Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 66 NOMINAL INDEX Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank v K Marimuthu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 TN Medical Laboratories Association v Principal Secretary and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 57 SR Sathyanarayana Rao v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 58 E Shakthi Murugan v District Collector, 2024...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
NOMINAL INDEX
Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank v K Marimuthu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
TN Medical Laboratories Association v Principal Secretary and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
SR Sathyanarayana Rao v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
E Shakthi Murugan v District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
Madurai Mavatta Devendra Kula Velalar Uravinmurai Sangam v The Secrertary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
M/s.Supreme Paradise Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
CPF (INDIA) Private Limited Verses Addl. CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
Varun and another v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
K Annamalai v V Piyush, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
M/s.Thillai Agencies Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Gopal Vittal, Bharti Airtel Ltd v Kamatci Shankar Arumugam, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
REPORT
Case Title: Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank v K Marimuthu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
The Madras High Court recently held that the lawyers empanelled by the banks to represent them in cases do not hold a civil post and thus the laws of reservation will not be attracted during their appointment.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus set aside an order of a single judge made last year where the single judge had observed that the right to be considered for appointment was a fundamental right and had directed the banks to review their existing procedures for empanelment of lawyers.
The division bench, however, held that the relationship between the banks and the empanelled lawyers was purely professional and not that of a master and servant. The court observed that the empanelled lawyers were not covered by any service laws and their services were purely on a contractual basis. The court added that the banks had their procedures for empanelment of lawyers and providing reservation in the same would be “stretching Article 16”.
Case Title: TN Medical Laboratories Association v Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
The Madras High Court recently commented that when the State of Tamil Nadu claims to be a champion in the healthcare facilities in the country, it is expected to implement the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 scrupulously and monitor and control the clinical establishments in the country.
Justice SM Subramaniam added that health being an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution, the State is expected to ensure that quality medical services are provided in the clinical establishments across the state.
Case Title: SR Sathyanarayana Rao v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
Lamenting on the situations prevailing the State, the Madras High Court recently observed that ordinary citizens were being forced to approach court for a simple direction to government authorities to consider representations.
Justice P Velmurugan observed that the Government Officials who were expected to serve the ordinary citizens, now prioritised only people who had muscle power, money, or political power, ignoring the ordinary man. The court deprecated this attitude of the government officials.
Case Title: E Shakthi Murugan v District Collector
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
While granting relief to a man seeking police protection to remove a stone 'projected as an idol' at the entrance of his home, the Madras High Court lamented that even with the passage of time, the society was not evolving and letting go of the superstitious beliefs.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the stone covered with a green cloth was planted right in front of petitioner's property, an attempt was being made to call it as an idol and on that ground, he was not being allowed to enjoy his property.
Case Title: Madurai Mavatta Devendra Kula Velalar Uravinmurai Sangam v The Secrertary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
The Madras High Court recently junked a plea seeking to dissolve the National Commission for Scheduled Caste.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that if a person was aggrieved by any action of the Commission, they could challenge the same before the appropriate forum, and a blanket prayer for dissolving the Commission would not be in the interest of the members belonging to the scheduled caste community.
The court was hearing a plea by the Madurai Mavatta Devendra Kula velalar Uravinmurai Sangam seeking directions to the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment to dissolve the commission. It was alleged that the commission was not performing its duties in accordance with Article 338 of the Constitution.
Discount Linked To Subsidy Alone Can Form Part Of “Transaction Value”: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Supreme Paradise Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court has held that a discount linked to the subsidy alone can form part of the “transaction value.”.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that a discount by itself will not qualify as a subsidy. However, a discount offered by a distributor, a supplier, or the manufacturer to the buyer or recipient simplicitor cannot form part of the “transaction value” unless such a discount is offered on account of the subsidy for supplies by a third party.
Case Title: CPF (INDIA) Private Limited Verses Addl. CIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
While holding that the draft assessment order suffers from non-application of mind, the Madras High Court sets aside the proceedings initiated in violation of procedure prescribed as per Section 144B(1)(vii) read with (xiv) and (xvi)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that “a duty is cast on the assessing authority in terms of Section 144B(1)(xiv) of the Act to take into account all relevant material and thereafter frame the draft assessment order. The respondent has erred in not complying with the above mandatory requirement inasmuch as the draft assessment order has been made without even examining / taking into account the objections / response of the petitioner made vide letter dated 22.09.2021. Thus, the draft assessment order suffers from non-application of mind to matters that are relevant and on record, thus stands vitiated”. (Para 5)
Case Title: Varun and another v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has made it clear that the date of filing a chargesheet should be taken to be the date on which the e-filing was done and not when the papers were physically made available at court.
Justice Anand Venkatesh was dealing with a plea challenging a written endorsement of a trial court returning an application for statutory bail on the ground that the charge sheet had already been filed. The prosecution had informed the court that the final report was e-filed two days before the application for statutory bail was moved and thus the indefeasible right did not exist.
