A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and the district courts of Tamil Nadu Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164 NOMINAL INDEX The Director of School Education and Others v. M Velayutham and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 S Raja v M/s.Hindustan Unilever Ltd and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 161 Abubakkar Shithik v...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and the district courts of Tamil Nadu
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
NOMINAL INDEX
The Director of School Education and Others v. M Velayutham and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
S Raja v M/s.Hindustan Unilever Ltd and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
Abubakkar Shithik v State and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
Saravanan v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Kennel Club of India and others v. The Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
REPORTS
Case Title: The Director of School Education and Others v. M Velayutham and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
The Madras High Court recently held that any teachers who have been appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher or a Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant prior to July 29, 2011, are eligible to continue in service even if they have not qualified Teacher’s Eligibility Test but they must possess the TET to be eligible for consideration to future promotional prospects.
The court struck down a Government Order issued by the School Education Department prescribing that a pass in TET was mandatory only for direct recruitment to the post of BT Assistant and not for promotion. The court said that TET is mandatory for all teachers appointed after July 29, 2011, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion.
Case Title: S Raja v M/s.Hindustan Unilever Ltd and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
The Madras High Court recently observed that use of abusive language is not of such a serious nature so as to impose the "capital punishment" of dismissal from service.
The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice R Kalaimathi interfered with an order of single judge who had set aside the labour court order for reinstating the workman with backwages. The court noted that while awarding punishment, the management has to take into account the gravity of the offence and the previous record of the workman along with other circumstances
Case Title: Abubakkar Shithik v State and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
The Madras High Court recently observed that the offence under Section 127A of the Representation of Peoples Act is a non cognizable one.
Justice Sunder Mohan held that since the punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment for a period of six months, as per Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code, it would be a non cognizable offence.
Case Title: Saravanan v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Madras High Court has directed the State Public Prosecutor to give instructions to the police officers appearing before court to come prepared with the particulars of the case.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandra passed the direction in a bail petition after noting that the police officer who was deputed by the investigation agency to assist the public prosecutor was fumbling in the court without knowing the particulars of the case.
Madras High Court Quashes Notification Banning Import Of Dogs For Commercial Activities
Case Title: The Kennel Club of India and others v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a notification issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade imposing a ban on import of dogs in the country for commercial breeding or other commercial activities.
“The absolute ban now imposed is on the basis that import of dogs for commercial breeding will bring foreign diseases to India as well as contaminate native gene pool. As far as import of alien diseases is concerned, there are effective measures for quarantine and testing of the animals prior to permitting entry into India. Thus, this can be no reason to justify the ban,” Justice Anita Sumanth said.
The court observed that the impugned notification has no legs to stand and that the alleged deliberations of the concerned ministries who were involved in the impugned ban are stated to have been destroyed.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Madras High Court's Forest Bench To Hear Plea To Relocate Wild Tusker 'Arikomban' To Kerala
Case Title: Rebecca Joseph v Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden and Others
Case No: WP(MD) 13060 of 2023
The Madras High Court on Tuesday said that it'll post the public interest litigation seeking translocation of the rogue elephant Arikomban to Kerala before the forest bench.
A division bench comprising Justice R Subramanian and Justice Victoria Gowri ordered the same on a Public Interest Litigation filed by Rebecca Joseph, a native of Kerala. In her petition, Rebecca sought for a modification of a site to where Arikomban was being translocated.
The court said that since a forest bench comprising of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was dealing a batch of cases relating to western ghats and other forest issues, it would be better if the bench hears this matter.
Chennai Court Grants Bail To Kalakshetra Faculty Member In Sexual Harassment Case
The Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, has granted bail to Hari Padman, a faculty member of Rukmini Devi College, run by Kalakshetra foundation, who has been accused of sexually harassing students.
Padman had previously approached the Madras High Court seeking bail but the petition was withdrawn. On Tuesday, another bail petition filed by Padman was taken up by Justice AD Jagadish Chandira. However, Padman's counsel informed the court that he has been granted bail and thus, sought to withdraw the petition which the court allowed.
While talking about media trial in criminal cases, the Madras High Court noted that it was important to educate and enlighten the media with regard to the limitations on freedom of speech and expression. The court added that every agency should be able to function on its own without encroaching into the dominion of another agency.
The division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh added that press reporting may in some cases lead to unwarranted publicity and court reporting by "legally challenged reporters" may lead to misguided reports. The court said that these reports will in turn have a counter productive impact.
While discussing the scope of Section 65A and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in the present scenario, the Madras High Court lamented that it was rather unfortunate that the provision which was found obsolete by the United Kingdom in the year 1995 was accepted by the Indian Legislature in the year 1999.
The division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the law is traceable to the Civil Evidence Act,1968 and Police and Criminal Evidence Act,1984 of the United Kingdom. The provisions relating to electronic evidence were repealed in 1995 (Civil Evidence Act) and 1999 (Criminal Evidence Act), it noted.
The court added that adoption of these laws by the Indian legislature has meant that certificate requirement conceived by UK in 1960 is made applicable to modern computers in 2000.
The National Commission For Women on Wednesday urged the Madras High Court Registrar to take immediate cognizance of the lack of toilets for female lawyers at the Nilgiris Court Complex. The commission asked the Registrar to communicate the steps taken within three days.
NCW also said that providing such functional toilets is not only a matter of gender equality but also essential for creating an inclusive work environment.
In a heartwarming gesture, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira of Madras High Court on Wednesday gave a special seat to one of his law interns, a fourth year law student from School of Excellence in Law, Tamil Nadu.
Gayathri, who is differently abled, joined as legal intern in the office of Justice Jagadish Chandira on Tuesday. Today, in between court proceedings, the judge asked her if she was able to observe the proceedings. When he got to know that she was having difficulty in following the court proceedings, the judge accommodated her by giving a special seat close to the court staff.