A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373 NOMINAL INDEX Sathish v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad)...
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
NOMINAL INDEX
Sathish v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
A Priyanka and others v. The Principal Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
U Manickavel v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry v. VK Sethukumar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
Air Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
Narayanan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
Subramanian P v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
M Sekar v. The District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
Sadam Hussain v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
REPORT
Case Title: Sathish v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
The Madras High Court conducted a special sitting on Sunday after an urgent petition was filed seeking bail for an incarcerated accused on the ground that his father had died and he, being an only son was to perform the last rites.
Justice G Jayachandran granted an interim bail of 3 days to the Petitioner, subject to his own bond, to enable him to perform post rituals. He has been directed to report and surrender before the authorities on 24th. The police has been directed to escort the Petitioner to his village.
2.Cut/Sized Shade Trees Constitutes "Agricultural Produce", No Sales Tax Applicable: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has held that the cut and sized shade trees would constitute "agricultural produce" and, therefore, fall outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act, 1959).
The court rejected the claim of the petitioner that the cut/sized Silver Oak/shade tree would constitute "firewood".
Case Title: Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
The Madras High Court, while emphasizing that FIR is not an ordinary thing and could affect the rights of the individual, heavily criticised the order of a Magistrate directing registration of FIR against an accused, without due application of mind.
The court also noted that there was a lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title: All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court on Monday exempted temples constructed as per agamas from the rules brought by the Tamil Nadu Government in 2020 in relation to the qualifications and appointments of archakas/poojaris.
A division bench of the High Court read down Rules 7 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 to hold that they will not apply to temples constructed as per agamas.
The High Court said that reading down these Rules are necessary so as to exempt temples constructed as per agamas. Otherwise, it would offend the fundamental rights to practice religion and the rights of a religious denomination to manage its affairs guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Court however refrained from striking down the said Rules in their entirety, as they dealt with other appointments as well.
Case Title: A Priyanka and others v. The Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
In context of admissions to MBBS courses, the Madras High Court has reiterated that admission to the courses had to be commensurate with the annual intake capacity of the institution. The court also highlighted that the admissions cannot be made beyond the time limit fixed by the Apex Court for completing admissions.
The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose was hearing petitions filed by children of defence personal seeking admission to MBBS Course under the wards of defence personnel quota. The court noted that the GO dated 30.06.1979 was not applicable to the petitioners as the said notification was applicable only to PUC and BSC students which was the stream of education prevalent at that point of time.
6. Madras High Court Orders Complete Abolition Of 'Orderly System' From TN Police In Four Months
Case Title: U Manickavel v State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court on Tuesday passed final orders in the case against engagement of uniformed Police officers as orderlies at the residence of higher officials in Tamil Nadu.
Justice SM Subramaniam today directed the authorities to ensure that the orderly system is completely abolished within a period of four months. The court also directed the authorities to remove the orderlies appointed in the residence of retired officials as the same amounts to illegality and a violation of the law.
Further, if any complaint/ information was received with respect to misconduct or offence by officials, the authorities were directed to conduct enquiry and initiate all appropriate actions under the relevant laws and under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.
With respect to illegal occupation of the official police quarters, the court directed to initiate steps for eviction in the manner known to law.
Case Title: M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Madras High Court has held that the timelines for uploading of TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be one and the same as it leads to an unworkable position.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN-1 return be identical to the timeline for filing of a return seeking transition. The purpose of revision is to enable correction or modification of a return of transition. It would stand to reason that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return, be provided by the respondent in the latter instance.
Case Title: Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry v. VK Sethukumar and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court recently emphasized on "statutory indemnity" available to the Bar Councils with respect to bonafide disciplinary proceedings initiated against Advocates.
The court was hearing a criminal revision petition moved by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry against the order of a lower court dismissing the Bar Council's application to reject a plaint filed by an Advocate seeking damages from the Bar Council.
The court noted that since the proceedings before the Bar Council were quasi-judicial, an aggrieved party could make use of the Appeal remedies provided under the Advocates Act. The grounds of appeal shall include all the shortfalls in the order of the lower forum. Thus, when no further appeal is made against the order of the first appellate forum, there cannot be anymore grievances left out.
