
CITATIONS: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 371 to 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
NOMINAL INDEX
K Sethuraj v State of Tamil Nadu (and other connected cases), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
Suo Motu v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
M/s.Sterling Futures and Holidays Ltd. v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
AR Dairy Food Private Limited v The Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
G Prem Kumar v District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Department v. M/s. Supreme Coaters & Fabricators, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
V.Kannan @ Kanal Kannan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
P Pappu v The Sub Registrar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
S.Srinivasan v The Assistant Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
M/s. Aqua Excel v. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
Muthukumar v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
M.S. Mohamed Siddique & Co. v. The Assessment Unit/Verification unit/ Technical Unit/Review Unit Income Tax Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
Harris Jayaraj v The Joint Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
K.A.Meeran Mohideen v Sheik Amjad and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
Abdul Gani Raja v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
Jacob v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
The Assistant Director (PMLA) v Ashok Anand, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
Tmt.S.Sindhu v Tamil Nadu State represented by Drugs Inspector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
A Shankar and Another v RS Bharathi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
Veera Bharathi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
G.Shrilakshmi v Anirudh Ramkumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
P. Ananda Kumar v The Director General of Police (Prison) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
S Porkodi v The Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
Ahmed Mansoor and Others v The State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
N. Manoharan v G Sivakumar and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
The Management v. R. Parthiban, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Offshore Infrastructures Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
MRB Nurses Empowerment Association v. The Principal Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
Rev.Fr.Savarimuthu and Others v V.S.Jeyapandi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
The Director, Directorate of Medical Education and Research and Others v Jubil Timothy and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
The Regional Officer, NHAI v K Vasuki and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
S.Harikumar v The Presiding Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
M/s Challani Rank Jewellery and Others v Ashok Kumar Jain, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
ABC v. XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
Mahalingam Balaji v. The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Assistant Director v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
K Jayakumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
DMK ICF Labour Union v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
Suo Motu v The Deputy Superintendent and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
S Kalavathi v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
R v B, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
M.Palanisamy v The Director of Town Panchayats, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
Aunestraja v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 416
B Vidyasagar v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
M/s Jaiswal Products v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
The Union of India v The Registrar, CAT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 419
M/S. Sivadarshini Papers Limited vs. M/S. Sunwin Papers, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
N Mahendra Babu v The Registrar General and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
LEGO Juris A/S v Gurumukh Singh and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 422
N.Jayamurugan Vs. M/s.Saravana Global Holdings Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 423
M/s.Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Airports Authority of India and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 424
M Vetri Selvan v Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
Edappadi K Palanisamy v Dhanapal, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 426
Pondicherry Institute Of Medical Sciences v The Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 427
Sujatha v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
P.Vasantha Kumar v Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
M Mangaiyarkarasi v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 430
Union of India v Abdul Razak and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 431
M Samudi v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
Union of India v. C.V.L. Annapurna, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
G.Kulanchiyappan v Vice Chancellor, IMU, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
The Triplicane Permanent Fund Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 436
Nalin Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 437
Lakshana Cotton Spinning Mills Limited v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
Vasumathi and Another v R Vasudevan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 439
Santhanaganesh v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
VP Nandhakumar v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 441
Bharathiya Janata Party v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
Kasthuri v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 444
P.A.Ramasubramania Raja v. K.M.Sanjeevi Raja, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
EIH Associated Hotels Ltd vs. CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
Byju Nizeth Paaul v The Directorate of Collegiate Education and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
IS Inbadurai v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
S. Nirmala & Ors. v. Shanthi Harikrishnan & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
D.Devasahayam v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
P Venkatesan v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
Dhanaraj v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
Piyush Sethia v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
Church of South India v D Devasahayam and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
X v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
S.Saravanan v The Director General of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
A Suhail v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
S. Mohan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
X v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
R. v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
Kammavar Samuga Nala Sangam v. The District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
M/s. SPK and Co. v. The State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
Chandru and Others v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
R Thamaraiselvan v. Government of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
Sathish and Another v Food Safety Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v The National Medical Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
Mohamed Asaruthin v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
T. H. Rajmohan v The Secretary to the Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
Aathimoolam v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
C Pakkir Maideen and Others v The Principal Secretary To Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
VR Dakshin Private Limited Verus SCM Silks Private Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
P.Rajkumar v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
Deepu and Others v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
ABC v. XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
The Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
N Sasikala v The Assistant Director, ED, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
Amudha v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
K. Sundari v. C. A. R. P. Mari, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
KC Chandran and Others v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
Malliga (Died) and Others v. S Shanmugam (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
The Research Scholar v The Research Guide and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
B Stalin v The Registrar Genera, Madras HC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
Vignesh v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 485
Sr. Sagaya Mary v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v RPD Workstations Private Limited and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
M Venkatesan v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
Rangarajan Narasimnhan v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
M.Tamilselvan v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
H Raja v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
R Varalakshmi v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
REPORTS
Case Title: K Sethuraj v State of Tamil Nadu (and other connected cases)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
The Madras High Court on Tuesday permitted the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct its proposed route march on the occasion of Vijayadasami.
A single judge bench of Justice G Jayachandran permitted the route marches to be carried out as per the earlier guidelines issued by the High Court in January this year for conducting the route marches. The court had also commented that despite detailed guidelines of the court previously, the government had flouted the orders forcing the organisers to approach the court again.
The court also orally remarked that the police were expected to protect the public as well as the organisers and could not avoid giving permissions for such permissions for route marches citing law and order problems. The court said that it expected the police in the state to follow the court orders at least in the future and not trouble the court by inventing new and fanciful reasons for rejection.
Case Title: Suo Motu v The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
The Madras High Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation of a case relating to the sexual assault of a minor girl in Anna Nagar in Chennai.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam asked the CBI to take over the case as the court was not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation was being carried out by the State police. The court noted that the victim's examination was conducted in the busy corridors of the Kilpauk Government Medical College and her parents were allegedly beaten up in the police station while the alleged accused was given a chair to sit.
The court also noted that the video and audio of the examination of the witness were publicized online and instead of finding the person who had shared the files in the first place, the police had merely registered FIRs against a Youtuber and a Journalist who had shared the files and who talked about the incident.
Case Title: M/s.Sterling Futures and Holidays Ltd. v Directorate of Enforcement,
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
The Madras High Court recently observed that under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the properties that are acquired even before the alleged scheduled offence could be attached when criminal activity has taken place outside the country. The court highlighted that the properties sought to be attached need not be purchased from and out of the proceeds of crime.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam also noted that as per Section 70 of the Act, a company could be prosecuted and the prosecution or conviction of the company, which is a legal jurisdictional person will not be dependent on the prosecution or conviction of any individual.
Case Title: AR Dairy Food Private Limited v The Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, directed the Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu to issue a fresh notice to AR Dairy Food Private Limited on allegations of supplying adulterated ghee to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam for making of laddu.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the authority had issued the show cause notices for suspending the license merely on the basis of a report from a laboratory in Gujarat, without following the due provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation 2011. The court noted that the authority should have given a reasonable time to the company to respond to the show cause notice.
The court also noted that the impugned notice issued by the authority contained vague allegations and did not contain details of the specific violation committed by the dairy unit. The court reiterated the Supreme Court's remark to conduct an investigation by keeping God away from politics. The court thus asked the authority to issue a fresh notice to the company, containing details of the allegations and to give a reasonable time to the company to respond.
Case Title: G Prem Kumar v District Collector
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
The Madras High Court recently directed the National Highways Department to disburse the compensation amount to a man who had a better title to the property but was not given compensation due to a title dispute.
Justice N Satish Kumar noted that the objection was made after a long time which showed an attempt to make inroads the property sold in 1972.
Case Title: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Department v. M/s. Supreme Coaters & Fabricators
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
The Madras High Court stated that if notice for completing assessment issued within limitation, then assessment order is within time even if passed beyond period of three years.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “as per Section 24(5), no assessment shall be made after a period of three years from the end of the year to which the return under the Act relates. The test to be applied is whether the notice for completing the assessment was issued within limitation i.e., three years to which the returns relate to. If so, even if the Assessment Order is passed beyond the period of three years, it will be in time.”
Case Title: V.Kannan @ Kanal Kannan v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against Kannan @ Kanal Kannan for his statements on the statue of Periyar containing statements against believers, being placed outside a Hindu Temple.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the statue contained provocative words against believers which was the cause of Kannan's speech and thus the person who provoked the speech could not seek prosecution for a reaction to his own provocation.
The court noted that after uploading the speech on YouTube, there had been no disturbance to public peace or tranquility, no riot, or no promotion of enmity between classes. The court further observed that before installing the statue, the members of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, of which the defacto complainant was a member, should have realized that the plaque on the statue would hurt the sentiments of the believers.
Case Title: TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash an order leasing 2.50 acres of land belonging to Sri Somanathaswamy Temple in Kolathur to Sri Kapaliswarar Temple in Mylapore for 25 years to establish an Arts and Science College.
Justice M Dhandapani noted that on perusal, the impugned order appeared to be for a benevolent object. The court noted that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage when the petitioner had the option to raise his grievance before the appropriate authority. The court thus gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department with his objections/suggestions and directed the authorities to consider the same on merits.
Case Title: P Pappu v The Sub Registrar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
The Madras High Court recently observed that Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which gives powers to a Registrar to refuse registration had no statutory authority.
