A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.1. Focus On Circumstances Of Girl's Suicide, Don't Harass Person Who Filmed Allegations About Religious Conversion: Madras High Court Tells PoliceCase Title: M v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.In a petition filed for transfer of investigation pertaining to the demise of a 17-year-old girl to...
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Case Title: M v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
In a petition filed for transfer of investigation pertaining to the demise of a 17-year-old girl to CB-CID or other independent investigating agencies, Madurai bench of Madras High Court asked the police authorities to focus on the circumstances that led to her suicide.
The court said so in light of allegations that the police was harassing the person who allegedly videographed the girl while she was making allegations about pressure exerted on her for religious conversion. Since there has been no doubt as to the credibility of postmortem conducted by doctors from Thanjavur Medical College, the bench of Justice G.R Swaminathan asked the District Collector to make necessary arrangements to transfer the body to the deceased child's native place.
Case Title: Dr.M.Nakkeeran v. The State Election Commissioner & Ors. & Connected Matters
The Madras High Court expressed its difficulty in allowing the plea for postponing the urban local body polls in light of the worsening pandemic situation, given the prevailing Supreme Court order requiring the State Election Commission to notify the polls within four months, latest by January 27.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu orally remarked that it cannot go against the Supreme Court order mandating the notifying of elections within four months.
Case Title: M.Sornam v. The Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
In a writ petition filed by the widow of a freedom fighter for grant of Family Freedom Fighters Monthly pension, Madras High Court set aside the rejection order by Freedom Figher Revenue Division (F.F.R) and directed the processing of Petitioner's application under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.
While allowing the plea of the petitioner wife, the court also made some stringent remarks about bureaucrats denying the freedom fighters pension on flimsy, technical grounds.
The single-judge bench of Justice C.V Karthikeyan was adjudicating a plea filed by the widow of E. Muthiya, a freedom fighter who was a Sepoy in the Indian National Army (INA) and served under the late lamented Nethaji Subhas Chandrabose. According to the wife's petition, her late husband was taken to detention in Burma (May 1945- July 1945) and incarcerated in Rangoon Central Jail (August 1945- July 1946) while he was retreating with the INA
4. Tanjavur Girl's Suicide: Madras High Court Orders Forensic Analysis Of Video Containing Her Statements
Case Title: Muruganantham v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
In a petition filed for transfer of investigation pertaining to the suicide of a 17-year-old girl to CB-CID, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court ordered the forensic analysis of the viral video in which the deceased had allegedly spoken about the forced attempts of the school authorities to convert her to Christianity.
However, the court opined that the confirmation by investigating officer about the voice of the deceased alone was not sufficient. Therefore, the court has directed the person who filmed the video to appear in person before the investigating officer on 25th January.
When the matter was taken up, Justice GR Swaminathan was informed that both the petitioner and his wife recorded their statements under Section 164 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate, pursuant to the order issued by the high court on Saturday. The High Court was also able to confirm that the recorded statements were handed over to the current investigation officer. Perusing the statements made, the court inferred that both of them iterate about the attempts made to convert the petitioner's girl child to Christianity.
5. Madras High Court Expunges 'Scathing' Remarks Against Actor Vijay In Entry Tax Case
Case Title: C. Joseph Vijay v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
In an appeal filed by Actor Vijay to remove the scathing remarks made by the single judge bench while dismissing his petition for tax exemption on a Rolls Royce Ghost Motor Car, Madras High Court has expunged the observations made by single judge bench in paras 3,4,7,8, 11 and 12 of the original order.
A Division Bench of Justices Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Mohammed Shaffiq allowed the writ appeal filed by Actor Vijay and disposed off the connected miscellaneous petition with no costs.
The actor was challenging the order passed by a single bench of Justice SM Subramaniam on July 13, dismissing a writ petition filed by Vijay in 2012. In the judgment, the single bench had made observations to the effect that one becomes a 'real hero' by promptly paying tax. The single bench had also taken a dig at the actor by saying that while his reel life characters were preaching tax compliance, in real life he was seeking exemption.
Case Title: Arjunan Elayaraja v. The Secretary & Ors.
In a plea filed for implementation of National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 in the State of Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court orally observed that it wouldn't be harmful if Hindi is taught in educational institutions as a third language, along with Tamil and English.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu has ordered notice in the matter returnable by four weeks.
The bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Arjunan ELayaraja seeking directions for the implementation of NEP, 2020 in educational institutions across Tamil Nadu. He contended that the state cannot opt out from promoting Hindi and Sanskrit in the State in light of NEP, 2020. The bench opined that the state has the discretion to decide on such issues. However, the court noted that the people of Tamil Nadu will be at a disadvantage when they go outside the State without knowing Hindi language.
