Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 279 NOMINAL INDEX C.Aranganayagam (Deceased) v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 D Prabhu v The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 273 Sri Nithyanadha Swami v .Sri La Sri Harihara, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 SV Subbiah v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry and Others,...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
NOMINAL INDEX
C.Aranganayagam (Deceased) v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
D Prabhu v The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Sri Nithyanadha Swami v .Sri La Sri Harihara, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
SV Subbiah v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
G Karthikeyan v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
Arjunan v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
High Court of Madras v D Sasikumar and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Ghanshyam Hemdev v Pyramid Audio India Pvt Ltd and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
REPORT
Case Title: C.Aranganayagam (Deceased) v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
The Madras High Court recently refused to set aside the conviction of former Tamil Nadu Labour Minister C Aranganayagam in a disproportionate assets case. While the court dismissed an appeal preferred by Arangayagam, it also upheld the acquittal of Anraganayagam's family members.
Justice G Jayachandran thus confirmed the confiscation of properties of Arangayagam, who passed away on April 29, 2021.
The case against Arangayagam was that while serving as the Minister for Labour and Education, during 1991-1996, he had accumulated wealth disproportionate to his income. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai registered a case and he was charged with offenses under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Along with Arangayagam, a case was also registered against his wife and two sons for abetment.
Case Title: D Prabhu v The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
The Madras High Court recently noted that it was high time that the Government of Tamil Nadu rethink its liquor policy for the welfare of the people in the state, especially the younger generation who are the pillars of tomorrow.
The court added that a conscious decision could be taken based on public opinion and though taking a decision may not be an easy task, that should not justify the State's support to the liquor policy presently in place.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Government Rules, regarding the location of TASMAC shops, should be for the protection and welfare of the people. However, presently, the Rules appear to be made to protect the TASMAC shops whose aim is to enhance the sale of intoxicating material that ultimately affect the society.
Case Title: Sri Nithyanadha Swami v .Sri La Sri Harihara
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Sri Nithyananda Swami challenging an order of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai allowing successor senior pontiff Sri Harihara Gnanasambanda Desiga Paramachariya Swamigal to be added to the suit pending in relation to appointment of a junior pontiff to the Madurai Adheenam.
Justice R Vijayakumar opined that the application for amendment did not call for any interference.
Case Title: SV Subbiah v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court has recently directed the State Government to issue appropriate circulars to all District Collectors, competent authorities and to Government Pleaders indicating them to conduct Government-related land cases properly and defend the government on merits and per the law.
The court also called for coordination between Government Pleaders and officials for defending cases across courts in the State.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan added that in case of any ex-parte decree being passed by the courts, any improper conduct by the Government Pleader or official concerned must be identified and the competent authority must initiate appropriate action.
Case Title: G Karthikeyan v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court recently declared illegal, a Government Order (GO) reserving compassionate appointments in the Noon Meal Scheme to females.
Noting that the GO was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that it not only affected the male children of female employees but put the female employees a par below to that of their male counterparts.
The court noted that if 100% of the vacancies in a particular department are reserved for women, the applications for compassionate appointment could be forwarded to the District Collector or to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to be considered under the general pool for being appointed in other suitable posts.
Case Title: Arjunan v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
While granting compensation to the family of a man who succumbed to burn injuries sustained while disposing of bio-medical waste, the Madras High Court recently remarked that when the government could pay families of persons who knowingly consumed spurious liquor Rs. 10 Lakh, the innocent victims deserved no less.
Justice GR Swaminathan added that it was unfortunate that the State resisted such applications in which it should have conceded the prayer straightaway. The court noted that it was an apposite case for invoking the Doctrine of Benevolent exercise of Power and thus granted compensation to the family.
Case Title: High Court of Madras v D Sasikumar and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
The Madras High Court has recently sentenced Sub-Registrar, Thiruvarur to two months of simple imprisonment for conniving with a private individual and fabricating documents which were produced in court for getting favorable orders. The court, however, suspended the execution of imprisonment for 30 days allowing the parties to file an appeal.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that if the court shuts its eye to such actions, it would encourage unscrupulous officials to engage in such activities with private individuals and achieve their goals. The court thus emphasized that such fabrication of documents could not be condoned especially in registering officers where the entries have a bearing on the rights of the individuals.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Hemdev v Pyramid Audio India Pvt Ltd and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
The Madras High Court has stayed the re-release of Kamal Hassan starrer 1991 Tamil Movie “Gunaa” amidst copyright infringement claims.
Justice P Velmurugan granted an ad-interim injunction on an application made by Ghanshyam Hemdev. Noting that the balance of convenience favored Hemdev, the court was inclined to grant the ad interim injunction. Meanwhile, the court also issued notices to the respondents, Pyramid Audio India Pvt Ltd, Evergreen Media Pvt Ltd, and Prasad Film Laboratories.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: G Sundarrajan v Union of India
Case No: WP 18037 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Tuesday, asked the Centre to respond to a plea seeking mandatory assessment of climate change while preparing the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report for industrial projects and constructions.
Calling the plea one for a just cause, the bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq asked the Centre to respond to it in two weeks.
The petition has been filed by G Sudarrajan of Poovulagin Nanbargal, an environmental organisation. The petitioner submitted that as per the EIA notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in 2006, large-scale construction projects could be undertaken only after obtaining prior environment clearance from the Centre or State EIA Authority. However, he pointed out that the notification does not talk about climate change or studying the impact of climate change while preparing the EIA report though it is a major environmental concern.
Case Title: Shobha Karandlaje v State
Case No: Crl OP (MD) 9875 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Wednesday questioned Union Minister Shobha Karandlaje for her statements linking the bomb blast at Rameswaram Café in Bangalore, to Tamil Nadu.
Justice G Jayachandran asked how the Minister could link the blasts with the people of Tamil Nadu even before the National Investigation Agency conducted its searches. The Court added that if the Minister had any information regarding the blast, as a responsible citizen she should have informed the same to the investigation agency which she didn't.
Case Title: Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Chief Secretary
Case No: WP 19030 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Wednesday remarked that when the Election Commission of India could go to the remotest location to ensure that the people exercise their franchise, it was the constitutional duty of the government to ensure that basic facilities and benefits of the welfare schemes reach the people.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan was hearing the suo motu writ petition initiated by the bench to look into the manufacture and sale of illicit arrack by the people of Kalvarayan hills in light of the recent Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy.
The court expressed shock when it learned that the area was annexed with the Indian territory only in the year 1976 and that voting rights were given to the people in the area only in 1996. The court noted that being the situation, the development in the location would be behind other parts of the State and would need more focused attention.
Case Title: Dinesh Raja CR v State
Case No: Crl OP 16216 of 2024
The Madras High Court has stayed the investigation in a case registered against the administrator of Isha Yoga Centre in connection with alleged damage to the vehicles of members of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kalagam when they visited the Yoga Centre.
The Coimbatore District Police had registered the case based on a complaint by K Ramakrishnan, General Secretary of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam. It was alleged that when Ramakrishnan, along with some of his party men visited the premises on the assumption that the Centre had encroached upon 44.3 acres of land allotted to Scheduled Tribes and trying to put up an electric crematorium without proper permission, they were threatened and their vehicle was damaged. A case was thus registered for offences under Sections 341 and 506(1) of IPC read with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 199
Justice G Jayachadran, while granting an interim stay on filing the final report, observed that there was no justification for Ramakrishnan and his men to go to the premises as the records revealed that the land was not allotted to the Scheduled Tribe community.