As per Rule 55A, The registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel observed that the Rule was introduced only to enable Registrars to refuse to register instruments indiscriminately. The court added that the Registrars were conferred certain powers under Section 68 of the Registration Act, and the power to issue any order needed to be consistent with the Act.
Case Title: S.Srinivasan v The Assistant Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
The Madras High Court recently observed that the expression money laundering, as defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has a wider meaning and the provisions of the Act could be invoked against a person for mere possession of proceeds of crime. The court added that since Section 3 is wider, the court could not restrict its meaning to restrain authorities from invoking the provisions of PMLA.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that the expression money laundering ordinarily meant placing, layering and integrating tainted property in the formal economy, since the Section has wider reach it would capture every process and activity dealing with proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly and not limited to happening of the final act of integration.
Case Title: M/s. Aqua Excel v. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Madras High Court stated that if the assessee is able to demonstrate that the transaction is included in the GSTR-1 Return, the goods shall be released provisionally.
The Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq directed the assessee to submit a copy of the GSTR-1 report, as it would reveal whether the subject transaction was disclosed as a zero-rated sale.
Case Title: Muthukumar v State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
The Madras High Court has closed a habeas corpus petition filed against the illegal arrest and detention of workers agitating at the Samsung India unit in Chennai.
The bench of Justice PB Balaji and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after noting the submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor who informed the court that the arrested persons had already been let off on October 8th after the Sriperumbudur Judicial Magistrate refused to accept the remand.
Noting the submission of the APP that there was no illegal custody and that the persons had already been set at liberty, the court noted that no further orders were required in the habeas corpus plea. The court also noted that the necessary safeguards had already been put in place in an earlier order of the High Court laying down certain directions to be considered at the time of the strike.
Case Title: M.S. Mohamed Siddique & Co. v. The Assessment Unit/Verification unit/ Technical Unit/Review Unit Income Tax Department
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court ruled that if an assessee does not take advantage of the opportunity to request a personal hearing from the department, they cannot later claim that they were denied a personal hearing.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “……though the department has given liberty to the assessee to request for personal hearing, the assessee failed to avail such an option. Therefore, the question of violation of natural justice will not arise.”
The bench observed that after considering the reply, the assessment officer decided to take entire receipt as shown in the ITR as income of the assessee and decided to pass assessment order. On the other hand, the assessee filed the returns taking 28% as profit out of the total receipt in terms of Section 44A of the Act. When the (respondent) department rejected the reply of the assessee and decided to take entire receipt as income and proceeded to pass the assessment order, the department ought to have afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee.
Case Title: Harris Jayaraj v The Joint Director and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
The Madras High Court has disposed of a petition filed by musician Harris Jayaraj challenging a show cause notice issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DCGI).
Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice C Saravanan observed that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had already ruled that show cause notices could not be challenged and the aggrieved persons could raise their objections before the adjudicating authority/assessing authority. The court thus held that the musician could raise his grounds and objections against the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority/ assessing authority/ revenue and the same could be decided on merits.
Case Title: K.A.Meeran Mohideen v Sheik Amjad and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
The Madras High Court has ruled that when a general power of attorney is executed jointly by more than one principal, the death of one principal would not automatically terminate the agency.
Asnwering a reference, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel held that the question of termination would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and would depend upon the intention of the parties at the time of execution of the power of attorney.
The court observed that if the intention was to continue the power even after death, the agency would continue will the object sought to be achieved is complete and if there was a specific interest in the agency, the agency would be terminated in respect of the principal who dies.
Case Title: Abdul Gani Raja v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that to constitute an offence of rape, penetration using the male organ is not necessary and any penetration using any body part or object or even an attempt to penetrate or manipulate a body part could be considered under rape.
Justice K Murali Shankar observed that post the 2013 amendment to the criminal laws, the definition of rape had become broader. The court noted that while the pre-amendment definition mandated penetration with a male organ to constitute sexual intercourse, this main ingredient was removed by way of the amendment. The court added that the use of fingers, objects or any body part to penetrate or manipulate was sufficient to constitute the offence of rape.
Case Title: Jacob v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of an octogenarian with Parkinsons disease by directing Special Court for CBI cases to frame charges in a case against him through video conferencing, as per Section 355 of the BNSS.
Justice N Seshasayee observed that merely because a person was facing criminal accusations, it would not imply that he should surrender all his comforts and convenience to participate in the trial proceedings. The court added that it was imperative to make life of litigants least convenient. The court added that courts must always resort to technology whenever possible to make life more convenient for all concerned.
The court added that as per Explanation to Section 355 of BNSS, personal attendance of the accused also included his attendance through audio-video electronic means. The court noted that the explanation showed the need to incorporate and integrate technology into the procedure and it was appropriate for the courts to resort to the same.
Case Title: The Assistant Director (PMLA) v Ashok Anand
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
The Madras High Court recently observed that pendency of a criminal appeal against the conviction in a schedule offence is not a bar to proceed wit trial in the PMLA case.
The court stressed that the schedule case and the PMLA case are distinct and different and thus the trial in money laundering case could not be postponed merely on the pendency of a criminal appeal in the schedule case.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that the offence of money laundering had wider ramifications and could not be equated with offence under penal laws. The court added that though schedule offence is a prerequisite for initiation of proceedings under PMLA, once initiated it became independent and had to be dealt with separately.
Case Title: Tmt.S.Sindhu v Tamil Nadu State represented by Drugs Inspector,
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
The Madras High Court recently observed that while the Siddha practitioners in the State of Tamil Nadu were not barred from practicing modern medicine, they could not store allopathy medicine as the same would be in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The court thus refused to quash a case registered against a Siddha Doctor for storing allopathy medicines in contravention of the Act.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that while there was no bar on Siddha practitioners to practice modern medicine, the case against the doctor was that she had stocked drugs without a license which was in contravention of the Act.
The court noted that as per GO Ms.No.248, issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department on September 8, 2010, the registered members of the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council were permitted to practice modern scientific system of medicine. However, the court noted that as per Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, any drug could be stored for distribution, sale, exhibition etc only with license issued for the said purpose.
Case Title: A Shankar and Another v RS Bharathi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
The Madras High Court, on Friday, dismissed a contempt petition filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar against DMK Organisation Secretary RS Bharathi for the latter's comment against Justice N Anand Venkatesh.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that Justice Venkatesh himself had expressed that he did not want to initiate contempt proceedings. The court also noted that the Advocate General had refused to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Bharathi.
The court remarked that citizens were free to access and criticize the conduct of those holding public office. The bench added that transparency was the foundation of the judiciary and that judges could not hide behind curtains.
Governor Bound By Cabinet's Recommendation On Premature Release Of Life Convict: Madras High Court
Case Title: Veera Bharathi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Governor of a State is bound by the decision of the State Cabinet with respect to the recommendations regarding the premature release of convicts.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam observed that the power under Article 161 to is to be exercised by the State Government and not the Governor on his own. The bench added that the Governor was bound by the advice of the appropriate Government.
The court added that the Tamil Nadu government had issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms). No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department setting out the eligibility criteria for premature release of life convicts. The court noted that this GO was statutory in nature as it was passed under Section 432 of the CrPC giving power to the State to suspend or remit sentences. The court thus held that the power of remission under Article 161 was to be exercised by the State Government and the Governor was bound by the decision of the State.
Case Title: G.Shrilakshmi v Anirudh Ramkumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
In a significant decision, the Madras High Court has held that the Family Courts should not insist on the physical presence of the parties/spouses at the time of presenting the petition and for future hearings.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed that virtual proceedings provided an opportunity to modernize the system and make it more affordable and citizen-friendly. The court thus held that family courts should make use of the video conferencing facilities without insisting on the physical presence of the parties and should not raise technical objections by insisting on the physical presence at any stage.
The court noted that Section 530 of the BNSS emphasized holding even criminal trials through electronic mode. The court added that recently, the justice dispensation system has seen much advancement in the use of technology, and the family court's insistence on physical presence would defeat the very purpose of the video conferencing facility.
Case Title: P. Ananda Kumar v The Director General of Police (Prison) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
The Madras High Court recently observed that mutual respect between lawyers and prison authorities was paramount to vindicating the grievances of the prisoners. The court added that both the lawyers and the prison authorities were working for the benefit of the prisoners and must ensure mutual respect through the process.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam added that the prison authorities were expected to provide all reasonable facilities to the lawyers and treat them with dignity while the lawyers were also expected to respect the prison authorities while performing their duties in a lawful manner.
Case Title: S Porkodi v The Secretary to Government of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
A plea challenging the online release of Vikram starrer 'Thangalaan' was withdrawn in the Madras High Court last week.
The withdrawal of the petition has paved way for the online release of the movie which has been directed by PA Ranjith.
A division bench of Chief Justice KR Sriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy in its October 19 order noted the submissions and dismissed the case as withdrawn. The plea claimed that the movie targeted Vaishnavites and had sought a stay on its online release.
The plea was filed by Porkodi of Thiruvallur District claiming that the movie speaks about Buddhism and shows religious variation between Vaishnavites and Buddhists by showing Vashnavism and Vaishnavites in a comic role and Buddhism and Buddhists in a sacred role.
