Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 447 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
NOMINAL INDEX
Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
Byju Nizeth Paaul v The Directorate of Collegiate Education and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
IS Inbadurai v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
S. Nirmala & Ors. v. Shanthi Harikrishnan & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
REPORT
Madras High Court Restrains Grant Of Award In M S Subbulakshmi's Name To Musician TM Krishna
Case Title: Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
The Madras High Court has restrained The Hindu from presenting the 'Sangita Kalanidhi Award' in the name of M S Subbulakshmi to musician T M Krishna.
The Court said that the Sangita Kalanidhi Award and cash prize can be granted to TM Krishna but not in the name of M S Subbulakshmi. Justice G Jayachandran passed the interim order in a suit filed by the grandson of M S Subbulakshmi saying that the conferment of the award was against her wish and mandate. While dismissing an application filed by the Music Academy challenging the suit moved by the grandson, the court also noted that Shrinivasan, Subbulakshmi's grandson had the locus to maintain the suit since he was a beneficiary of Subbulakshmi's will.
Case Title: Byju Nizeth Paaul v The Directorate of Collegiate Education and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
The Madras High Court has suggested bringing in a statutory body to regulate the affairs of the church and church properties, similar to the charitable endowments of Hindus and Muslims.
Justice N Satish Kumar noted that matters of trusts, trustees, charities and religious endowments and religious institutions fall under the Concurrent list and thus there was no bar for the Central Government or the State government to bring in a legislation to this effect.
The court added that a Statutory Board could be established to make the institutions more accountable and to regulate their affairs. The court also noted that while "charitable endowments of Hindus and Muslims are subject to statutory regulation" however no such comprehensive regulation exists for endowments of Christians; the only scrutiny/oversight over the affairs of these institutions is by way of a suitunder Section 92 CPC.
The court noted that of late, there was an increase in litigations related to church properties where the courts have observed mismanagement of church properties and its funds. The court added that since these institutions were involved in public functions in the form of educational institutions, hospitals etc and since their functioning would affect the public at large, it was necessary to protect and safeguard the assets and funds of the institutions.
Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy
Case Title: IS Inbadurai v The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
The Madras High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a probe into the Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy that claimed the lives of around 67 persons after consuming illicit arrack.
A bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji directed the CBI to conduct the probe as expeditiously as possible and also directed the CB-CID to handover the case files and extend cooperation to the investigation. The orders were passed in a batch of petitions seeking a CBI inquiry into the incidents.
The petitioners had argued that the state machinery had failed in tackling the sale and consumption of spurious liquor. It was contended that hooch tragedy incidents were not new to the state and that the entire system of Tamil Nadu including the police, revenue authorities, etc had failed which was evident from the preset incident in Kallakurichi.
Case Title: S. Nirmala & Ors. v. Shanthi Harikrishnan & Ors., OSA.Nos.187 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
In a recent case, the Madras High Court dismissed the application to eschew the cross-examination evidence of a defendant witness from the proceedings.
The bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice A.D. Maria Clete noted that once cross-examination evidence is validly recorded under oath, it cannot be expunged from the proceedings, as the statutory provisions do not permit such an action.
“If a witness has been cross-examined under oath and an objection arises later concerning the interest of the party who cross-examined the witness, questioning its adverseness and the priority of cross-examination, the previously recorded evidence cannot be eschewed. However, the court should assess the probative value of such evidence in the final evaluation of the case.”, the court observed.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court on Thursday asked the State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah to facilitate a meeting between the bar bodies in the State and the Director General of Police to come up with solutions to address the issue of frequent attacks on lawyers.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy gave the suggestion when Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran, Vice Chairman of Bar Council of India, made a mention of the recent incident of a lawyer being stabbed outside the court complex at Hosur in Krishnagiri District. The Senior advocate informed the court that the entire bar body was disturbed by the recent attacks on lawyers and pointed out that there was no safety mechanism to protect the legal community.