7. Madras High Court Refuses To Defer Urban Local Body Polls Amid Covid Third Wave
Case Title: Dr.M.Nakkeeran v. The State Election Commissioner & Ors. & Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court refused to postpone the urban local body polls likely to be notified by the State Election Commission before January 27, even though the petitioners vehemently opposed conducting elections in light of the third wave of the pandemic. The order was passed after hearing all the counsels appearing for the petitioners in a course of three days.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that it cannot go against the direction given to the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) by the apex court to abide by the constitutional mandate to conduct elections every five years. On 27th September 2021, Supreme Court had directed the TN SEC to notify the polls within four months based on the undertaking given by the Commission.
The court accepted the petitioners' contention that the High Court has vast powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the court observed:
"...The question however would be, in the exercise of said jurisdiction, can we go against direction of the apex court? This is not a case here we have refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in reference to the bar under any statute, but to maintain judicial discipline and not to pass an order contrary to an apex court order".
Case Title: P. Babu v. Ministry of Defence & Ors.
Madras High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation filed by Advocate P. Babu against the exclusion of Tamil Nadu's Tableau for participation in 73rd Republic Day Parade scheduled for tomorrow.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the petitioner has failed to submit all relevant documents other than a few news items which cannot be the basis for the directions sought.
Case Title: G.Sivarajaboopathi v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) quashed an FIR registered against a man over a Facebook post made by him against Late CDS General Bipin Rawat soon after his death in the helicopter crash on December 8, 2021.
The single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan condemned the act of the accused G.Sivarajaboopathi in harsh terms but quashed the FIR observing that the post did not amount to a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code.
The subject matter of the case was the post which said "it is disgrace to shed tears for "Dictator Bipin Rawat", the mercenary of the fascists". Based on a complaint, the Cyber Crime Police Station Nagercoil registered an FIR invoking Sections 153, 505(2) and 504 of IPC on December 15 against the author of the post and others who shared the post.
Case Title: Rt.Rev.Timothy Ravinder Dev Pradeep, The Bishop, CSI Coimbatore Diocese v. Rev.Charles Samraj.N & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
In civil revision petitions filed challenging an order passed by Coimbatore Principal District Munsiff, Madras High Court has held that the power to issue writ under Article 226 or Article 227 is subject to the court's discretion even when an alternative remedy is available. The alternative remedy in itself won't constitute a bar for the High Court to exercise its revisional powers under Article 227.
The court also made a clarification that the Registry shouldn't have queried about the maintainability of the revision petitions in light of alternative remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as against the order passed in the interim application by the Munsiff. Registry does not have such powers to raise objections on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure or under any other statute.
The single-judge bench of Justice R. Subramanian was considering the revision petitions arising out of an order granting temporary injunctions restraining administrative committee from taking any policy decisions on appointments, change of correspondents and carrying out the day-to-day affairs of CSI Diocese until the conduct of 34th CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council and interfering with the functions carried out by the current Presbyter and Chairman of the CIS All Souls' Church, Coimbatore.
Case Title: Meharaj v. The State Rep By Its Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
In a pertinent judgment, Madras High Court has answered i) whether the denial of conjugal rights to a convicted prisoner would be violative of Article 21 and, ii) whether the state can be directed to consider the request made by convict for emergency leave or ordinary leave for the said purpose.
Since the right of their spouses to have conjugal rights are also indirectly curtailed by such denial, Madras High Court has examined the scope of treating conjugal rights of a convict/ prisoner as a fundamental right, and in case there is such a right, whether it would be unconditional or subject to other restrictions. The court answered the above questions while deciding upon the propriety of directing the state to grant emergency leave or ordinary leave to a convict for the purpose of having a conjugal relationship with the spouse.
Case Title: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company v. Director General of Police & Ors
Taking note of allegations about numerous fake motor accident claims, the Madras High Court has ordered a detailed probe into 84 cases claiming a total of Rs.11.70 Crores, that were withdrawn after the complaint.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed,
"This is not merely coincidental and it is more a knee-jerk reaction after complaints were made to the effect that claims have been filed with false and fabricated medical and hospital records of Cavery Hospital, Hosur. It is not clear as to whether the concerned Judges before dismissing the 84 claims as not pressed, even conducted any preliminary enquiry to ascertain as to why so many claims are not pressed."
The Court thus suo motu impleaded Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to enquire into the 84 claims, previously pending before ADJ, Hosur and PSJ, Hosur.
The High Court wants to ascertain whether the claims have been not pressed with the knowledge of the concerned claimants.
Case Title: Amica Financial Technologies Pvt.Ltd. v. Hip Bar Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
Madras High Court has recently refused to grant an interim injunction to Amica Financial Technologies, restraining the respondents including Hip Bar and Dreaming Technologies Pvt Ltd from undertaking any business in connection with the pre-paid instruments license (PPI License). While vacating the ex-parte order of status quo from December, 2021, the court observed that there is not even a semblance of prima facie case made out by the applicant for grant of interim injunction.
"To claim such protection, the applicant must, at least prima facie, establish through some material that such information was communicated or imparted to the 1st (Hip Bar) and 2nd respondents. The applicant must also, prima facie, establish that the information in question is confidential in nature. Further, the applicant must also show that the confidential information is under a threat of being unauthorizedly used by the respondents for wrongful gain", the court noted.