Case Title: Ahmed Mansoor and Others v The State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
The Madras High Court recently observed that the requirements under Section 43B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is met when the remand requisition report, containing the grounds of arrest is served on the accused.
As per Section 43B of the UAPA, any officer arresting a person under Section 43A shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.
A remand requisition report is a document prepared by the investigating agency seeking remand of the arrested persons under Section 167 before the Magistrate. It contains the grounds of arrest and copy of the police diary entries.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that when the grounds of arrest were made available in the remand requisition report which was served to the accused before arrest in the presence of his lawyer, the fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 43B of the UAPA were complied with.
Case Title: N. Manoharan v G Sivakumar and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance of an offense based on a complaint or a protest petition after filing the final report even if he had earlier declined to take cognizance based on the police report.
Justice P Dhanabal observed that the Magistrate could take cognizance even if the accused persons were discharged. The court noted that while exercising this judicial discretion, the Magistrate was expected to apply his mind to the contents of the protest petition
Case Title: The Management v. R. Parthiban
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and C. Kumarappan upheld a Labour Court order reinstating an employee terminated on charges of theft and misconduct, holding that disciplinary action must be supported by substantial evidence rather than mere allegations. The Court emphasized that the employer's failure to produce essential records like stock registers to prove charges of theft and fabrication of accounts rendered the termination unjustified, despite the argument that criminal acquittal standards differ from disciplinary proceedings.
The court cited B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612 to reiterate that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to examining whether procedural fairness was followed. In this case, both the Labour Court and the Single Judge found that the inquiry was flawed due to a lack of substantial evidence. The court ruled that there was no basis to overturn these factual findings, as they were neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Labour Court's order reinstating Parthiban with back wages.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Probe Into Data Breach At Star Health Insurance
Case Title: Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by Cyber Security expert Himanshu Pathak seeking a probe into the alleged security breach at Star Health Insurance. Pathak had also filed an interim petition seeking to stay the online business of the company in light of the recent data leak.
Justice M Dhandapani dismissed the plea noting that a civil suit filed by the company against Pathak was already pending in which a single judge had already passed an interim injunction. Thus, noting that the issues were connected and there could not be parallel proceedings for the same issue, the court dismissed the plea. The court, however, gave liberty to Pathak to work out his remedy before the appropriate authority.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Offshore Infrastructures Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court Bench of Justice C.Saravanan held that patent illegality as a ground for setting aside an Award is available only if the decision of the Arbitrator is found to be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take or that the view of the Arbitrator is not even a possible view.
At the outset, the court reiterated the settled law on section 34 of the arbitration act. It referred to the Supreme Court judgment in The Project Director, NHAI Vs. M.Hakim, (2021) wherein it was held that the power to set aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not include the authority to modify the Award. It further held that an Award can be set aside only on limited grounds as specified in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and it is not an appellate provision.
Case Title: MRB Nurses Empowerment Association v. The Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act would prevail over any contractual conditions set up by the employer to deny maternity benefits to a woman.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the benefits of the Maternity Benefits Act would be applicable to contractual employees and the employer could not rely on the contract of employment to deny them such benefits.
The court ruled that as per the recent ruling of Dr Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and others, the Supreme Court had held that once a lady employee fulfils the eligibility criteria specified in Section 5(2), she would be eligible for full maternity benefits even if such benefits exceed duration of her contract.
Case Title: Rev.Fr.Savarimuthu and Others v V.S.Jeyapandi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
The Madras High Court has recently observed that an order granting leave under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is a judicial order and not an administrative order. The court added that being a judicial order, it was also amenable to revisional jurisdiction of courts. The court thus took a different stand than what had been previously taken by the Madras High Court.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the power of the court to grant leave under Section 92 was judicial as it was wielded by a Civil Court and the court had to exercise its discretion on objective grounds as the matter involved rights of parties.
Case Title: The Director, Directorate of Medical Education and Research and Others v Jubil Timothy and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a student, who despite having been allotted the MBBS course in the first round of counselling, had wrongly chosen the BDS course.
The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that it could not agree with the State's hyper-technical contention and give capital punishment for a genuine mistake committed by the student. The court also noted that the Instructions stated that once a candidate opts for upgradation and gets allotted an upgraded seat, he has to relinquish the seat from previous rounds and join the upgraded seat. The court observed that the Rule was not applicable in the present case, as it dealt with the degradation of the seat and not upgradation.
Case Title: The Regional Officer, NHAI v K Vasuki and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
The Madras High Court recently held that the National Highways Authority of India which was empowered with the responsibility of laying down and maintaining roads but it could not be mulcted with any liability under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the MV Act empowered the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to only pass an award against the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle and thus did not have jurisdiction to entertain a tortious claim against any person not named under Section 168 of the Act. The court thus set aside an order of the MACT which had imposed liability on the NHAI for the death of a person.
Case Title: S.Harikumar v The Presiding Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice C. Kumarappan upheld the dismissal of two Greaves Cotton Limited workers accused of engine sabotage. The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings need only meet the “preponderance of probability” standard rather than criminal law's “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold. The court found the dismissal proportionate given the serious nature of industrial sabotage and its potential implications for public safety and company reputation. The bench validated the inquiry findings, ruling they were based on substantial evidence and proper cross-examination, not mere presumptions.
Case Title: M/s Challani Rank Jewellery and Others v Ashok Kumar Jain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
The Madras High Court recently observed that even if an account is blocked or frozen by the Enforcement Department or the Income Tax Department, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be maintainable if the complainant is able to prove that dehors the freezing, the account did not have sufficient balance to honour the debt.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the drawer of the cheque, in such cases could take a defence that the account was blocked or frozen. The court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012) and held that issuing a cheque without sufficient fund to honour it is the genus of the crime and the complaint would be maintainable.
The court also observed that a single complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable when all the cheques were presented on the same day and were returned on the same day relying on the earlier decision of the Madras High Court in Suryakant V Kanakia v. Muthukumaran and Manjula v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.
Case Title: Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
The Madras High Court on Friday quashed a criminal defamation complaint filed by AIADMK's Babu Murugavel against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu and which was taken on file by the Special Court for Trial of Cases relating to Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the complaint had been filed by Murugavel in his personal capacity and not in a representative capacity. The court added that Murugavel had failed to prove that he was aggrieved by the alleged speeches made by Appavu. The court observed that though Murugavel claimed to have filed the complaint on behalf od the AIADMK party, he had failed to provide any authorisation by the party allowing him to represent the party.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
The Madras High Court recently held that when a wife disputes the issuance of talaq by the Muslim husband, it is upon the husband to obtain a judicial declaration that marriage was validly dissolved.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Talaq under Muslim personal laws involved a certain procedure which had to be strictly complied. The court thus observed that if the husband claimed to have given talaq to the wife, and the same was disputed by the wife, the only appropriate and legally permissible course would be for the husband to obtain a judicial declaration that marriage is validly dissolved.
Case Title: Mahalingam Balaji v. The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court recently refrained from passing any orders on a plea questioning the Aryan-Dravidian race theory taught in educational institutions.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy remarked that the court was not an expert in the history of origin of race and thus could not grant the relief as requested for. The court thus observed that it was for the experts to determine whether the claims made by the petitioner on the two race theory was valid or not.
Case Title: The Assistant Director v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
The Madras High Court recently held that once a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was registered, the Enforcement Directorate was within its right to challenge the closure report filed in the Predicate Offence if the same resulted in miscarriage of justice.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam reiterated that the PMLA was a standalone offence and that when a closure report was filed in the predicate offence, it would not automatically close the PMLA proceedings also. The court thus quashed a closure report filed by the State police and taken on file by the Magistrate in connection with a cases involving lottery baron Santiago Martin and his wife.
Case Title: K Jayakumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government and the Director General of Police to ensure that those having a diploma certificate in Siddha Medicine are not practicing Siddha Medicine. The court added that such a situation would create havoc in the society which was already dealing with several cases of quacks.
Justice B Pugalendhi was hearing a petition filed by K Jayakumar, claiming to be a doctor practicing Siddha Medicine seeking directions to the police not to harass him or interfere with him running the Siddha clinic.
Secret Ballot Mandatory For Union Recognition In Railway Production Units; Madras HC Sets Precedent
Case Title: DMK ICF Labour Union v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice C. Kumarappan directed the Integral Coach Factory (ICF) to implement a Secret Ballot System for trade union recognition, replacing the existing Staff Council model. The Court found that the current system, which splits representation equally between management-nominated officials and worker-elected representatives, impedes effective worker representation and violates Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Court mandated that the Railway Board establish procedures for secret ballot elections within three months, ensuring democratic union representation in the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM).
Case Title: Suo Motu v The Deputy Superintendent and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court has set aside the discharge of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselavm in a disproportionate assets case in 2012.
While setting aside the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai permitting the prosecution to withdraw the case, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the order of special judge smacked of gross impropriety and abuse of judicial power.
The court noted that a modus operandi was followed the present case, similar to that followed in other cases involving the Ministers. The court noted that once Panneerselavm was back to the political saddle as the Finance Minister, he lost no time in setting the entire investigation machinery as well as the high constitutional functionaries like the Advocate General and the Public Prosecutor to find out ways and means to diffuse and self-destruct the prosecution case.
