Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 367 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
NOMINAL INDEX
Ankur Grand Owners Association v The District Registrar (Admin), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Principal & Secretary v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
Mr.Mani @ Velumani v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
K Sethuraj v State of Tamil Nadu (and other connected cases), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
Suo Motu v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
M/s.Sterling Futures and Holidays Ltd. v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
AR Dairy Food Private Limited v The Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
G Prem Kumar v District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Department v. M/s. Supreme Coaters & Fabricators, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
V.Kannan @ Kanal Kannan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
REPORT
Case Title: Ankur Grand Owners Association v The District Registrar (Admin)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Madras High Court has stayed the order of a single judge which had ruled that the flat owners could not charge a transfer fee on every resale of the flat.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji have stayed by 8 weeks the order passed by the single judge. The stay was granted on an appeal filed by the Ankur Grand Owners Association challenging the May 2023 decision of Justice SM Subramaniam.
The single judge had observed that if the association was permitted to collect a transfer fee on every resale of a flat, it would not only result in discrimination but also result in multiple collections of corpus funds on every resale or transfer of property. The court had ruled that in the absence of any statutory provision, the association could not be allowed to levy and collect transfer fees on the purchase of pre-owned flats.
Case Title: The Principal & Secretary v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court recently held that the UGC regulations prescribing setting up of a selection committee for the appointment of assistant professor was not applicable to minority institutions.
Justice RN Manjula noted that since the selection committee includes outsiders, giving them the power to select the appointees for the post of Assistant Professors would amount to interfering with the administration of the minority institution. The court added that the administration of the affairs of the institution cannot be given in the hands of outsiders.
The court also observed that mandating the UGC regulation of selection committees to these institutions would interfere with their autonomous status. The court thus noted that the selection of faculties in minority institutions could not be compelled to be made through the selection committee contemplated in the UGC regulations.
Case Title: Mr.Mani @ Velumani v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court recently asked the State government to reconsider and recirculate its decision to reject a life convict's pre-mature release.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that the State had rejected the request of the prisoner by merely stating that he had committed a heinous crime and that he had not served 14 years in prison. Noting that reasons were the lifeline for administrative decisions, the court observed that the government should assign proper reasons in each and every case.
The court observed that under Article 226 of the Constitution, though the court could not test the policy of the State government, the court had to see if the State had exercised its power of discretion in compliance with the rules of natural justice.
Case Title: Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
The Madras High Court recently stayed a lookout circular issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation against a Seychelles citizen. The court thus permitted the man to travel to Malaysia.
Justice N Seshasayee noted that when Article 21 of the Constitution extended to non-citizens, it would also include the dignified existence of a foreign national facing a criminal charge in India.
The court also opined that the object of the criminal justice system was only to secure the presence of the accused at the trial and it should not be taken as a license to interfere with the personal life of the accused. The court remarked that the criminal justice system was best administered when the inconvenience to the personal life of the accused was the least.
Case Title: K Sethuraj v State of Tamil Nadu (and other connected cases)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
The Madras High Court on Tuesday permitted the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct its proposed route march on the occasion of Vijayadasami.
A single judge bench of Justice G Jayachandran permitted the route marches to be carried out as per the earlier guidelines issued by the High Court in January this year for conducting the route marches. The court had also commented that despite detailed guidelines of the court previously, the government had flouted the orders forcing the organisers to approach the court again.
The court also orally remarked that the police were expected to protect the public as well as the organisers and could not avoid giving permissions for such permissions for route marches citing law and order problems. The court said that it expected the police in the state to follow the court orders at least in the future and not trouble the court by inventing new and fanciful reasons for rejection.
Case Title: Suo Motu v The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
The Madras High Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation of a case relating to the sexual assault of a minor girl in Anna Nagar in Chennai.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam asked the CBI to take over the case as the court was not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation was being carried out by the State police. The court noted that the victim's examination was conducted in the busy corridors of the Kilpauk Government Medical College and her parents were allegedly beaten up in the police station while the alleged accused was given a chair to sit.
The court also noted that the video and audio of the examination of the witness were publicized online and instead of finding the person who had shared the files in the first place, the police had merely registered FIRs against a Youtuber and a Journalist who had shared the files and who talked about the incident.
Case Title: M/s.Sterling Futures and Holidays Ltd. v Directorate of Enforcement,
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
The Madras High Court recently observed that under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the properties that are acquired even before the alleged scheduled offence could be attached when criminal activity has taken place outside the country. The court highlighted that the properties sought to be attached need not be purchased from and out of the proceeds of crime.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam also noted that as per Section 70 of the Act, a company could be prosecuted and the prosecution or conviction of the company, which is a legal jurisdictional person will not be dependent on the prosecution or conviction of any individual.