The matter pertains to the trade secrets, including business plans and objectives, in respect of the proposed PPI business by Amica which was allegedly shared with Hip Bar. The plaintiff/applicant submitted before the court that Dreaming Technologies Private Limited is in the process of acquiring Hip Bar.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh also discarded the request of the plaintiff to constitute a confidentiality club by noting that it cannot be done in a hasty manner merely based on the ipse dixit of the plaintiff. First of all, the Court must be satisfied based on materials and the plaintiff must necessarily lay a foundation before making such a request, the bench added. The plaintiff sought the constitution of confidentiality club for the reason that it cannot divulge the nature of trade secret either in the plaint or in the interim application for injunction; it further added that such an act would expose the sensitive confidential information to everyone and detrimentally affect the uniqueness of the business model followed by the applicant.
14. Madras High Court Issues Slew Of Directions To Remove Encroachments From Water Bodies
Case Title: K.K Ramesh v. the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors and Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
Issuing a slew of directions on top of the directions already in force, the Madras High Court has underscored that there will be no leniency towards waterbody encroachers and land grabbers.
The court has made it clear in a batch of writ petitions seeking directions to prevent widespread encroachment that- it won't allow the encroachers to peacefully enjoy the properties listed as water bodies on the 'Tamil Nilam' Website.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu has directed that no registering authority under the Registration Act, 1908, shall register any document pertaining to lands classified as water bodies in the revenue records as shown in the Tamil Nilam Website.
Additionally, the court made the following directions:
1) The registering authority must obtain a declaration from every such applicant seeking land registration, plan approval, electricity/ water connection or assessment of property tax that their lands are not situated in waterbodies.
2) Moreover, the authority allowing the requests in such applications should ensure that the property has not been identified as a waterbody by the State Government in Tamil Nilam Website. To ascertain the status of the land concerned, physical inspection at the property must also be carried out for ensuring the same and an office note about the same must be kept on record.
3) The court has also given an ultimatum to aiding/ abetting officials who circumvent law to facilitate encroachment of water bodies.
15. Tanjavur Girl's Suicide: Madras High Court Reserves Order On Plea For CBI Probe
Case Title: Muruganantham v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
In a petition filed for transfer of investigation pertaining to the suicide of a 17-year-old girl, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court on Friday reserved the orders after hearing parties at length.
The petition, filed by the father of the deceased girl, originally sought for investigation by the CB-CID. Today, the petitioner's counsel made an oral plea for CBI investigation, expressing lack of confidence confidence with the state police.
The single-judge bench of Justice G.R Swaminathan also heard the counsel appearing for the intervenor School, Senior Advocate Fr. Xavier Arulraj.
At the outset, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the state informed the court that Muthuvel, who shot the video of the girl making statements, is not cooperating with the investigation. Though he handed over the mobile phone to the investigation agency on 25th January as per the court order, he has refused to throw light into the number of videos recorded and the recipients of video so recorded. The prosecutor also remarked in the beginning that the deceased had made a phone call to a helpline two years back due to the ill-treatment meted out to the child by her parents. The prosecutor submitted that 63 witnesses have been examined so far to ensure a comprehensive and fair investigation.
The court also court also heard the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the School Management accused of attempting to convert the deceased girl child.
Case Title: M/s.CSCO LLC & Anr. v. M/s.Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
In a significant decision, the Madras High Court recently held that the mandatory time limit of 120 days to file a written statement in a commercial suit is not applicable to written statement to a counter-claim.
"... this Court holds that the Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, which fixes the maximum period for filing the written statement as 120 days and which was held to be mandatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. S. Chamankar Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., reported in 2019 (2) CTC 294, beyond which the right to file the written statement will stand forfeited, will not apply to a written statement filed by the plaintiffs for the counter claim made by the defendants and such cases will be governed only by the time period fixed by the Court under Order VIII Rule 6 A(3) of CPC".
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was considering if it would be prudent according to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and Madras High Court Original Side Rules to condone the delay of 563 days in filing the Written Statement of the Plaintiffs for a Counter Claim filed by Defendant.
Case Title: Palaniyappan & Ors. v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against protesters who assembled before a TASMAC Shop in 2017 and demanded that it must be shifted for the sake of young generation.
While quashing the FIR registered based on the complaint of Village Administrative Official and taken on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Justice K. Murali Shankar observed that the prosecution has failed to establish that the ingredients of the offences under which they were booked are made out.
The court, after placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu (2010), noted its findings that Section 195 Cr.P.C bars taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 I.P.C., except on a complaint in writing given by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
The petitioners had filed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 143 [Unlawful Assembly], 188 [Contempt of lawful authority of public servants], 341 [Wrongful Restraint] and 353 I.P.C [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty].
The court observed that the FIR was registered against 23 persons including 14 women without considering the clear bar on taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 I.P.C. without a complaint, as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C.