Case Title: S Kalavathi v State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
The Madras High Court recently observed that the prisoners were not slaves and could not be treated in inhuman ways to punish them for their crimes. The court added that torturing inmates would only propagate crimes and not mitigate them.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam made the observations in a plea by a prisoner's mother alleging that he was being treated inhumanly by the prison authorities and was even made to do household work of the officers.
The court also observed that the power given to the jail authorities must be exercised with care and caution as abuse of power would create havoc and undermine the ethos of criminal justice system. The court emphasised that nobody could unduly exrcise power over another and such misuse of power had to be dealt with seriously.
Case Title: R v B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
The Madras High Court has observed that the fundamental right of privacy includes spousal privacy. The court noted that the law could not permit or encourage snooping by one spouse on another. The court thus observed that the evidence that was obtained by invading the privacy of the partner was inadmissible in the court.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus came to the rescue of a wife against the order of the Paramakudi Subordinate Court refusing to reject the call records of the wife that was submitted by the Husband during the trial of a marital dispute. The court noted that the husband had stealthily obtained the information pertaining to the call history of his wife and thus had breached the wife's privacy.
Courts Can't Direct Promotions Outside Established Rules And Seniority Framework: Madras HC
Case Title: M.Palanisamy v The Director of Town Panchayats
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
The Court held that a Water Pump Operator's promotion to Sanitary Supervisor and subsequent reversion must be evaluated within the framework of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment Rules. Since the position of Water Pump Operator (that the petitioner undertakes) is not among the designated feeder posts (Public Health Workers, Sanitary Workers, or Scavengers) for promotion to Sanitary Maistry, the petitioner's initial promotion was irregular and the reversion was legally justified.
Case Title: Aunestraja v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 416
The Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to the Central Government, State Government and prosecuting agencies in an effort to curb the use of tobacco products among school kids.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there was an emergency considering the sudden surge of children using tobacco products and more specifically “Cool Lip” which in turn corrupted the body, mind, and soul of the children.
The court thus directed that the Central Government to issue further directions under Section 86 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 asking the States to ban “cool lip” which has already been classified as an unsafe food based on rules framed by the Central Government. The court added that the State Governments were bound to comply with the directions of the Central Government which were statutory in character.
Case Title: B Vidyasagar v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
The Madras High Court recently highlighted the court's duty to remove the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in their daily life.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the barriers faced by persons with disabilities went beyond issues of accessibility and was deep rooted in prejudices and stereotypes in the society. The court added that persons with disabilities faced social, attitudinal, cultural, institutional, structural, legal and environmental barriers, which constitutional courts must, through their judgments, strive to remove.
Case Title: M/s Jaiswal Products v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
The Madras High Court recently upheld the power of the Food Safety Officer to proceed with investigation for sale of banned tobacco products observing that tobacco, with or without any additive was a food product under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
In doing so the court said that the manufacturer was liable to explain the manner in which the product was cleared from the manufacturing unit which was in his exclusive knowledge.
A single judge bench of Justice G Jayachandran in its order also noted that the manufacturer of the banned tobacco was liable to face prosecution and could not claim that he had no knowledge how the product entered the banned place.
Case Title: The Union of India v The Registrar, CAT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 419
A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order directing the regularization of contract Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who had served in Puducherry for nearly two decades. Despite objections from UPSC regarding Article 320 requirements, the Court found that the unique circumstances—including chronic vacancies and essential service requirements—justified regularization. The Court distinguished this case from the Umadevi judgment, noting that the appointments were not “backdoor” entries but were based on sanctioned posts and urgent needs.
Case Title: M/S. Sivadarshini Papers Limited vs. M/S. Sunwin Papers
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
The Madras High Coury bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan has held that an Arbitrator ought not to decide the case on merits after coming to a conclusion that the respondent was not a Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and therefore not entitled to invoke the machinery under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. The court upheld the setting aside of the award passed by the Arbitrator.
Case Title: N Mahendra Babu v The Registrar General and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
The Madras High court has dismissed a petition seeking to restrict the maximum number of advocates appearing and accompanying a VIP or VVIP litigant whenever they appear in subordinate courts.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that since there was no law fixing the number of persons who can appear and accompany a party in court, it could not direct the Registrar General to impose restrictions on the same. Thus, noting that the relief as prayed for could not be granted, the court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: LEGO Juris A/S v Gurumukh Singh and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 422
The Madras High Court recently cancelled the registration of a Hyderabad based company's trademark for its confectionary products which was similar to the trademark of famous toy company “Lego”.
Justice PB Balaji held that the company had almost identically adopted Lego's mark, including the style and the colour and had failed to give a satisfactory explanation to the close identity of the two marks. The court thus held that the company had a dishonest intention to use Lego's marks.
The court also noted that though the company claimed to have made a thorough search in the trade mark registry, the fact was that the company had made search only for traders dealing in confectionaries. The court thus noted that the company was conscious that there was a possibility of Lego being applied in other classes and the company's conduct exposed its malafide intention. The court also noted that the company's claim that it had used “Lego” mark honestly could not merit acceptance given that “Lego” had a global reputation and goodwill.
Case Title: N.Jayamurugan Vs. M/s.Saravana Global Holdings Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 423
The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited and within the contours of the ground specified under Section 34 of the Act. To put it otherwise, the award is not required to be set aside on the ground of mere erroneous application of law or by reappreciation of the evidence until and unless it suffers from patent illegality.
The court observed that under Section 25(3) a debtor can enter into an agreement in writing to pay the whole or part of a debt, which the creditor might have enforced but for the law of limitation, and suit can lie on a written promise to pay the barred debt as it is a valid contract. The reason for this provision is that the debt is not extinguished; only the remedy gets barred by passage of time, and this provision does not revive a dead right but merely resuscitates the remedy to enforce the right, which already exists.
Case Title: M/s.Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Airports Authority of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 424
The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an Arbitrator to decide unless the Arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do then only interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is justified.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Conferment Of Padma Vibhushan On Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev
Case Title: M Vetri Selvan v Union of India and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking to revoke the Padma Vibhushan Award conferred on Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed the plea noting that the court was satisfied that the norms for conferment of award was adhered to and thus the relief as sought for could not be granted.
Previously, the court had also expressed its doubts regarding the maintainability of the plea and had remarked that conferment of Padma award might not be within the scope of judicial review.
The petitioner had approached the court claiming that the award be revoked in light of the multiple criminal charges and court cases being faced by Jaggi Vasudev and his foundation. It was argued that the Padma Vibhushan, being the highest civilian honour in the country was awarded to persons with exceptional and distinguished service.
Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v Dhanapal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 426
The Madras High Court on Thursday awarded Rs. 1.1 Crore as compensation to former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palanisamy for comments made by one Dhanapal linking Palanisamy to the crimes that took place in Kodanadu Estate in 2017.
While decreeing the suit in favour of Palanisamy, Justice RMT Teekaa Raman said that the defendant, Dhanapal made the statements with the sole intention of lowering Palanisamy's image with the knowledge that the contents were per se false. The court also noted that the language used by Dhanapal clearly indicated that his intention was to malign Palanisamy and cast aspersions on his character.
On going through the contents of the video of Dhanapal's interview, the court was satisfied that Dhanapal had made scandalous allegations. The court also noted that Dhanapal had blackmailed Palanisamy to extract money as he was booked under a financial fraud case and was in dire need of money. Thus, the court was convinced that while making the statements, Dhanapal had a malice against Palanisamy.
Case Title: Pondicherry Institute Of Medical Sciences v The Government of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 427
The Madras high court recently directed the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences to forfeit 26 seats – 13 during the 2025-26 academic year and 13 during the 2026-27 academic year for failing to comply with the directions issued by the Medical Council of India during admissions in the year 2017-18.
Justice M. Dhandapani also directed the institute to pay Rs. 10 Lakh to the Spastics Society of Tamil Nadu and Rs. 10 Lakh to Adyar Cancer Institute within 2 weeks of the order. The court made it clear that no action would be taken against the students who had already been admitted and they shall be issued with the course completion certificate if not already issued.
Case Title: Sujatha v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
In a plea concerning condition of prisons, the Madras High Court while expressing its concern said, that despite several orders the practice of deploying "uniformed personnel" in the residences of higher police authorities and prison authorities has not been done away with.
In doing so the court called for stringent government action to ensure that the public servants are utilised only for public welfare and not to perform household works in the residences of the authorities, adding that deployment of uniformed personnel in the residences of the prison authorities is resulting in "dereliction of duty".
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman emphasized that police authorities and prison authorities were public servants who were paid decent salary from tax payer's money and they were expected to effectively perform their public duty. The bench added that the Government should take stringent action to ensure that public servants were utilized only for the welfare of the public and not to perform household works in the residence of officers.
Case Title: P.Vasantha Kumar v Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
The Madras High Court has constituted an expert committee headed by retired High Court Judge V Bharathidasan to monitor the selection of Assistant Professors, Assistant Professors (pre-law) and Associate Professors in Government Law Colleges in Tamil Nadu.
Justice Battu Devanand remarked that it was impossible to impart quality legal education without filling up the sanctioned posts of the professors. The court added that by not filling the vacancies in a time-bound manner, the ultimate sufferers were the law students who's potential was lost due to the low quality of education and lack of proper teaching faculity.
