Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 335 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 341 NOMINAL INDEX BL Madhavan v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 335 ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 336 V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 337 Tamil Selvan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 338 Shobha Karandlaje v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 339 Usha v The Director General of Police and...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 335 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
NOMINAL INDEX
BL Madhavan v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
Tamil Selvan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
Shobha Karandlaje v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
Usha v The Director General of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
Thirumurugan v The State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
REPORT
Case Title: BL Madhavan v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
The Madras High Court has called for action against a lawyer who misused his position and forged rental agreements. The court observed that the lawyer was liable to be prosecuted for misconduct under the Advocates Act 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules 1975.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that lawyers enjoy a status in society and are expected to maintain good conduct. In the present case, the court noted that the lawyer had abused his position which would cause disrepute to the legal profession.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
The Madras High Court has ordered that courts have power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant interim maintenance to a Muslim woman who has filed for divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act 1939.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that though the Act does not have a provision for granting interim maintenance, the court cannot shut its eyes when the wife comes to the court saying that she has no means. The court added that the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act was introduced to ameliorate the status of Muslim women and thus had to be given a purposive interpretation.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
Former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji who has been in ED custody since June 2023 in connection with a cash-for-job money laundering case has withdrawn a revision petition filed by him challenging the decision of the Special Judge refusing to discharge him from the proceedings.
Balaji's counsel told the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam that since the trial in the PMLA case has already begun and the witness examination has already started, he wished to withdraw the revision petition. The court noted the submission and dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Case Title: Tamil Selvan v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
While refusing to set aside the conviction of a sports teacher who was convicted for harassing a 12th Standard student during a State-level match, the Madras High Court remarked that the right to enjoy a safe and supportive sports environment is a fundamental right of every female sports person.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that as per a report published by the Ungender titled 'Sexual Harassment in Sports in India', sexual harassment was at an all-time high. The court noted that perpetrators of such crimes had to be suitably dealt with. Noting that a prompt law to deal with such issues was required, the court issued directions to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to address the issue of protection of women participants in sports from sexual harassment in the interest of sports education and transparent participation of women in sports.
The court also directed the State Government to permit either parents or guardians of the girl participating in state competition to accompany them at state cost to prevent harassment.
Case Title: Shobha Karandlaje v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed the FIR registered against Union Minister Shobha Karandlaje for her remarks linking Rameshwaram Café bombers to the people of Tamil Nadu.
Justice G Jayachandran allowed Karandlaje's petition after Advocate General PS Raman informed the court that considering Karandlaje's profound apology, the state has taken a policy decision to not pursue the matter further.
Case Title: Usha v The Director General of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
The Madras High Court has remarked against High Courts entertaining premature petitions for ordinary leave of prisoners. The court noted that the competent authorities must be allowed to take a decision by following due procedure as per the statutory time limit provided under the Act.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar also observed that the authorities were duty-bound to follow the time limits stipulated in the rules and process the applications for ordinary leave. The court added that any lapse, on the part of the authorities, must be viewed as a dereliction of duty and disciplinary action should be initiated against the concerned officer. The court stressed that the prison authorities should protect the rights of the prisoners.
Case Title: Thirumurugan v The State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever opinions are expressed about the functioning of the Government, the members of the ruling party could not assume that the same would amount to promoting enmity.
Justice G Jayachandran added that the police should be responsible while registering FIR in such cases and must proceed with registering FIR only upon getting a proper legal opinion.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: M.S Jaffer Sait v The Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: Crl OP 17762 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Tuesday reserved orders on a plea by retired DGP Jaffer Sait seeking to quash proceedings initiated against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The allegation against Sait was that he had received illegal allotment of Tamil Nadu Housing Board plots in Chennai. Following a complaint, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption registered a case against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act and subsequently, an ECIR was also registered based on the FIR.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam reserved orders after “re-hearing” the case. Interestingly on August 21, the bench, in open court had said that it would quash the proceedings against Sait since the proceedings under the Predicate offence had already been quashed.
Union Minister Shobha Karandlaje who was in the eye of the storm for her comments linking the Rameswaram Café bombers to the state of Tamil Nadu has filed an affidavit in the Madras High Court apologizing for her remarks. The affidavit was filed in a plea seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her following the remarks.
In her affidavit, Karandlaje said that she made the comments without any intention to hurt the sentiments and feelings of the people of Tamil Nadu. She added that after realizing that her comments had hurt the sentiments of the people of the State, she retracted the statement and also tendered a profound apology. Karandlajea added that she had the highest respect and regard to the people of Tamil Nadu.
Case Title: S Kalavathi v State and Others
Case No: WP 19668 of 2024
The Madras High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, CBCID to register criminal cases against prison officials who have been accused of using convicted prisoners to do their household work and have been accused of harassing the prisoners inside the jail.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam directed an investigation after going through a report of the Vellore Chief Judicial Magistrate in which the Magistrate informed the court that the prisoners were harassed and tortured in jail and were illegally utilized in the residence of the jail authorities.
Noting that the report “shocked the conscience of the court”, the bench observed that the accused officers had not only violated the service conditions but also indulged in the commission of offenses. The court added that these were serious allegations that required detailed investigation.