Case Title: AR Dairy Food Private Limited v The Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, directed the Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu to issue a fresh notice to AR Dairy Food Private Limited on allegations of supplying adulterated ghee to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam for making of laddu.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the authority had issued the show cause notices for suspending the license merely on the basis of a report from a laboratory in Gujarat, without following the due provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation 2011. The court noted that the authority should have given a reasonable time to the company to respond to the show cause notice.
The court also noted that the impugned notice issued by the authority contained vague allegations and did not contain details of the specific violation committed by the dairy unit. The court reiterated the Supreme Court's remark to conduct an investigation by keeping God away from politics. The court thus asked the authority to issue a fresh notice to the company, containing details of the allegations and to give a reasonable time to the company to respond.
Case Title: G Prem Kumar v District Collector
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
The Madras High Court recently directed the National Highways Department to disburse the compensation amount to a man who had a better title to the property but was not given compensation due to a title dispute.
Justice N Satish Kumar noted that the objection was made after a long time which showed an attempt to make inroads the property sold in 1972.
Case Title: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Department v. M/s. Supreme Coaters & Fabricators
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
The Madras High Court stated that if notice for completing assessment issued within limitation, then assessment order is within time even if passed beyond period of three years.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “as per Section 24(5), no assessment shall be made after a period of three years from the end of the year to which the return under the Act relates. The test to be applied is whether the notice for completing the assessment was issued within limitation i.e., three years to which the returns relate to. If so, even if the Assessment Order is passed beyond the period of three years, it will be in time.”
Case Title: V.Kannan @ Kanal Kannan v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against Kannan @ Kanal Kannan for his statements on the statue of Periyar containing statements against believers, being placed outside a Hindu Temple.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the statue contained provocative words against believers which was the cause of Kannan's speech and thus the person who provoked the speech could not seek prosecution for a reaction to his own provocation.
The court noted that after uploading the speech on YouTube, there had been no disturbance to public peace or tranquility, no riot, or no promotion of enmity between classes. The court further observed that before installing the statue, the members of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, of which the defacto complainant was a member, should have realized that the plaque on the statue would hurt the sentiments of the believers.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: S Kamaraj v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: HCP 2487 of 2024
The Madras High Court has sought for details of criminal cases registered against the Isha Foundation, after a father approached the court claiming that his two daughters were being held captive in the Isha Foundation run by Jaggi Vasudev and being brainwashed there.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam called for details even after the alleged detainees appeared before the court and submitted that they were residing at the foundation of their own volition and that they were not detained.
Noting that some deliberation was required in the matter to unearth the truth, the court asked the petitioner and the Additional Advocate General to submit the details of the cases registered against the institution.
Advocate Moves Madras High Court To Allow Lawyers To Personally Meet And Consult Clients In Prison
Case Title: P Ananda Kumar v The Director General of Police (Prison) and Others
Case No: WP 28839 of 2024
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the recent practice in Puzhal prison where the authorities were not allowing lawyers to directly meet their clients. The prison department had introduced a telecom system through which the accused and the lawyers could talk sitting across a barricade board.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam was hearing a plea filed by Ananda Kumar, an advocate practicing in the Madras High Court.
Kumar submitted that the prison department had not allowed him to meet his clients in the prison directly, and they had set up telephones in one room and barricade board in another room. He informed the court that the prison department had imposed an online booking procedure to meet the accused and even after finishing the formal online reservation, it had become difficult to meet the accused.
Case Title: P Ellan v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP 28894 of 2024
The Madras High Court has asked the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) to take a call on registering the Samsung India Thozhilalar Sangam, a trade union of employees in Samsung India.
Justice RN Manjula said that it was upon the Deputy Commissioner to take a call and appreciate the reasonableness and concern of the Management as well as registering the trade union. The state had informed the court that the Samsung management had objected to the registration of the union saying that their name should not be used for the registration of the Thozhilalar Sangam. The court has asked the Deputy Commissioner to take a call within 2 weeks and adjourned the case.
Case Title: Palanivelu v The Chief Secretary To Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP(MD) 23631 of 2024
The Madras High Court has ordered notice in a plea seeking to remove dialogues glorifying encounters in the upcoming Rajnikanth starrer film Vettaiyan.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice Victoria Gowri ordered notice to the Chief Secretary to the Government, the Central Board of Film Certification, and Lyca Production in a plea filed by Palanivelu from Madurai.
In his plea, Palanivel pointed out that in the recently released trailer of the movie Vettaiyan, Rajnikanth's character was seen saying that “encounter is not only a punishment but also a preventive action to stop such crimes”. Palanivel pointed out that if such unconstitutional dialogues were permitted to be screened, the public would soon start demanding encounters in every criminal case rather than putting the offender behind bars by judicial trials. He added that such a situation would lead to the accused being defenseless by losing his fundamental right to defense ingrained under Article 21 of the Constitution.