9. Arbitrator Appointed Under MSCS Act; Fixation Of Fees Is Subject To A&C Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: Air Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court has ruled that the power of the Central Registrar to appoint an arbitrator and fix the fees of arbitration under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
Holding that there is no provision under the MSCS Act where an exemption has been provided with respect to Section 38 of the A&C Act, which requires the parties to equally bear the advance costs to be deposited before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan set aside the order of the State Registrar directing the petitioner to pay the fees and expenses to the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Narayanan v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
While confirming the life imprisonment of a man convicted for sexually abusing five children, the Madras High Court emphasized that the mere absence of physical injury does not rule out the sexual acts.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice Hemalatha held sexual activity with a child to be a criminal/ immoral act and emphasizing on making the society safe for children
Case Title: Subramanian P v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
Madras High Court recently dismissed a revision petition moved by a man accused of cheating and forgery after observing that while deciding upon discharge, the High Court only had to sift through the evidence on record and form an opinion on whether there was a prima facie case and a strong suspicion against the accused.
Case Title: M Sekar v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
While directing the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment to appoint a fit person to look into the affairs of the Sri Madurai Veeran, Karupparayan and Kannimar temple at Erode, the Madras High Court expressed concern on how temples were now becoming a cause for disturbance of law and order due to "ego clashes" between worshippers.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that temples are supposed to bring man closer to god. However presently, the courts were flooded with litigations and the police and revenue authorities were made to spend their lives resolving disputes between disputing parties.
Case Title: Sadam Hussain v. State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to a man after observing that the entire case against him was based on suspicion and case was taken based on the confession statement. Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira also observed that there was no complaint made against the accused.
The court had also noted that no offence had taken place and no complaint was actually made by Kumaresan. The entire case was merely on the suspicion that arose in the mind of a police officer while doing his routine rounds. The court was therefore convinced that there was no prima facie case against the appellant.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India and others
Case No: WP No. 17380 of 2017
While hearing a petition seeking to put an end to the practice of manual scavenging, the Madras High Court on Monday held that if any municipality was seen to engage in the practice of manual scavenging, even through private contractors, the Commissioner of the said municipality shall be made liable for the same.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala were hearing the petition filed by Safai Karmachari Andolan.
Case Title: Latha Educational Society Kaniyamoor v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Case No: WP No.22084 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the Collector of Kallakurichi District to consider the representation submitted by Latha Educational Society Kaniyamoor for reopening of its schools that were vandalized by rioters on July 17 following the death of a Class XII girl in one of the schools.
Justice Abdul Quddose directed the respondent authorities to consider the representation and pass an order within 10 days.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v. A Shankar
Case No: OA 509 of 2022 & A.No.3494 of 2022 in CS.No.172 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Tuesday granted an interim injunction to Minister Senthil Balaji in his plea against the defamatory allegations made by Youtuber Shankar alias Savukku Shankar. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy restrained Savukku Shankar from making any further derogatory vedios and statements.
The Madras High Court was on Monday constrained to remark that persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community have been sidelined from the main society for a long period and it was high time that the government gives priority to implementing rules and policies for them.
The remarks were made by Justice Anand Venkatesh after the State sought 6 more months to come up with the final Transgender Policy.
Case Title: K Balu v. Government of India and others
Case No: WP No. 21723 of 2022
The President of Advocates' Forum for Social Justice, K Balu has moved the Madras High Court seeking to constitute 9th National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) and to appoint Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and members in the Commission. The petition also seeks to set up State/ Regional units of the NCBC.
When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala adjourned the case by six weeks directing the Union Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Appointments and Appointment Committee to file their counter.
Case Title: E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam and others
Case No: OSA 227 of 2022
After a lengthy hearing that went on for the whole day, the Madras High Court on Thursday reserved orders on the appeal preferred by Edappadi Palaniswamy against a single judge order restoring status quo ante in the party as on 23rd June 2022.
The bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan further directed the counsels to file their written submissions by 3 pm on Friday.