Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 57 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 66 NOMINAL INDEX Jay Shah v. The Commissioner of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 57 M/s Galatea Limited v. The Registrar General and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 58 Lakshmanan v. The Secretary SHRC, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 59 Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 60 C.Ve. Shanmugam...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 57 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
NOMINAL INDEX
Jay Shah v. The Commissioner of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
M/s Galatea Limited v. The Registrar General and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
Lakshmanan v. The Secretary SHRC, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
C.Ve. Shanmugam v. Election Commission of India and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
State v. VD Mohanakrishnan, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
M/s. Transtonnelstroy – Afcons (JV) v. M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
C Kasthuriraj v. The State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Child rep. by her mother v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
M Narasimhan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
REPORT
Case Title: Jay Shah v. The Commissioner of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
While granting relief to a hotel owner, the Madras High Court has recently held that there is no prohibition under law for providing Hookah services in restaurants if same is run conforming to the provisions of “Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, supply and Distribution) Act, 2003” and also “The Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008”.
The court noted that as per law, a separate smoking area, i.e. a separately ventilated smoking area with the board “Smoking Area” in English or one Indian language is a must. The restaurants should further display the Health advisory message against smoking at the entrance of the restaurant and that the entry of persons below 18 years should be prohibited.
Case Title: M/s Galatea Limited v. The Registrar General and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
The Madras High Court has directed the State government to notify the inauguration of its Intellectual Property Division.
Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the High Court registry has taken all possible steps to start the Intellectual Property Division and that the delay was on the part of the State.
The court also noted that the draft Rules were placed before the Full Court and approved. The Committee had also directed the Registry to approach the government to notify the rules. Following this, the registry addressed the State government for issuing the direction and has been constantly following up. However, the State was yet to notify the rules.
Case Title: Lakshmanan v. The Secretary SHRC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court has recently observed that though there are instances of human rights violation in police stations, every instance of casual police enquiry cannot be termed as a Human Rights Violation.
The bench of Justice VM Velumani and Justice R Hemalatha noted that accusing police officers of human rights violation at the drop of a hat may be demoralising for the entire police force.
Madras High Court Dismisses Youtuber Savukku Shankar's Plea To Donate Books To Prisoners
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by YouTuber Shankar @ Savukku Shankar challenging the Director General of Prisons' refusal to accept book donations made by him.
After noting that the petitioner himself has not read the books, Justice CV Karthikeyan dismissed the plea on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain how the books would be useful for the prisoners
Case Title: C.Ve. Shanmugam v. Election Commission of India and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court has disposed of a petition filed by AIADMK Organising Secretary C. Ve Shanmugam seeking a direction to the Election Commission to ensure free and fair conduct of the Erode (East) Bye Election. Shanmugam had sought for deployment of Central paramilitary forces and permitting identification of voters only through their identity cards and not the booth slips.
Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of the submissions made by the Election Commission listing out the steps taken to ensure smooth conduct of the election.
Case Title: State v. VD Mohanakrishnan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court recently found a court officer guilty of misusing his official position and cheating an illiterate man with a promise of securing a job for him and obtaining 40000 rupees for the same.
Justice P Velmurugan reversed the order of the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted the court officer under Section 420 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The court further disagreed with the defendant that a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act would clarify that the money given was in fact a loan amount. The court also found it improbable that the respondent, a public servant would seek financial assistance from the complainant who was poor and jobless.
Case Title: M/s. Transtonnelstroy – Afcons (JV) v. M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
While granting relief to the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL), the Madras High Court has noted that while an arbitral tribunal, which consists of experts in the field, is at liberty to apply its own knowledge and understanding to arrive at a conclusion, it should always allow the parties involved to present their case.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was adjudicating appeals filed by Transtonnelstroy-Afcons who had entered into an agreement with CMRL for carrying out the construction of Chennai metro.
Case Title: C Kasthuriraj v. The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court has recently held that an order of Magistrate directing to register FIR cannot be quashed merely in the absence of recoding reasons on how the Magistrate was satisfied about the prima facie case.
Justice RN Manjula held that only when a mechanical order is passed on a bald complaint, the same can be set aside for not listing out the reasons.
The court added that though it would have been better if the Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded reasons, it could not be the reason to set aside the order when the complaint contained material particulars. Thus, it could be said that the order was passed without application of mind.
Madras High Court Criticises School For Denying Admission To Child With Special Needs
Case Title: The Child rep. by her mother v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Coming down heavily on an educational institution for denying admission to a child with special needs, the Madras High Court observed that the institution had not only failed in performing its duty but had also brought bad repute to the Christian Missionary in whose name the institution was running.
Justice CV Karthikeyan noted that even though towards the end of the proceedings, the respondent school had remonstrated that it would appoint special educators and would also admit the child into their school, the same appeared to be a hollow submission.
Case Title: M Narasimhan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
While directing the Forest Range Officer to return a gun to a man accused under the Wildlife Protection Act, Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madras High Court noted that under Section 68 of the Forest Act 1927, when an offence is compounded, the person accused should be discharged and the property seized should be released.
The court thus, set aside the impugned order and directed the Forest Range Officer to return the gun and the bullets to the petitioner.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Villupuram Anbu Jothi Ashram Case: Madras High Court Asks Police To File Action Taken Report
Case Title: Halideen v. The Superintendent of Police and others
Case No: HCP 2676 of 2022
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamilnadu police to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) with respect to the investigations in the Villupuram Ashram Case.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Nirmal Kumar sought the report while hearing a Habeas Corpus petition with respect to the missing of a 70-year-old inmate Zafirullah from the Ashram.
It was found that the home had been functioning without a valid registration or license for almost two decades. The investigation also revealed that the women inmates were raped by the employees. Several other inmates were chained, tortured and attacked by caged monkeys inside the home.
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v. Principal Secretary and others
Case No: WP (MD) 3152 od 2023
The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and the State government to respond to a petition filed by lawyer Ramkumar Adityan seeking directions to paint horns of stray cattle with reflective paint among other measures in an attempt to reduce accidents.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy has ordered notice to the respondents - Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Home Department, Municipal Administration Department, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department; Highways Department and the Tamil Nadu police.
The Central Government has notified the appointment of Advocate Venkatachari Lakshminarayanan as an additional judge of the Madras High Court.
Lakshminarayan's name was recommended by the Supreme Court collegium in its meeting held on 17th January 2023 along with that of (now) Justice Victoria Gowri. He was one among the five advocates recommended for elevation.
The Madras High Court on Thursday said that it is disheartening to see the practice of human sacrifice is still being followed even in the 21st Century.
Justice G Chandrasekharan was hearing the plea of a woman belonging to Madhya Pradesh who had approached the court seeking adequate police protection and security.
The woman has claimed that her family members including her step mother are trying to perform her human sacrifice. After coming to know about the alleged plans, she left home and escaped to Tamil Nadu.
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam and others v. Edappadi Palanisamy
Case No: OSA 42 of 2023
The Madras High Court has issued notice to former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palanisamy in a plea moved by Arappor Iyakkam NGO challenging the order of a single judge temporarily injuncting it from making any defamatory remarks against the AIADMK leader.
A bench comprising Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq however refused to set aside the impugned order, stating that it would amount to allowing the appeal itself without hearing the other side.