Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 131 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142 NOMINAL INDEX T.Senguttuvan v Ashokkumar K and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 131 Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 132 Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 133 Simon and Others v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 134 Srikaran V @ Murugan v The Director...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 131 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
NOMINAL INDEX
T.Senguttuvan v Ashokkumar K and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
Simon and Others v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
Srikaran V @ Murugan v The Director of Rehabilitation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
Tvl.Vardhan Infrastructure Versus The Special Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
Auro Logistics Ltd Versus The Assistant Director (SRO), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
Ezhilan v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
K Ramachandran v The District Educational Officer (Elementary Education), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
Netvantage Technologies Pvt Ltd v The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
M/s.Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
State of Tamil Nadu v MK Stalin, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
REPORT
Case Title: T.Senguttuvan v Ashokkumar K and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court has ordered the recounting of 605 postal ballot votes which were rejected without assigning proper reasons in the Krishnagiri constituency during the 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
Justice PT Asha directed the Registrar General of Madras High Court to name any of the Registrars to supervise the counting of the postal ballot votes and submit a report on the reasons recorded for rejecting the postal ballot votes, whether reasons were recorded on each postal ballot/cover and whether the number of votes rejected under each head detailed in Form 20 tallied with the number of votes rejected under the respective heads.
Case Title: Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that Hostel services providing welling to girl students and working women will be exempt from the GST regime as they are residential dwelling units for the girl students and working women.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stressed the work “residential dwelling” referred to in Entry 12 of the Exemption Notification No. 12 of 2017 would include hostel facilities also. While noting that residential dwelling varies from person to person, the court added as far as hostellers were concerned, after their avocation, they stay, sleep, eat, wash etc in the hostel rooms alone thus making it their residential dwelling.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
The Madras High Court recently disposed of a suo motu plea the court had taken up in light of untoward incidents taking place during funeral processions in the state of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy closed the suo moto writ petition after the Director General of Police informed it of the instructions given to all the SDOs and SHOs for preventing untoward incidents.
The court had taken suo motu cognizance based on a letter it had received from one Anbu Selval regarding an unfortunate incident that took place because of throwing garland during the funeral procession.
Case Title: Simon and Others v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
The Madras High Court has recently observed that when there is no prohibitory order existing under S. 144 CrPC, there was no illegality in a few people assembling and demonstrating against the police and the same would not constitute an offense.
Justice M Dhandapani of the Madurai bench made the observation in a plea seeking to quash the FIR registered against a group of men who were demonstrating against the police inaction in a matter of the death of one Silambarasan due to police brutality.
Case Title: Srikaran V @ Murugan v The Director of Rehabilitation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
The Sri Lankan High Commission has informed the Madras High Court that temporary travel documents have been issued to Balasundaram Robert Payas, Mr. Vetrivel Srikaran, and Mr. Shanmugalingam Jeyakumar, convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case allowing them to be deported to Sri Lanka.
The submission was made before the bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu. The court was dealing with a plea filed by Srikaran seeking directions to the Director of Rehabilitation to issue a photo ID card to him allowing him to apply for travel documents.
Case Title: Tvl.Vardhan Infrastructure Versus The Special Secretary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
The Madras High Court has held that in the absence of notification for cross-empowerment, action taken by counterparts was without jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the manner in which the provisions have been designed is to ensure that there is no cross-interference by the counterparts. The only exception provided is under Section 6 of the respective GST enactment. Therefore, in the absence of a notification for cross-empowerment, the actions taken by the respondents are without jurisdiction. Officers under the State or Central Tax Administration, as the case may be, cannot usurp the power of investigation or adjudication of an assessee who is not assigned to them.
Case Title: Auro Logistics Ltd Versus The Assistant Director (SRO)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The Madras High Court has held that the inquiry will have to be continued by the adjudicating authority as per the notification in vogue and not by the adjudicating authority under the superseded notification.
The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy has observed that the phrase “except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession...” would mean that whatever acts are done till the date of issuance of the notification superseding the earlier notification are saved.
The court held that the show cause notice issued under Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2000 before the issuance of the notification dated September 27, 2018 was saved. The proceedings cannot proceed before the person who was an adjudicating authority under the notification has already been superseded. The inquiry will have to be continued by the adjudicating authority as per the notification in vogue and not by the adjudicating authority under the superseded notification.
Case Title: Ezhilan v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea questioning the gap between the date of polling and the date of counting in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the plea does not espouse any public cause and that the court could not issue directions to the Election Commission of India regarding the manner of conducting elections.
Case Title: K Ramachandran v The District Educational Officer (Elementary Education)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
The Madras High Court has recently observed that there was no bar on a department for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee for grave misconduct even if the misconduct was not in connection with the discharge of duty.
The Madurai bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice C Kumarappan made the observations on a plea filed by one Ramachandran questioning the charge memo.
Case Title: Netvantage Technologies Pvt Ltd v The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the Registering Authorities or the District Registrars are quasi-judicial authorities and are not empowered to cancel Sale Deeds through summary proceedings.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that the District Registrar only had powers to form an opinion regarding errors, omissions or violations during the course of registration or violations of procedures under the Act. The bench noted that for cancelling Sale Deeds, a trial was warranted which could only be undertaken by a Civil court and not the Registrar.
The court further added that though the Registrars had power to refuse registration of documents if found to be fraudulent, this power was limited. The court noted that while conducting a summary enquiry, if the District Registrar found that there was a prima facie proof to establish fraud or impersonation, only then the document could be cancelled. Thus, if there was any iota of doubt on the prima facie case, the District Registrar was not empowered to adjudicate the issue on merits and was bound to relegate the parties to the civil court.
Case Title: M/s.Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range and ordered de-freezing the bank account of Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust after finding that the trust's account was frozen under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act without conducting proper inquiry.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that as per Section 7(1) of the UAPA while passing a prohibitory order, an inquiry had to be conducted. The court noted that in the present case, no such inquiry had been conducted. Thus, the court found the order violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v MK Stalin
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
The Madras High Court recently allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to withdraw cases that the state had filed against CM MK Stalin. The cases were initiated in 2019 when the AIADMK party was in power. The case relates to the alleged irregularities in the construction of Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex.
While allowing the State's request to withdraw the case the bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the court could not compel a party to pursue the case when the party itself wanted to abandon the case without reserving any rights
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Former Tamil Nadu CM O Panneerselvam on Monday defended his discharge from a corruption case. Pannerselvam argued that merely because a prosecution was initiated against him, it could not be said that he was guilty of corruption. He argued that the prosecution initiated against him was merely due to political differences and a further investigation, which brought to light the relevant materials finding him not guilty was not illegal.
The submissions were made by Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda before Justice Anand Venkatesh.