Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247 NOMINAL INDEX Kesava Vinayagam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237 The President v The State Information Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238 MRF Ltd v Competition Commission of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 239 Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 240 Gurunathan v The...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
NOMINAL INDEX
Kesava Vinayagam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The President v The State Information Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
MRF Ltd v Competition Commission of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
Gurunathan v The Deputy Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
R Anushri v The Secretary TNPSC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
MM Karthikeyan v Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
High Court of Madras v PU Venkatesan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
R Mohanakrishnan v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Kennel Club of India v The Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
Ashok Kumar v The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
REPORT
Case Title: Kesava Vinayagam v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court has refused to quash the FIR registered against Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) Organising Secretary Kesava Vinayagam in connection with the seizure of Rs.3.99 crore from a train for alleged bribing of voters during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that though the plea for quashing the FIR was not maintainable, the court needed to ensure that the person's liberty was protected. The court thus directed the investigating agency to seek the court's permission to summon Vinayagam, if they found any materials in connection with the case.
Case Title: The President v The State Information Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court has recently held that co-operative societies registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act do not fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act and thus are not bound by the Act.
Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan thus set aside an order passed by the State Information Commissioner directing Madhanam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society to furnish all information sought by a man under the RTI Act.
Case Title: MRF Ltd v Competition Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Competition Commission of India allowing an investigation to be carried out into a suspected rigging involving tyre manufacturer MRF Ltd.
Noting that MRF was not a “party” to the proceeding and yet the CCI allowed an investigation against MRF, Justice Anita Sumanth noted that an entity was entitled to know the status under which its presence and participation was sought in a statutory proceeding. The court noted that the applications and their consequences would vary depending on the status of a party in a proceeding and thus, unless a party was aware of the provision under which it was involved, it would not be able to pursue appropriate legal remedy.
Pay Rs.15Kto 20K To Junior Advocates As Monthly Stipend : Madras High Court Directs Advocates
Case Title: Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court has asked advocates and senior advocates in the State rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to pay a monthly stipend of Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 to Junior Advocates engaged with them.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan thus modified an earlier direction that the court had issued on Wednesday (12th June) asking the bar associations in the state to pay the monthly stipend. In its order released on Thursday, the court directed the Advocates to pay this amount.
The court thus fixed a minimum stipend of Rs. 20,000 for young lawyers practicing in Chennai, Madurai, and Coimbatore and a minimum stipend of Rs 15,000 for lawyers in other districts. The court added that the amounts were fixed by taking into account the basic cost of living and the expenditure costs prevalent in the state.
Case Title: Gurunathan v The Deputy Director and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court has observed that the State is expected to take care of the mentally disabled persons who are without any family support. The court added that though Section 9(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act deals with a child with disability lacking family support, the provisions could be extended to even adults who are suffering from mental disability and are lacking family support.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus came to the rescue of a father, whose son was suffering from mental illness. The court directed the Deputy Director of Directorate of Public Health, The Chief Administrative Officer of Tamil Nadu Institute of Mental Health and the Dean of Tirunelveli Medical College to take appropriate steps to take the couple's son in their custody and provide lifelong medicare to him.
Case Title: R Anushri v The Secretary TNPSC and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
The Madras High Court has directed the state government to prescribe separate norms for transgender persons in employment and educational avenues. The court added that transgender persons should not be clubbed under male or female categories and should instead be treated as a special category and the norms extended to other special categories should be extended to them.
Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan remarked that the state government was still confused about how to place transgender persons and perpetuating this confusion by placing transgender persons under the male or female category.
The court thus came to the rescue of a transwoman who wished to participate in the recruitment for a post included in Combined Civil Service Examination – II (Non-Interview Post). She had contended that by not including her under the special category, the TNPSC had denied her the opportunity to be considered.
Measurement Of Individual's Height Also Depends On Timing Of Measurement: Madras High Court
Case Title: MM Karthikeyan v Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court has recently noted that the measurement of an individual's height also depends upon the measurement's timing and that the issue regarding height should be resolved by standards and principles laid down by the court.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing the plea of a man, who was rejected from the recruitment to the Assistant Conservator of Forest post as he fell short of the minimum prescribed height by 0.5 cm. The court directed the TNPSC to round off the height and declare him as having qualified with the minimum physical standards as far as height was concerned.