The court noted that in this digital era, one could not say that the date on which the papers were physically produced before the court would be taken to be the date of filing and such an interpretation would defeat all the efforts taken to digitise the legal proceedings.
Case Title: K Annamalai v V Piyush
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against BJP State Head K Annamalai for his remarks against a Christian Missionary NGO.
While refusing to quash a criminal proceeding initiated based on the above statements, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that Annamalai had turned a petition filed in the interest of the environment into a vehicle for communal tension and the statements had a communal fervor to it.
The court noted that the psychological impact on a person or a group would also come within the definition of hate speech and thus the courts should not only focus on the prima facie physical harm while dealing with these types of cases. The court added that the posts made on Twitter were permanent data and acted like a ticking bomb waiting to have its desired effect at a point of time. The court added that Annamalai's statements had a prima facie psychological impact on the targeted group.
Case Title: M/s.Thillai Agencies Versus State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
The Madras High Court has held that when a registered dealer claims any benefit under Section 19 of the TNVAT Act 2006, he has to strictly adhere to the conditions laid down in the said section.
The bench of Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice R. Vijayakumar has observed that the petitioner has not produced the original tax invoice from a registered dealer, and therefore, he cannot complain that the authorities are attempting to reverse the input tax credit in his favor. In fact, the petitioner has affected the purchase five months after the cancellation of the registration of the selling dealer. Since the registration of the selling dealer had already been cancelled in April 2008, he would not have paid the tax. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the notice issued by the respondent department for reversing the input tax credit would amount to double taxation is not legally sustainable.
Case Title: Gopal Vittal, Bharti Airtel Ltd v Kamatci Shankar Arumugam
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a company making a list of employees who have not been vaccinated against Covid-19 is not sharing sensitive personal data and cannot be prosecuted under Section 43 A of the Information Technology Act.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus set aside a private complaint initiated against a company by its former employee. The court noted that the company was merely taking preventive measures to safeguard itself from COVID-19 attacks.
The court noted that Section 43A was not strictly an offense under the IT Act and was more like a tort. The court noted that the consequence of commission of a tort was payment of damages or compensation and no punishment had been prescribed under the Act. Thus, the court noted that the offence was not one, which could be taken cognizance of by a court.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Madras High Court Makes Hybrid Hearings Mandatory For State's District Judiciary
The Madras High Court has made hybrid hearings through VC mode mandatory in the district judiciary of the state with effect from February 5th 2024.
In a notification issued by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, the RG said that the mandatory facility has been notified upon approval from the Chief Justice. The notification also urged the members of the bar to use the facility in all jurisdictions and to cooperate for an effective implementation of the facility.
The Madras High Court has sought the opinion of all bar associations with respect to changing the working structure of the courts and doing away with the court vacations.
The circular issued by M Jothiraman, Registrar General of Madras High Court says that the Committee to monitor the implementation of the Resolutions adopted in the Chief Justices' Conference has decided to hear the bar associations to get their opinions on the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee On Personnel, Public Grievance, Law and Justice regarding functioning of courts all year round.
Case Title: CA Venkata Siva Kumar v Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Others
Case No: WP No. 32964 or 2022
The Madras High Court has recently sought a response from the AAG in a plea alleging malpractices in the functioning of the National Company Law Tribunal in Chennai.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy has adjourned the case to February 14th, on which day the Additional Advocate General has been asked to respond to the plea.
The petitioner, CA Venkata Sivakumar has sought to constitute an expert committee comprising representatives from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, NCLT and Central Vigilance Commission, and other experts to look into his suggestions and take steps for strengthening the functions of the Tribunal and to submit an action taken report.
The Madras High Court held a farewell function today for Justice Vaidyanathan who was recently elevated as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court.
In his farewell speech, Justice Vaidyanathan said that a lawyer was seen as a Gentleman in the profession of advocacy and every lawyer must endeavor to fit into that word. He added that lawyers should always take care of the interests of the clients and ensure that matters are settles at the earliest.
The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Justice SV Gangapurwala has assigned the suo motu revision pleas against the acquittal/discharge of Ministers in Tamil Nadu to Justice Anand Venkatesh. On Monday, the Supreme Court had left it for the Chief Justice of the High Court to take a call on who shall hear and decide the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Single Judge.
When KKSSR Ramachandran challenged the suo motu cognizance taken by Justice Venkatesh, the Apex Court, after perusing the report submitted by the Registrar General of Madras High Court, noted that the prior approval of the Chief Justice was not sought before taking up the matters and the same was done after the Single Judge had passed orders taking cognizance.
Noting that due weightage must be given to protect the purity of the judicial process, the Apex Court had directed the Chief Justice to take a call on the matter and decide which court would hear the matters. The CJ has now specially ordered the cases to be heard by Justice Venkatesh.