The court thus constituted the committee headed by Justice (Retd) V Bharathidasan and Senior Advocate P Wilson and IAS (Retd) Mythili K Rajendran as members. The committee was to monitor the entire selection process including implementation of reservation rules. The committee was also asked to issue necessary instructions and guidelines to the Teachers recruitment Board to finalise and issue notification for recruitment to ensure that the notification is free from litigation.
Case Title: M Mangaiyarkarasi v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 430
Dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking to prohibit television channels, newspapers, magazines, and radio channels from telecasting advertisements of doctors and hospitals to commercially promote medical practice, Madras High Court on Friday orally said it cannot expect the media to verify if each advertisement was misleading.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that if the advertisements by the doctors and hospitals were found to be in contravention of the rules framed by regulatory authorities, complaints could be made to the regulatory authority which could take appropriate action. The court added that it could not expect the media to verify if each advertisement was misleading but could only expect that channels do not advertise something which was detrimental to the general public.
Case Title: Union of India v Abdul Razak and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 431
The Madras High Court recently held that the High Court was not empowered to condone the delay in filing an appeal under the National Investigating Agency Act 2008 beyond the permissible limit. As per Section 21 of the Act, an appeal has to be made within 30 days of the date of the order or judgment. The Section allows the High Courts to entertain an appeal even after expiry of 30 days but not beyond 90 days if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for delay.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that when there is no constitutional challenge to an enactment, the courts could not read down the provision differently than what the constitution had intended. The court added that the language employed in the provision under the NIA Act was unambiguous and thus the courts could not condone the delay beyond the permissible limits.
Case Title: M Samudi v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
The Madras High Court recently stressed that when an application is received informing instances of encroachment of temple land, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment authorities were expected to look into the same and take immediate action.
Justice M Dhandapani made the remarks after noting that due to inaction on the part of HR & CE officials, encroachers often enjoyed land to the detriment of the deity. The court emphasised that when an application was filed under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, the authorities were to take immediate steps and ensure that the encroachments are removed and the lawful owners are benefitted.
Case Name: Union of India v. C.V.L. Annapurna
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's orders granting pension rights under the General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme to retired Kendriya Vidyalaya teachers. The Court ruled that teachers who had not explicitly opted to remain under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme by January 31, 1989, were automatically entitled to GPF benefits as per the 1988 Government Office Memorandum. The Court rejected the argument that continuous receipt of CPF benefits implied a choice to remain in the CPF scheme, emphasizing that KVS's failure to implement the automatic transition couldn't prejudice the teachers' rights.
Long Service And Transparent Recruitment Merit Regularization Despite Absence Of Rules: Madras HC
Case Title: G.Kulanchiyappan v Vice Chancellor, IMU
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Maritime University (IMU) to regularize the services of eight contractual employees. The Court ruled that their appointments, though irregular, were not illegal as they were made through a transparent recruitment process including public advertisement and interviews. The Court emphasized that the absence of recruitment rules until 2015 and the employees' decade-long unblemished service warranted regularization, particularly given IMU's prior regularization of seven similarly situated workshop employees.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
The Madras High Court ruled that any amount received in advance for services should be treated as the income of the assessee and is, therefore, subject to income tax.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “if “Accounting Standards” are properly applied by an assessee, the “accounting income” for the payment of income tax will be available. However, if an assessee fails to adopt “Accounting Standards” properly for computation of income, the discretion is vested with the Assessing Officer under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
Case Title: The Triplicane Permanent Fund Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 436
The Madras High Court stated that assessee is liable to tax on consideration received from sale of unredeemed articles by auctioneers.
The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “the levy of penalty under Section 12(3)(a), in the case of non-filing of returns, is, automatic. Admittedly, the assessee has not filed the returns and hence, the basis of assessment would be irrelevant.”
Case Title: Nalin Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 437
The Madras High Court stated that a request for cross-examination of a witness in a Show Cause proceeding cannot be allowed if no reply on merits has been provided by the noticee.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “………the question of entertaining an application for cross-examination of the witnesses without any reply on merits by a notice in a show cause proceeding is to be eschewed and should not to be allowed.”
The bench noted that the question of granting extensions under the first proviso to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 will arise only after the limitation for passing Order determining duty or interest, as the case may be, within the time stipulated under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 had expired.
Further, the bench stated that only after the period of six months or one year, as the case may be, the senior officer could extend the period by another six months or one year specified in Clause (a) and Clause (b) under the first proviso to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962. The second proviso to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, further contemplates abatement of the proceedings if after the extension period under the first proviso to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, no Orders are passed.
Case Title: Lakshana Cotton Spinning Mills Limited v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
The Madras High Court ruled that recovery actions against the directors of a company cannot be initiated if the status of the assessee is non-existent.
The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “while in the case of amalgamation, it is only the apparent and outer shell of the company which is destroyed…. However, in the case of dissolution, the entity wholly ceases to exist.”
Case Title: Vasumathi and Another v R Vasudevan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 439
While discussing the 2005 amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, Justice N Seshasayee of the Madras High Court observed that while the amendment ensured that daughter's got a share in the ancestral property, it also took away the quantum of property that would otherwise vest with the widow and the mother of a deceased.
The court added that the effect of a notional partition was two fold. Firstly to interfere with the right of the surviving coparceners to succeed to the share of the deceased coparcenor by survivorship and secondly to reduce the combined holding to the extent of the property that became allottable to Class I female heirs.
Discussing the observations of the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma, the court added that the intent of the legislature while bringing in the 2005 amendment was to provide security and dignity to a certain class of female heirs of a deceased coparcener. The court observed that the notional partition under Section 6 of the Act engineered a vertical and horizontal division of ancestral property among the coparceners, as a vehicle to grant some right in the ancestral property to a class of female heirs.
Case Title: Santhanaganesh v State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man under Section 354A IPC for allegedly committing sexual harassment on a girl.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that to constitute an offence of sexual harassment, a man must have committed physical contact and made advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. In the present case, the court noted that the love affair between the man and the woman was admitted and it was quite natural for two persons in love to hug and kiss each other.
Case Title: VP Nandhakumar v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 441
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash a notice issued to the CEO and Managing Director of Manappuram Finance Limited for allegedly auctioning stolen gold.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench refused to quash the notice issued to VP Nandhakumar by the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 41 (A) of CrPC. The court added that the procedure under Section 41(A) was applicable to all persons and whatever his position, he had to appear before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation
The court agreed with the prosecution's submission and noted that whether Nandhakumar had knowledge or not was to be investigated by the CBI and presently the CBI had issued the summons only to collect materials from Nandhakumar. Thus, the court noted that he was duty bound to appear and to co-operate with the investigation.
Case Title: Bharathiya Janata Party v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
The Madras High Court recently asked the State to return a Bharatha Matha statue that was seized from the Bharathiya Janata Party's office in Virudhanagar East.
Though the authorities claimed to have removed the statue to maintain peace and harmony in the society, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that no person in their right mind would contend that the expression of one's patriotism would imperil the interest of the State or any community.
The court went on to add that the installation of the statue on a private property was deeply personal and symbolised the individual's reverence for the motherland. The court remarked that honouring Bharatha Matha by erecting a statue was an expression of love and pride and served as a reminder of the values and sacrifices associated with one's heritage. The court said that the statute was like a personal shrine that embodied hope, unity and respect for the land and invited ideals of freedom, resilience and cultural identity that Bharatha Matha represents.
Case Title: Kasthuri v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
The Madras High Court on Thursday (November 14) denied anticipatory bail to South Indian actress Kasthuri for her alleged comments against the Telugu community in Tamil Nadu.
A single bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh, on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by the actress.
Speaking at a Brahmin meet in Chennai on November 3rd, the South Indian actress had purportedly made comments against the Telugu community suggesting that the Telugu people, who had come to serve the courtesans of the Tamil Kings were now claiming to be of Tamil race. After widespread backlash, Kasthuri issued an apology stating that her comments were specific to some individuals and not against the Telugu community.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 444
The Madras High Court recently suggested the Bar Council of India to formulate guidelines ensuring that Advocates resolve matrimonial disputes amicably without adding fuel to the fire.
The bench of Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that lawyers had an enormous social responsibility to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. The court added that legal professionals should ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents are not reflected in criminal complaints and must maintain the noble traditions of the profession.
The court thus suggested that advocates should follow ethical standards when parties solicit their advice and never misguide the parties. The court added that advocates should not give unprofessional advice to implicate persons who are not even remotely connected to the alleged occurrences. The advocates were also asked to advise the clients to not rope in unconnected persons and inform the clients about the legal consequences of giving false complaint against unconnected persons. The court suggested that in cases involving two individuals, especially a family, the advocates should try to advise for an amicable settlement as far as possible.
Case Title: P.A.Ramasubramania Raja v. K.M.Sanjeevi Raja
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
A 46 year old land dispute suit was recently disposed of by the Madras High Court after the parties informed the court that they have arrived at a compromise.
"Shocked" by the long pendency of the suit, the High Court had in July this year transferred the suit–earlier pending before the lower court, to itself by exercising powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution, after one of the parties approached the court challenging the order in an interlocutory application.
