A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court: Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 NOMINAL INDEX X v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109 Priya Dharshini and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 110 K Marimuthu v. The Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad)...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court:
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
NOMINAL INDEX
X v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
Priya Dharshini and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
K Marimuthu v. The Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Vishal Krishna Reddy v Lyca Productions, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
Neyatitus v. The Regional Passport Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sri. R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
REPORTS
Case Title: X v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakh to a woman who was falsely implicated in a case under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956.
Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai bench noted that the State could not shirk its liability by claiming that the officers involved were not performing their official duty. Further, the court rejected the State's defence that the charge sheet was quashed on the basis of a detailed enquiry conducted by it and thus it was not liable to pay compensation.
Case Title: Priya Dharshini and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to form District Medical Boards in all districts under the provisions of the Surrogacy Act 2021. The court added that members of these Boards may not necessarily be from the medical colleges as the Act does not contain such stipulation.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench also noted that the authorities should be well versed with the procedures under the Act so that the applications are disposed of expeditiously. Further, since the intending parties had to approach the Judicial Magistrate for matters concerning parentage and custody, it was necessary to sensitise the judicial officers also.
Case Title: K Marimuthu v. The Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Observing that the right to be considered for "appointment/empanelment" in a bank is a fundamental right of citizens, the Madras High Court recently directed all the Nationalised and Public Sector Banks to review their existing procedures for empanelment of lawyers.
Justice SM Subramaniam said that the existing procedures are not in consonance with the established procedure and are against the constitutional mandate. The court added that the prevailing procedures enable the banks to empanel lawyers as per their whims and fancies, thus depriving opportunity for rightful candidates.
The court also added that absence of a definite procedure will lead to corruption, favouritism and nepotism. The court observed that while those lawyers, who had God Fathers could solicit the authorities and seek empanelment, the other lawyers, would lose out on opportunities thus affecting their fundamental rights.
Case Title: Vishal Krishna Reddy v Lyca Productions
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High Court has directed Actor and Producer Vishal Krishna Reddy, more popularly known as Vishal to deposit a sum of Rs 15 crore to the credit of suit filed by entertainment company Lyca Productions. The court has also restrained Vishal from releasing any movie in Theatres or in the OTT platform which he has produced or financed, until then.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing the original side appeal filed by the actor challenging this direction by the single judge directing him to make a fixed deposit for ₹15 crore to the credit of the civil suit and hand over the original FD receipts to the Registrar of the High Court in connection with a suit regarding non payment of loan amount.
Case Title: Neyatitus v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court recently directed the Regional Passport authority to consider the representation of a man who had applied for an Indian Passport. Since his birth certificate showed him as a Srilankan refugee, he was called upon by the passport authorities to give an explanation.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench noted that though the petitioner's father was also a Srilankan refugee, the fact that his mother was an Indian citizen was not disputed. The court noted that we were still stuck in patriarchal notions as the authorities automatically assumed the petitioner will partake his father's nationality while his mother remained an Indian citizen making him eligible for an Indian passport. The court was thus convinced that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of relief and directed the authorities to process his application within a period of three weeks.
Madras High Court Quashes Reassessment Made After The Limitation Period
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sri. R. Rajagopal Tondaiman
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court has held that the assessment was reopened on the basis of the error pointed out by the revenue audit, but it was done after the period prescribed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that reopening the assessment in light of factual errors pointed out by the audit party is permissible under the law.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: A.S.Shanmuga Rajan v Tamil Nadu Cricket Association and others
Case No: WP No. 10296 of 2023
The Madras High Court has sought response of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA) on a plea alleging that the authorities of the MA Chidambaram Stadium, commonly known as the Chepauk Stadium, overcharged people during the India-Australia One Day International Match on March 22.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy directed TNCA to file their responses within two weeks.
Madras High Court Notifies Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules 2022
By way of a gazette notification issued on April 5th, the Madras High Court has notified the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022. The Rules shall come into force on such date as notified by the High Court.
The rules have been framed by the High Court by way of the powers vested in it under Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Clauses 37 and 38 of the Letters Patent 1865.
The Rules will cover all intellectual property disputes arising out of The Trade Marks Act, 1999; The Copyright Act, 1957; The Patents Act, 1970; The Designs Act, 2000; The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999; The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001; The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 and the Information Technology Act 2000.
While talking at an event recently, Madras High Court judge Justice GR Swaminathan said that for the Indian Constitution to continue to exist, it was necessary to maintain the demographic profile which existed at the time of drafting the constitution.
Further speaking on the issue, Justice GR Swaminathan said that to maintain the demographic profile of the country, one had to follow the "Bharatiya Traditions" and "Dharmas" that have existed in the country.
Talking about the Indian culture, Justice Swaminathan further commented that when Tamil Poet-Saint Andal in her hymns asked people to wake up, what she meant was for people to wake up and see that our society was facing a lot of danger.
[Rise In COVID Cases] Madras High Court To Have Hybrid Hearings From April 10
In view of the rise in COVID cases in the country, the Madras High Court has decided to have hybrid mode of hearing both at the Principal bench and the Madurai bench, starting from April 10.
In a notification issued by the Registrar General in charge M Jothiraman, it was informed that the decision has been taken as a precautionary measure to reduce the footfall inside the court premises.