Case Title: High Court of Madras v PU Venkatesan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court has held a former loco pilot guilty of committing criminal contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1971 by calling the judges criminals and sending letters to the Chief Justice of India making scandalous and reckless allegations against sitting judges of the High Court and a former judge of the Supreme Court.
Bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan deemed it appropriate to impose a maximum sentence on the man, PU Venkatesan, and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The court also directed the Inspector of Police to arrest the Venkatesan and present him before the jail authorities.
The court observed that Venkatesan's acts were contemptuous not only against the concerned judges but also the entire justice delivery system. The court also took note that Venkatesan had not shown any remorse for his actions and had rather challenged the judges to punish him.
Case Title: R Mohanakrishnan v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
The Madras High Court has recently observed that an allegation of rape of continuous molestation and harassment, unlike a lewd inappropriate remark, is a continuing misconduct and every day till the situation is redressed, a fresh cause of action arises.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that in these instances, the injury did not end by forced physical intercourse but added up every day when the victim was made to remain silent and face the molester at the workplace. The court observed that this injury was further confounded by fear of victimization and thus would amount to continuous sexual harassment.
he court added that sexual harassment caused considerable harm to women and affected their physical and mental health. The court added that often, the mental deterioration included depression, self-doubt, withdrawal from employment, fear of being labeled as a troublemaker, spoiling the organization's reputation, etc. The court added that the victims also feared being blamed for the harassment and the victimization from the employer and society.
Case Title: Kennel Club of India v The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
While closing a plea filed by the Kennel Club Of India against the Central Government's notification banning the import of certain dogs by classifying them as ferocious and dangerous, the Madras High Court remarked that the process involved public policy and thus had to be transparent.
Justice Anitha Sumanth noted that the process of classifying the dogs is related to public policy and thus attempts should be made to make the whole process transparent. The court added that the committee, to be constituted by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying for classifying the dogs should be made known to the public, thus ensuring that there are no future challenges to thwart the process.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar v The Inspector General of Registration and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court has observed that a woman's marital status should not be a determining factor while considering her child's adoption.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 which mandates consent of the other parent would not apply when the mother/father of the child to be given in adoption is absent.
The court added that when the father was wholly indifferent to the minor's matter and the mother was exclusively in charge the father could be considered to be absent as was the present case.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Mrs S Sushma & Ors v The Director General of Police and Others
Case No: WP 7284 of 2021 (Gen Crime)
The Madras High Court appreciated the Tamil Nadu government for its efforts in bringing policies for the upliftment of the members from the LGBTQ community.
Justice Anand Venkatesh granted 3 months time for the state government to finalise a policy for the upliftment of transgender persons by providing them reservation in public employment and education.
The court added that it could not micromanage the functions of the state but could only tell the state what it could do as a welfare state. The court also made it clear that it was only an enabler and the ultimate decision had to be taken by the state.
Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court on Tuesday remarked that even if the suo motu revisions taken up against the discharge/acquittal of Ministers in corruption cases are ultimately dropped, a message should go out to the public that no one should take courts for granted.
While concluding the arguments for the day, Justice Venkatesh commented that even if ultimately the suo motu revisions were to be dropped, no one should take the courts for granted. He also added that he didn't intend to micromanage the trial courts because doing so would negate the purpose of the courts.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed A Kamala, mother of Youtuber and whistle-blower Savukku Shankar to submit a representation to the State government for Shankar's temporary release for one month.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the State had the authority to decide on the issue and it would be appropriate if the State decides the representation on merits.
Case Title: M/s. Echo Recording Company v Ilaiyaraja and Others
Case No: OSA 51 of 2024
Echo Recording Studio on Thursday submitted that music Maestro Ilayaraja did not retain any copyright in his musical work after being remunerated for the same, unlike AR Rahman who specifically retained his right in the contract.
The submissions were made before a bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq. The bench was hearing an appeal against an order of a single judge holding that Ilayaraja had moral rights over his work and could exploit the same. The court had previously said that Ilayaraja's commercial transactions with music streaming platforms will depend upon the outcome of the appeal.
Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan, appearing for the music company argued that Ilayaraja had not retained the rights to the 4500 songs composed by him, unlike AR Rahman who added special clauses in the contract, thus retaining his copyright in his work even after giving it to the film producer. It was thus submitted that as per the agreements, as soon as Ilayaraja was remunerated for his work, he would lose all his rights in the work according to the Copyright Act. He added that if Ilayaraja wanted to retain his rights, he could have made an agreement to the contrary like most authors of the works did presently.