Justice Bharath Chakravarthy, on noting that there was a chance of settlement, gave another opportunity to the parties to come up with their options though the court had already prepared the judgement. Following this, the parties arrived at a settlement and filed a joint compromise memo before the court.
Case Title: EIH Associated Hotels Ltd vs. CIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
The Madras High Court recently ruled that the expenditure incurred for payment of foreclosure premium for restructuring loan and obtaining fresh loan at a lower rate of interest is allowable as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Such ruling came while dealing with a case where scrutiny proceedings were initiated, leading in revisional assessment u/s 263, based on the assumption that assessment order was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue Department, and resultant disallowance of payment of foreclosure premium as a business expenditure.
The Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan observed that “Though mere disagreement with the view taken by the AO would not be a sufficient ground for invoking power u/s 263, it is quite another matter if the conclusion of the authority is palpably erroneous or contrary to settled law or judgment of the superior Courts”.
Madras High Court Restrains Grant Of Award In M S Subbulakshmi's Name To Musician TM Krishna
Case Title: Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
The Madras High Court has restrained The Hindu from presenting the 'Sangita Kalanidhi Award' in the name of M S Subbulakshmi to musician T M Krishna.
The Court said that the Sangita Kalanidhi Award and cash prize can be granted to TM Krishna but not in the name of M S Subbulakshmi. Justice G Jayachandran passed the interim order in a suit filed by the grandson of M S Subbulakshmi saying that the conferment of the award was against her wish and mandate. While dismissing an application filed by the Music Academy challenging the suit moved by the grandson, the court also noted that Shrinivasan, Subbulakshmi's grandson had the locus to maintain the suit since he was a beneficiary of Subbulakshmi's will.
Case Title: Byju Nizeth Paaul v The Directorate of Collegiate Education and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
The Madras High Court has suggested bringing in a statutory body to regulate the affairs of the church and church properties, similar to the charitable endowments of Hindus and Muslims.
Justice N Satish Kumar noted that matters of trusts, trustees, charities and religious endowments and religious institutions fall under the Concurrent list and thus there was no bar for the Central Government or the State government to bring in a legislation to this effect.
The court added that a Statutory Board could be established to make the institutions more accountable and to regulate their affairs. The court also noted that while "charitable endowments of Hindus and Muslims are subject to statutory regulation" however no such comprehensive regulation exists for endowments of Christians; the only scrutiny/oversight over the affairs of these institutions is by way of a suitunder Section 92 CPC.
The court noted that of late, there was an increase in litigations related to church properties where the courts have observed mismanagement of church properties and its funds. The court added that since these institutions were involved in public functions in the form of educational institutions, hospitals etc and since their functioning would affect the public at large, it was necessary to protect and safeguard the assets and funds of the institutions.
Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy
Case Title: IS Inbadurai v The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
The Madras High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a probe into the Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy that claimed the lives of around 67 persons after consuming illicit arrack.
A bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji directed the CBI to conduct the probe as expeditiously as possible and also directed the CB-CID to handover the case files and extend cooperation to the investigation. The orders were passed in a batch of petitions seeking a CBI inquiry into the incidents.
The petitioners had argued that the state machinery had failed in tackling the sale and consumption of spurious liquor. It was contended that hooch tragedy incidents were not new to the state and that the entire system of Tamil Nadu including the police, revenue authorities, etc had failed which was evident from the preset incident in Kallakurichi.
Case Title: S. Nirmala & Ors. v. Shanthi Harikrishnan & Ors., OSA.Nos.187 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
In a recent case, the Madras High Court dismissed the application to eschew the cross-examination evidence of a defendant witness from the proceedings.
The bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice A.D. Maria Clete noted that once cross-examination evidence is validly recorded under oath, it cannot be expunged from the proceedings, as the statutory provisions do not permit such an action.
“If a witness has been cross-examined under oath and an objection arises later concerning the interest of the party who cross-examined the witness, questioning its adverseness and the priority of cross-examination, the previously recorded evidence cannot be eschewed. However, the court should assess the probative value of such evidence in the final evaluation of the case.”, the court observed.
Case Title: D.Devasahayam v Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
The Madras High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a complaint and inquire into the sale of a church land to private persons. The land, which is originally a government land, was assigned to the church to be used for the welfare of destitute women and children.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Church of South India (CSI) had instead transferred the property to private persons for their own “selfish purpose” instead of working for the noble object for which the land was originally assigned. The court was thus satisfied that there were prima facie materials to warrant a CBI inquiry and thus directed the CBI to register the complaint and proceed accordingly.
The court added that the church had now become voiceless with the administrators muzzling the voice of those who question the illegal activities. The court thus observed that it was bound to protect the interest of the church under the parents patriae jurisdiction. The court observed that while the bishop and administrators of the church were duty bound to keep then property for dedicated purpose, the property was often swindled against the tenets of the bible.
Case Title: P Venkatesan v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
The Madras High Court recently ordered a de novo investigation into a case after the Investigation Officer informed the court that she had not investigated the case and her signature in the final report was forged.
After the unusual turn of events, Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the CBCID to take over the investigation. The court added that the investigation should not be limited to the issue of the case but also ascertain as to who prepared the earlier police report. Calling it a serious issue, the court added that after the truth comes to light, independent proceedings needed to be initiated.
Case Title: Dhanaraj v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
While hearing a bail plea under the NDPS Act, the Madras High Court recently noted that every cell of 'magic mushroom' contains psychotropic chemicals and hence the entire mushroom would have to be weighed to determine if the quantity confiscated is falling under commercial quantity.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus while dismissing a bail plea prima facie differed from the stand taken by the Karnataka High Court in Saeidi Mozdhdeh Ehsan v State of Karnataka wherein a single judge had opined that the quantity of the substance had to be taken to find out if the seized item fell within commercial quantity.
Differing with the Karnataka High Court, Justice Chakravarthy observed that the penal statutes had to be construed strictly without interpreting them to "aid the accused".
Case Title: Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
The Madras High Court recently observed that the offence under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a non-cognizable and bailable offence and an FIR could be filed for these offence only after getting appropriate orders from the Magistrate.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed an FIR filed against the man. Though the court noted that the FIR itself was not sustainable in law and thus the anticipatory bail was also not maintainable, the court thought it fit to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and interfere with the FIR.
Case Title: Piyush Sethia v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
The Madras High Court has allowed a man to install a stone pillar containing Father Stan Swamy's photo on his private land, honoring the work done by the latter for the Tribal persons.
Quashing a notice issued by the State authorities, Justice M Dhandapani remarked that Fr Stan Swamy had taken a lot of efforts for the welfare of the tribal persons. The court also noted that citizens had a right to install statues in their private property and the only restriction was that communal conflicts should not result from such erection. In the present case, the court opined that the notice was improper and thus was inclined to set aside the same.
Case Title: Church of South India v D Devasahayam and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
A division bench of the Madras High Court has stayed a single judge order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe into the alleged illegal sale of a church property to private persons.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete stayed the order of Justice KK Ramakrishnan, on an appeal filed by the Church of South India. Since an argument was raised as to the maintainability of the appeal, the division bench made it clear that the interim order was subject to maintainability.
While ordering CBI probe, the Single Judge had noted that the CSI had illegally transferred the land which was originally a Government Land assigned to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission (ABCFM) to be used for the welfare of destitute women and children.
Case Title: X v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
Lamenting over the manner in which juvenile offenders were treated often pushing them into becoming future notorious criminals, the Madras High Court recently suggested that reformative projects be implemented across the State to ensure that juvenile offenders are brought back into the mainstream of the society.
The court said this while granting bail to a 19-year-old boy accused of theft of movable articles like machine motor and submersible motor worth Rs.45,000.
In doing so, Justice N Anand Venkatesh noted that even though the State had implemented reformative projects like Paravai and Pattam in Chennai, these projects needed to be spread across the State. The court emphasised that the system and the people had a duty to bring the juvenile offenders back to the mainstream society.
Case Title: S.Saravanan v The Director General of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
The Madras High Court recently observed that executing a bond for good behaviour could not be considered as a criminal proceeding and the same cannot be held against a person to deny him employment.
Relying upon a previous order of the court, the bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that the purpose of such proceedings was to prevent commission of offence. Therefore, even though there is registration of FIR, the persons cannot be construed as accused.
Case Title: A Suhail v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
The Madras High Court recently held that a self-financing institution which is run by a temple would not come within the purview of Article 16(1) and Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh thus observed that only Hindus would be eligible for appointment in such institutions as it is covered under Article 16(5) of the Constitution. The court highlighted that as per Section 10 of the Hindu religious and Charitable Endowment Act, only a person professing the Hindu religion could be appointed to the colleges and he shall cease to hold office when he ceases to profess the religion.
Case Title: S. Mohan v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
The Madras High Court has held that magic mushroom per se does not satisfy the requirement of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance under Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus took a different stand than that taken by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy recently wherein Justice Chakravarthy had held that prima facie every cell of magic mushroom contained chemical and should be weighed entirely to determine the commercial quantity.
Justice Venkatesh on the other hand held that magic mushroom was not per se a contraband and can be considered a contraband only when it contains psilocybin. Thus, the court held that in the absence of any material to conclude the level of psylocybin, the court could not assume that the entire magic mushroom falls within the rigours of NDPS Act.
