Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 271 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 NOMINAL INDEX EDAC Engineering v. Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd, Application Nos 2080 and 4609 of 2021, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 271 Dr. V. Kalanidhi v State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 SV v. MR, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 273 Selvam v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 Mariappan v Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 271 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
NOMINAL INDEX
EDAC Engineering v. Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd, Application Nos 2080 and 4609 of 2021, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
Dr. V. Kalanidhi v State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
SV v. MR, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Selvam v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
Mariappan v Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
Ramya S Moorthy v Registrar of Trade Marks, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
Davidraj v Palanivel, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
REPORT
Case Title: EDAC Engineering v. Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd, Application Nos 2080 and 4609 of 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
The High Court of Madras has held that once a party has unconditionally accepted the fees fixed by the arbitral tribunal during the arbitral proceeding cannot later challenge the fees of the arbitral tribunal by filing petition under Section 39(2) of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose clarified that as per Section 39(1) of the Act, the arbitral tribunal possesses a lien on the award to cover any outstanding arbitration costs, and it has the authority to withhold the award's delivery until these costs are settled. Additionally, the Court emphasized that once a party unconditionally accepts the fees set by the tribunal during arbitration, they cannot later challenge the fees as unreasonable and request the release of the lien under Section 39(2).
Case Title: Dr. V. Kalanidhi v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
The Madras High Court recently directed DMK MP Dr. V Kalanidhi to vacate the Government Land, where he was running a private hospital, within one month and directed the government authorities to initiate actions to recover all; lawful dues from him as per law.
Justice SM Subramaniam rejected Kalanidhi’s submission that the land was “Grama Natham” which he had acquired from Vendors who were the owners of the property and hence the Government did not have any right over the land. The court noted that the land had been classified as “Government Puramboke” land and thus, the MP was encroaching on the land.
The court added that even assuming the land was not reclassified as Government Puramboke land, the Grama Natham lands were meant for housing the poor and could not be used for commercial purposes. Thus, the court noted that the Government was duty-bound to regulate the Grama Natham lands for the benefit of homeless poor people without any discrimination.
Case Title: SV v. MR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
While refusing to interfere with an order of maintenance made by the Family Court, the Madras High Court has observed that a husband is liable to pay maintenance to his wife and child even if he is on an academic break to pursue a Ph.D.
“The amount awarded in our opinion would be just about sufficient for sustainance of one human being at the cost of living today. Merely because the petitioner has taken a study holiday or an Academic break, his duty to maintain his wife and child cannot take the back seat,” the court observed.
Case Title: Selvam v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
While allowing the plea of a life convict prisoner to go on ordinary leave for 40 days, the Madras High Court emphasized that the fundamental rights of a prisoner do not end at the prison gates. The court noted that the prisoner had sought leave to make arrangements for the admission of his children and to repair his homestead both of which were covered by the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Shakthivel also emphasized that the rules governing leave were subordinate legislation that could not interfere with the constitutional powers of the court especially when it pertained to Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Mariappan v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court has recently observed that though there is a statutory presumption with respect to the guilt of an accused under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), this presumption will not operate when the prosecution has failed to prove some foundational facts with respect to the case.
Justice K Murali Shankar thus acquitted a man, Mariappan, convicted under the Act after noting that the prosecution had failed to prima facie prove that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl.
The court also lamented that the police had failed to identify the real culprit even after knowing that the accused was not the biological father of the child born to the victim. The court added that it was painful that the police had stopped their investigation with the accused, because of which the real culprit was roaming in the society.
Noting that no child should be allowed to be bastardized, the court directed the police to proceed with further investigation to find out the real culprit within a period of four months. To negate the possibility of implicating other innocent persons by the police agency, the court also directed the police to conduct DNA test on the suspected accused without arresting them, and proceed with law only if the test proves positive.
Case Title: Ramya S Moorthy v Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court recently observed that the time limit of two months prescribed under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 for filing a counter-statement to a notice of opposition would run from the date of receipt of the E-mail and not from the date of sending the E-mail.
While Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act says that the applicant should send the counter-statement of the grounds for application within two months of “receipt of notice”, Rule 18(2) of the Trade Mark Rules 2017 says that the document would be deemed to be served at the time of sending the e-mail.
Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy said Rule 18 created a legal fiction with regard to service of notice and was not in consonance with Section 21(2) of the Act. Considering that the substantive right of an applicant was at stake, the court concluded that the time limit would run from the date of receipt of the email.
Case Title: Davidraj v Palanivel
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a client who had been proceeded against the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a complaint by a lawyer for dishonor of cheque by observing that a fee, which is per se illegal as per the Legal Practitioners Rules, will not be a legal claim and a legal liability could not be fastened upon the client to pay the same.
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai Bench thus quashed the proceedings before the Fast Track Court in Madurai after observing that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the client would be an abuse of the process of law.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Principal Sessions Court, Chennai has dismissed an application filed by Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji seeking bail in connection with a money laundering case. Balaji, who is currently serving as a Minister without portfolio, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on June 14 this year.
Principal Sessions Judge S Alli noted that allegations against Balaji are "categorical" and disclose that he has a "definite role" in the commission of offence charged against him.
Court added that Balaji has failed to fulfil the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, for grant of bail.
Case Title: Edappadi K Palaniswami v Udhayanidhi Stalin
Case No: OA/784/2023 in CS 180/2023
The Madras High Court on Thursday granted interim injunction in favour of Edappadi Palaniswami, General Secretary of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) thus restraining Youth Welfare and Sports Development Minister Udayanidhi Stalin from making defamatory statements against the former.
Justice RN Manjula observed that both Palaniswami and Udhayanidhi Stalin were political figures who were in the habit of making statements against each other but when statements were made against persons, which could affect their integrity, a suit for damages was maintainable.
Thus, finding a balance of convenience in favour of Palaniswami, the court said that it was inclined to grant an interim injunction to Palaniswami for two weeks.
Youtuber and commentator A Shankar, popularly known as “Savukku Shankar” has approached the Madras High Court seeking to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against former DMK MP RS Bharathi for his “scandalizing remarks” against Justice Anand Venkatesh, judge of Madras High Court.
Though Advocate P Vijendran requested for an urgent hearing, the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu asked him to give a written request to the Registrar (Judicial) and said that the matter would be listed within a week if the papers were in order.
Case Title: N Mahendra Babu v. The Registrar General
Case No: WP 22971 of 2023
A lawyer has approached the Madras High Court seeking framing of rules as to the maximum number of advocates who may appear and accompany a litigant, including VIPs and VVIPs, whenever they appear in the subordinate courts.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that though submissions were made with respect to the powers of the Bar Council to frame rules, the Bar Council was not made a party. Following this, the Bar Council was made a party.
It was submitted that in Tamil Nadu, it had become a routine culture for politicians to show mass and their popularity while appearing for court hearing. He alleged that politicians are even in the habit of paying money to the advocates while appearing for trial. He added that even media persons were causing havoc and greater degree of nuisance within the court premises.
Since there is no upper limitation to the number of lawyers appearing for a single accused, he made a representation to the Registrar general also. Thus, he prayed for framing rules with respect to the number of advocates who could represent the clients.