Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 342 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 348 NOMINAL INDEX Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai Murugan v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 342 M/s. Bala Bhavan Educational Trust v. Regional Transport Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 343 CS Nandhakumar v The Commissioner of Police (Traffic Wing) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 344 V Mahalakshmi v The Secretary...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 342 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
NOMINAL INDEX
Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai Murugan v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
M/s. Bala Bhavan Educational Trust v. Regional Transport Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
CS Nandhakumar v The Commissioner of Police (Traffic Wing) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
V Mahalakshmi v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Principal Secretary v Athipathi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
M/s. S. R. Steels v. The Deputy State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
Vijayraj Surana v Assistant Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
REPORTS
Case Title: Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai Murugan v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to Naam Tamilar Katchi functionary Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai Murugan. Murugan had approached the court apprehending arrest in a crime booked after his party members made objectionable comments on a post made by a police officer criticising Murugan's speech.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was inclined to grant anticipatory bail as Murgan had not personally made any comments. Thus, the court granted him bail on some conditions. It however criticised the remarks made by Murugan's party men calling it unparliamentary, sexually coloured and vilifying. The court added that before responding online, people should be cautious and ask themselves if the response was necessary.
Case Title: M/s. Bala Bhavan Educational Trust v. Regional Transport Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court stated that the Tax Concession cannot be denied just because the vehicle is registered in the name of Trust and not school.
The Bench consists of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that “the Regional Transport Officer, Chennai failed to see the objects of the assessee/petitioner Trust, it is an educational Trust. That apart, the Regional Transport Officer made demand with retrospective effect. The permits of the assessee/petitioner buses were already renewed under the caption of Educational Institution Bus.”
Case Title: CS Nandhakumar v The Commissioner of Police (Traffic Wing) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
The Tamil Nadu government has informed the Madras High Court that it would take action to remove all unauthorized and illegal no-parking signs, mud bags, and no parking barricades put up by private building owners in public roads.
The submissions were made before a bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation seeking government action to remove such illegal sign boards. The petitioner had also sought for publications through print and visual media to remove the encroachments.
The AAG assured the court that necessary instructions would be issued by the Commissioner to the officials concerned for issuing necessary guidelines and directions in the official website within two weeks.
The court then asked the AAG to also indicate in the guidelines that penal consequences would be taken against those occupying public places without any authority. Recording the State's submission, the court disposed the plea.
Case Title: V Mahalakshmi v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Madras High Court has asked the State Government to create a common centralized portal for applying for community certificates, verifying the communal status, and issuing community certificates. The court observed that there was a need for simplifying the whole process so that citizens have easy access to the facilities.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji observed that through the centralized system, an applicant should be able to apply to the authority concerned in the district he/she resides in without relegating to the native district. The court added that the system could also introduce a provision enabling the authorities to verify the communal status of the applicant based on their family's communal status who resides in the district even if the applicant is not living in that district.
The court added that a time limit should also be fixed to conclude the entire procedure so that no unnecessary delay is caused and the applicant is able to be given access to educational and employment opportunities.
Case Title: The Principal Secretary v Athipathi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
The Madras High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against an order directing the state to pay Rs 5,00,000 as compensation to the family of a child who died in the Srilankan Refugee camp.
Calling the state action “unpardonable and inexcusable”, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice Victoria Gowri dismissed the appeal and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the state to be paid to the victim child's family within two weeks.
The court also remarked that when the state government could pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation to the dependants of persons who died by consuming illicit liquor, they should not have challenged the order to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for the child who died due to the collapse of a poorly constructed and poorly maintained wall.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Order Passed Against A Dead Person
Case Title: M/s. S. R. Steels v. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madras High Court sets aside an order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer against a dead person.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “the impugned order was passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer/respondent against a dead person, who was passed away on 21.11.2019. In such case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”
The bench stated that it appears that the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 was passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer against a dead person, who was passed away on 21.11.2019. In such case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Further, since the assessee/petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the assessee to establish his case on merits, added the bench.
Case Title: Vijayraj Surana v Assistant Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
The Madras High Court has ruled that when an FIR in the predicate offense is quashed on technical grounds, it will not lead to an automatic quashing of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam ruled that the judgments in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary cannot have a blanket application and shall be applied depending on the facts of each case. The court observed that when the FIR is quashed on mere technicalities or procedural irregularities, the ECIR would not be automatically quashed.
The court observed that when the courts are dealing with applications to quash the ECIR, it should look into the grounds on which the FIR concerning the scheduled offense is quashed and after careful examination, if it is found that the FIR was quashed on substantive grounds such as absence of prima facie offense, the ECIR would also lose its significance and could be quashed. The court added that if, on careful examination, the court finds that the FIR was quashed purely on technical grounds or procedural irregularities, then the PMLA proceedings would not end.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme court collegium has recommended making five additional judges of Madras High Court permanent.
The judges are
(i) Justice L Victoria Gowri,
(ii) Justice PB Balaji,
(iii) Justice KK Ramakrishnan,
(iv) Justice R. Kalaimathi, and
(v) Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Appointing Three Judicial Officers As Judges Of Madras High Court
The Supreme court collegium has recommended appointing three judicial officers as judges of the Madras High Court
The officers are
(i) Ms R Poornima,
(ii) Shri M Jothiraman, and
(iii) Dr (Smt) Augustine Devadoss Maria Clete.
Case Title: C Kanagaraj v The Chief Secretary and Others
Case NO: WP No. 26383 of 2024
The Madras High Court has directed the Central government to respond to a public interest litigation seeking to bring down the petrol, diesel, oil and gas prices by bringing it under the GST regime.
Though the bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji initially said that it was the policy decision of the Government, the court later asked the central government to respond to the plea within 4 weeks.
The court was hearing a plea by Advocate C Kanagaraj. Kanagaraj said that the petition addresses the effects of continuously rising prices of petrol, diesel, and liquified natural gas in India on the vast population, its broader economy and the individual consumers.
Case Title: AP Suryaprakasam v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP 25034 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Thursday censured the state government and remarked that the state police had not conducted a proper inquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment of minor girls at a fake NCC camp in Krishnagiri District.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji said that the report submitted by the District Legal Service Authority of Krishnagiri District was “shocking”. The court wondered how the school had even allowed the accused Sivaraman to come to the school. The court also wondered who was behind the whole incident and why Sivaraman would have approached the school.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by Advocate AP Suryaprakasam seeking a CBI probe into the case. The court had previously directed the DLSA to visit the school, interact with the students, and submit a report. The court on Wednesday, appreciated the DLSA for its efforts but added that the report contained shocking revelations.