The court also added that magic mushroom was not a mixture of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance with a neutral substance and even if it was assumed to be a mixture, mushroom was a fungi and was a natural produce and thus could not be a mixture made through preparation as provided under the Act.
Case Title: X v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to frame rules for the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (PoSH Act).
Justice RN Manjula noted that though it was not fair to assume that the State lacked intention to implement the Act, the presence of inherent indifference could not be denied.
In its 139-page order, the court also noted that all women welfare projects were entrusted with Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, which was also responsible for Child welfare. The court observed that since the department was already saddled with so many responsibilities, it could be difficult for them to monitor all the departments regarding implementation of Act. The court thus asked the State to conduct a study on the feasibility of having a separate department for women empowerment by, separate from the Social Welfare Department.
Case Title: R. v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
The Madras High Court recently asked the State Government to take "serious efforts" to enact laws imposing "severe punishments" in cases of sexual offences by family members or close friends involving children.
In doing so the court further said State should take measures for providing awareness programs and provide funds for opening protection homes for children to protect them from sexual offences. The court said so while noting that "in our country", number of children faced sexual assault by close relatives "viz., father, brother, uncle, grandfather or close family friends" and that studies had revealed that sexually abused children experience clinically significant symptoms in the affective, cognitive, physical, and behavioral domains.
The court made the observation while dismissing a man's appeal who was convicted and sentenced for sexually abused his step daughter and impregnated her. The court took note of the “shocking” news reports that as per the National crime Records Bureau, in 96% of the cases, the sexual abusers were known to the children. The court added that in most of these cases, the offenders took advantage of their dominating position and sexually abused the children under threat or coercion
Case Title: Kammavar Samuga Nala Sangam v. The District Collector
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Kammavar Samuga Nala Sangam seeking directions to the authorities to not allow private persons to conduct funeral procession march through their residential streets and not to create public nuisance. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the association.
Calling the association's approach “inhuman”, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete expressed its dissatisfaction. The court also observed that if such a plea was allowed it would possibly result in disharmony and chaos among the villagers.
Wondering how a funeral possession could be called a public nuisance, the court added that the association should aim to address the welfare measures of its members and should not degrade itself by filing such irresponsible petitions.
Case Title: M/s. SPK and Co. v. The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
The Madras High Court stated that limitation period for challenging assessment orders under section 107 of GST Act commences from the date of rejection of the rectification application filed under section 161.
The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “………the period of limitation for challenging the order of assessment shall start ticking from the date of rejection of the rectification application
Case Title: Chandru and Others v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
The Madras High Court has granted bail to four students who were allegedly involved in group rivalry clashes that resulted in the death of a student.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira ordered the students to be released on bail after executing a bond for Rs 15,000 with two sureties, one of whom should be the father or mother of the student. The court also asked all four students to assist in the Trauma ward of Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital & the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and to prepare a writeup of their experience.
Case Title: R Thamaraiselvan v. Government of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by former DMK MP challenging the government notification inviting tenders for quarry lease.
While doing so, the bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy also imposed a cost of Rs 4 Lakh (Rs 1 Lakh for each petition) for filing the petition without proper research. The court directed the cost to be donated to the Little Heart Training Centre for Intellectual Disabled Boys in Dharmapuri District.
Case Title: Sathish and Another v Food Safety Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
The Madras High Court recently allowed two men to contest their case before the trial court even after making a submission admitting their guilt.
Justice Anand Venkatesh made the order after noting that the men had admitted their guilt before the trial court without knowing the consequences. The court thus observed that the Magistrate must ensure that the accused persons have sufficient legal advice before pleading guilty and it was not necessary for the magistrate to immediately act upon the pleading of guilt especially when the punishment provided was quite serious.
Case Title: Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v The National Medical Commission
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
The Madras High Court has recently made it clear that linguistic minority self financing medical colleges are bound by the National Medical Council's 50% seat sharing rule. As per the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, medical colleges were to surrender 50% of the seats in PG Medical Courses to the State/Union Territory.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that only when the States and Union Territories had control over some seats, they could implement the reservation policies in its full effect. Thus, the court highlighted that seat sharing was unavoidable and was a sine-qua -non for the implementation of reservation policy.
Case Title: Mohamed Asaruthin v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
The Madras High Court recently observed that when an application for extension was filed by the prosecution, the presence of the accused was ensured only to inform him about the application and consider the objections, if any. The court added that there was no necessity for the court to call upon the counter of the accused.
Justice Sunder Mohan emphasized that while considering the application for extension, the court was only required to consider whether the report of the prosecutor satisfied the twin conditions – that there was appreciable progress in the investigation and that there are compelling reasons to justify further detention pending investigation.
Case Title: T. H. Rajmohan v The Secretary to the Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by a 62-year-old man and imposed a cost of Rs. 20 Lakh on him. The court also restrained the PIL petitioner from filing any PILs in the court without prior permission for 1 year.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ordered so after noting that the petition was not Bonafide and that the petitioner had willingly failed to disclose material information.
Case Title: Aathimoolam v State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
While refusing to set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against a school headmaster, the Madras High Court emphasised that the Headmaster was the guardian of the entire school and was expected to report any instances under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Justice P Velmurugan observed as under,
“The Head Master is the guardian of the entire school. If any incident covered under POCSO Act has taken place, the same has to be immediately intimated either to the District Child Protection Officer or to the Police concerned,” the court said.
Case Title: C Pakkir Maideen and Others v The Principal Secretary To Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has made it clear that the registration of an adoption deed is a futile exercise as it does not confer any rights on the parties to adoption and does not have any legal sanctity. The court thus observed that the registration of adoption deed could not be asked as a matter of right before the registering authority.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus directed the Inspector General (IG) of Registration to issue necessary circulars to all registrars asking them to refrain from registering any deed of adoption, irrespective of their religion.
Case Title: VR Dakshin Private Limited Verus SCM Silks Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
The Madras High Court bench of of Chief justice Mr. K.R.Shriram and Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy has held that the ineligibility of the Arbitrator cannot be challenged for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act when there were enough opportunities to challenge the same in the earlier proceedings.
It also noted that section 4 of the Act provides that when a party knows that any requirement under the arbitration agreement has not been complied with and yet proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to such non-compliance, such party shall be deemed to have waived his right to so object.
Case Title: P.Rajkumar v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
The Madras High Court recently held that while considering bail applications, an informal opinion rendered by an expert was not binding on the court. It reiterated that while exercising bail jurisdiction, the court had to consider the language adopted in the enactment and only had to be prima facie satisfied whether there was a reasonable chance of conviction.
Justice Anand Venkatesh made the observations while discussing a recent judgment rendered by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in which the latter had an informal interaction with an expert and concluded that every cell of a magic mushroom contained chemicals and that entire quantity had to be measured to determine the commercial quantity.
The court reiterated that while considering the bail application, the court must prima facie satisfy itself on whether there was a reasonable chance for the accused to be held guilty. The court added that at the stage of bail, the court was not expected to meticulously examine the materials collected at the stage of investigation. The court added that while considering bail, the court had to look into the language adopted in the enactment.
Case Title: Deepu and Others v State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
The Madras High Court has allowed a criminal revision petition filed by three accused in the Kodanadu heist and murder case allowing them to summon and examine former Tamil Nadu CM Edappadi Palaniswami and VK Sasikala among others as witnesses.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that the application of the accused to examine the witnesses was not without reason and the same would not cause any delay as further investigation had been ordered in the case. The court thus directed the Sessions Judge to comlete the trial by giving opportunity to both the parties and give an opportunity to the accused to examine the 8 witnesses as sought for.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that the concept of cruelty under matrimonial cases has undergone substantial change and there could not be any fixed parameters for determining what constitutes acts of cruelty.
A division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Kalaimathi said that what amounted to acts of cruelty would differ from person to person, man to woman and thus, a broad approach was needed. The court also added that the matters had to be dealt with latitudinarianism in the modern era.
The high court, while making the observations, refused relief to a husband who had claimed divorce on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty. The court noted that though the husband had made allegations of physical and mental cruelty, he had not specified even one instance or given evidence in support of the same. The court noted that it could not infer anything from the facts of the case which could prove that there were alleged acts of cruelty by the wife and thereby dismissed the husband's plea.
Case Title: The Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
The Madras High Court has set aside a single judge order restrainig The Music Academy and The Hindu group from conferring the Sangita Kalanidhi Award to musical TM Krishna in Late MS Subbulakshmi's name.
The division bench of Justice SS Sunthar and Justice P Dhanabal passed the order on an appeal preferred by The Music Academy and the Hindu Group. Though a mention was made against the division bench order before the Supreme Court, the CJI directed the matter to be posted on Monday.
Madras High Court Expedites Trial Against Sasikala In FERA Case
Case Title: N Sasikala v The Assistant Director, ED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
The Madras High on Thursday dismissed three petitions filed by Sasikala, a close aide of former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa, challenging certain questions put forward by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Economic Offences – I at Egmore.
While doing so, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman also directed the court to expedite the trial if the and asked the parties to cooperate with the trial and to refrain from filing frivolous petitions to delay the trial.
The Enforcement Directorate had registered the case in 1996 against Sasikala (as Chairperson and Director of J Jaya TV), V Bhaskaran (Managing Director of Jaya TV), and J Jaya TV Private Limited. The cases were registered under Sections 8(1), 9(1) (c) and 9(1) (a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for allegedly making payments to the tune of 10.45 Singapore Dollars, without the RBI's approval, to make payment for transponders and to secure uplinking facilities for the channel.
Case Title: Amudha v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
Dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by AIADMK's State Deputy Secretary of the Women's Wing- Amudha, the Madras High Court highlighted that though the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right of speech and expression however this right cannot be taken advantage of to cross the limits of decency.
While doing so, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira also noted that the petitioner had used derogatory statements against the former Chief Minister, present Chief Minister and his family members, uttering "unethical, filthy and unparliamentary" words.
Case Title: K. Sundari v. C. A. R. P. Mari
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
The Madras High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against a Principal of a college under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments for signing a cheque that was returned for “insufficient funds”.
While doing so, Justice Anand Venkatesh held that the Principal had not signed the cheque in his individual capacity, and since a college could not be equated to a company, vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act would not come into effect in the present case.
The court explained that the concept of vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act could not be applied in cases that did not fall under the ambit of a Company or a Partnership firm. The court noted that the Principal was only an authorised signatory and had signed the cheque in connection with the liability of the college. Thus, the court was inclined to quash the case against the Principal.
Case Title: KC Chandran and Others v Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
The Madras High Court recently held that since the concealment of proceeds of crime itself is an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Enforcement Directorate is not required to establish where the money eventually went.
A division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima added that the accused, who would have engineered the disappearance of the money, could not be exonerated from the charges merely because the proceeds of the crime had not been identified. The court thus underscored that it was enough if the prosecution established the generation of the proceeds of crime and the involvement of the accused in the process.
Case Title: Malliga (Died) and Others v. S Shanmugam (Died) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
The Madras High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Hindu Succession Act that prohibits a widow from inheriting or taking share in the property of her deceased husband, upon remarriage.
The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that though the Hindu Remarriage Act, 1856 disqualified a widow from inheriting properties upon remarriage, this Act was repealed after the Hindu Succession Act came into effect. The bench further noted that as per the Hindu Succession Act, only the widow of a pre-deceased son or widow of a predeceased son of the predeceased son or widow of the brother was disqualified upon remarriage. However, by way of the 2005 amendment, even this provision was repealed.
Case Title: The Research Scholar v The Research Guide and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
The Madras High Court recently suggested bringing in Standard Operating procedures and Practice Directions to mask the name and identities of every victim of mental, emotional, and sexual harassment in all proceedings.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Poornima observed that observed that the privacy of parties to a litigation should be respected and thus, in the best interest, such directions could be issued. The court suggested that when matters of such nature are filed, a practice direction could be issued ensuring that the name and identity are given in the original copy, which could be retained by the Registry in a sealed cover and the identity could be redacted in all other copies. Further, if there is a challenge to the identity of the party, a reference could be made to the original copy retained in the sealed cover.
Case Title: B Stalin v The Registrar Genera, Madras HC and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed in 2011 seeking to restrain retired high court judge Justice CS Karnanfrom making public statements, wither written or oral against constitutional authorities or any wing of the judiciary or advocates in public media.
A division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that the prayer in the plea south to restrain a sitting Judge of the High Court was impermissible in law.
Noting that the plea had been listed with regard to its maintainability the court said that under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, no court shall entertain any proceeding against a Judge for any act thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial function.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Stabbing Doctor For Alleged Poor Treatment Of Mother
Case Title: Vignesh v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 485
The Madras High Court on Tuesday granted bail to Vignesh, accused of stabbing a doctor at the Kalaignar Centenary Super Speciality Hospital in Guindy, Chennai in November this year.
Considering the period of incarceration, the materials and the arguments, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira was inclined to grant conditional bail to Vignesh. The court thus ordered him to be released upon executing a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties. The court also directed Vignesh to stay at Vellore and report before the Inspector of Police, Sathavachari Police Station every day until further orders.
Case Title: Sr. Sagaya Mary v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
The Madras High Court has refused to quash the chargesheet filed against Sister Sagaya Mary, hostel warden of St. Michael's Girls Hostel attached to the Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Thanjavur for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 12th Standard Student.
In January 2022, a 12th Standard girl of the Sacred Heart School attempted to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. Though the girl was taken to the hospital, she died during treatment. In her dying declaration, she stated that the hostel warden had tortured her mentally by making her do additional work in the hostel and not allowing her to study properly.
Though the warden contended that she had never intended the child to commit suicide, Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench noted that the warden's intention, whether good or bad, had to be looked into at the time of trial. The court also added that other points raised by the warden also could be considered at the time of trial and the case was not fit to be quashed.
While an attempt was made to bring in a forcible religious conversion angle to the issue, the CBI had ruled out the same. The court appreciated the CBI for bringing out the truth in an honest manner and noted that there was no ground to suspect the allegations of conversion. The court added that the allegations of conversion should have been avoided by those responsible and lamented that the damage already done could not be repaired.
Case Title: Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v RPD Workstations Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
While hearing a plea moved by computer manufacturer Lenovo protection of its "THINK" Family of Marks, the Madras High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration given to a Hyderabad based company for its “THINBOOK” mark finding it deceptive.
Justice Abdul Quddhose opined that the petitioner, Lenovo, who had been using the THINK family of marks had obtained a distinctiveness in the field. The court thus ruled that Lenovo was the exclusive proprietor of the mark and continued usage of a similar mark by the respondent company would create confusion in the minds of the people.
The court, on perusing the materials, was convinced that Lenovo had gained a reputation in India and abroad in respect of products – Laptops, Notebooks, iPad etc by using the THINK family of marks. The court added that the respondent company had misrepresented the Registry and the Registry, by total non-application of mind had registered the trademark.
Thus, noting that Lenovo had satisfied the requirements of Section 57 of the Act, the court was inclined to grant the relief and ordered accordingly.
Case Title: M Venkatesan v Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
The Madras High Court has clarified that the trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is distinct and different from the trial of the predicate offence and thus the accused cannot seek for a simultaneous or joint trial even if both are pending before the same court.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that since the procedures contemplated under the PMLA for trial are different, there was no question of joint or simultaneous trial. The court also added that there was no impediment for the special court to continue the trial even if the trial for a predicate offence was pending.
The court noted that as per Explanation (i) to Section 44 of the PMLA, the jurisdiction of the Special Court, while dealing with the offence under the Act shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the Scheduled offence and the trial in both the sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial.
Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimnhan v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
The Madras High Court has granted bail to temple activist Rangarajan Narasimham for allegedly making derogatory comments against a woman on social media.
While granting interim bail, Justice V Lakshminarayanan asked Narasimham to delete all the offensive messages and refrain from making any vituperative comments against women in any of the social media forums. The court also directed Narasimhan not to commit any similar offences.
Previously, in another case, the High Court had also ordered a two-week 'social media detox' for Narasimhan for his distasteful comments against an industrialist. The court had also imposed a fine on him and commented that protectors of Sanatana Dharma should refrain from using such unsavoury words.
Case Title: M.Tamilselvan v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
The Madras High Court recently held that the service register of a public servant could not be completely exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. Section 8(j) of the RTI Act exempts personal information from disclosure.
Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the service register of the public servant contains details of the assets and liabilities of the employee which were not private information. The court noted that these details could not be shielded from the public scrutiny. However, the court added that though this information had to be disclosed, there had to be some reasonable restrictions.
The court also added that the materials in the service register had to be scrutinized and if the disclosure is denied, necessary reasons for such denial should be provided.
Madras High Court Suspends Sentence Imposed On BJP's H Raja Over Comments Against Periyar, Kanimozhi
Case Title: H Raja v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
The Madras High Court on Friday suspended the sentence imposed on BJP's H Raja for his derogatory speech against Periyar and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi. The special court had imposed the sentence on December 2.
Justice L Victoria Gowri suspended the 6-month sentence imposed on him by the Special Court for Trial of Cases Against MLAs/MPs in Chennai The special court had sentenced Raja for the comments made by him in 2018. The orders were passed after the High Court refused to quash the case against him and directed the Special Court to complete the case within 3 months.
Raja had tweeted against EV Ramasamy, popularly known as Periyar saying that the Atheist leader's statues should be broken and also addressing Periyar as a caste fanatic. Raja had also made insensitive remarks against Kanimozhi, calling her the illegitimate child of former TN CM Karunanidhi.
Case Title: R Varalakshmi v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
Madras High Court on Saturday (December 28) formed a Special Investigation Team comprising of women IPS officers to investigate into the alleged sexual assault of a 2nd Year Engineering Student inside the Anna Univeristy campus in Chennai earlier on Monday.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held a special sitting on Saturday and passed the orders on a batch of pleas seeking a CBI probe into the incident. The court said that there were lapses on the part of the police and the University and was thus inclined to form the SIT.
The court also remarked that the leaking of the FIR, containing the personal details of the victim has to be viewed seriously and investigated into. The court said that the FIR leak was a serious lapse on the part of the police which caused trauma for the victim and her family. The court directed the State to pay an interim compensation of Rs. 25 Lakh to the victim girl, which could be recovered from those who were responsible for the dereliction of duty and leaking of the FIR. The court added that the compensation ordered presently, would not prevent the victim from seeking compensation in the criminal cases.