A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238 NOMINAL INDEX 1. Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 2. Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229 3. Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v....
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
NOMINAL INDEX
1. Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
2. Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
3. Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
4. TR Ramanathan v. Tamil Nadu State Mental Health Authority and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
5. NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd and Anr. v. TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Arb. O.P. (Comm. Div) Nos. 410 and 412 of 2021., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
6. Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
7. Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
8. Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
9. SJ Suryah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
10. Abdul Rashid Sahib v. Ramachandran and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
11. L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
REPORTS
Case Title: Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court recently observed that in matters of public employments, equal opportunities should be granted. Whenever a decision is taken with respect to recruitment, the competent authorities are bound to follow the recruitment rules in force by providing equal opportunities to all candidate. However, the court also observed that appointments can never be claimed as a matter of absolute right.
Justice SM Subramaniam was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by persons who took part in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Field Assistant (Trainee) in 2016. The court observed that a direction could not be made to the respondents to appoint petitioners as Field Assistants and that too after a lapse of six years. It also held that the writ petitioners have not established any right for the purpose of granting the relief of appointment to the post of Field Assistant, as appointments are to be made in accordance with the recruitment rules in force.
Case Title: Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad of Madras High Court recently observed that even though the courts had a duty to protect the rights of whistleblowers, the whistleblowers are expected to exercise their rights in the manner known to law and excess exercise or high handednedd can never be allowed.
The court observed that rights of both the petitioner and the whistleblower is to be protected. While exercising the rights, If any excessiveness has been committed by any person, the authorities or the persons concerned are empowered to lodge a complaint before higher authorities and before the police authorities for taking appropriate actions in manner known to law. In the event of any such complaint the authorities are expected to act immediately by conducting an enquiry and by following the procedures.
Case Title: Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court rejected a writ petition seeking directions to the State Government not to demolish any temple which existed as on 15 August 1947. The petitioner had relied on the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 to state that the temples existing as on 15 August 1947 should not be demolished. However, the Court observed that the writ petition was filed with vague statements, without particulars about the temples. A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that a writ petition can be maintained only when there is a cause of action.
"The vague statement of facts cannot be taken to be the basis for filing the writ petition or for its acceptance. Rather, it should be after proper research of the facts so as to bring the material on record to prove the statement of facts given in the writ petition. The petitioner has utterly failed to do so and filed the writ petition seeking directions without showing the name of the temples said to have been constructed on or before 15 August 1947 and suffered from the action of the nature indicated by the petitioner, without causing a notice or following the provisions the provisions of law", the Court observed.
Case Title: TR Ramanathan v. Tamil Nadu State Mental Health Authority and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
In a verdict emphasizing the right to dignity of mentally disabled persons, the Madras High Court held that they are entitled to have the assessment done at their residences for the purposes of getting disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.
A single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan issued the direction after taking note of the hardships underwent by a medically disabled person at a mental hospital when he was brought there for the purposes of medical assessment. The court held as under:
"It is clinically appropriate that assessment for issuing such certificates is done at their homes. I therefore hold that persons suffering from mental retardation or mental illness are entitled to have the assessment done at the place where they reside"
The Court also stated that "authorities shall not insist that a person suffering from mental retardation/ mental illness should be physically present in the premises of the certifying institution".
5. Enforcement Of A Foreign Arbitral Award Can Be Filed In More Than One High Court: Madras High Court
Case Title: NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd and Anr. v. TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Arb. O.P. (Comm. Div) Nos. 410 and 412 of 2021.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The High Court of Madras has held that more than one High Court can exercise jurisdiction for the recognition and enforcement of a part of arbitral award if the claims are decided for and against the parties thereto.
The Single Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the Court for the purpose of the enforcement of a foreign award would be the one within whose jurisdiction either the award debtor carries his business or its assets are located within its jurisdiction.
The Court held that as a corollary at least two High Courts can have jurisdiction if the arbitrator has allowed the claims of both the parties and each party would file an application for the enforcement of the award in the High Court where the assets of the other party are located.
Case Title: Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has observed that persons belonging to the same class cannot be discriminated against by creating an artificial class between them on the basis of date of retirement.
The order of Justice C Saravanan came as a relief to the retired employees of various State Transport Undertakings (STU) who had approached the Court seeking implementation of the recommendations of the VII Central Pay Commission and for revision of their pension.
The Court also observed that the State Transport Undertaking were part of the State Transport Department. Thus, there was an understanding that the salaries and pensions of the employees in STUs will be on par with their counterparts in Government Services. Thus, there was no reason to discriminate those employees who have retired earlier.
Case Title: Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court has observed that the pendency of a criminal case that is at the FIR stage is not a bar for the issuance of a passport. However, in cases where the final report has been filed, permission of the concerned Court has to be obtained for issuance of a Passport, it further said.
Justice GR Swaminathan further observed that such a requirement is applicable only when the concerned person wants to leave India and not when the person wants to come back to India.
Case Title: Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court came to the rescue of around 25 doctors by directing the respective medical colleges and the Directorate of Medical Education that they could not withhold the original education certificates collected at the time of admission, merely on the ground that the petitioners had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the bond for compulsory service.
"It is well settled that an Educational certificate is not a marketable commodity, therefore, there cannot be exercise of any lien in terms of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It has been held in catena of cases that management cannot retain the certificates of the students."
Case Title: SJ Suryah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court recently held that when an assessment order is quashed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on technical grounds, the same cannot be made a ground to evade criminal prosecution before the concerned court under the Income Tax Act.
Justice G Chandrasekharan was considering a plea filed by cine actor SJ Suryah for quashing the prosecutions against him before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I) Chennai, Alikulam Road on the ground that the Income Tax Appellate Authority had set aside the assessment order against him.
The court observed that the the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposed the appeals only on the ground of limitation and not on merits. From the complaint allegation it was clear that despite, giving notice, statutory notice as detailed in the complaint, petitioner has not filed return, paid advance tax and tax demanded, suppressed the real and true income by not filing the return in time. These matters had to be necessarily tried before the Court as the violations were liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Section 276 C (1), 276 C (2), 276 CC and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sahib v. Ramachandran and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently observed that trial courts should refrain from acting solely on memo filed by the counsel of the party conceding the substantive right of the party viz-a-viz the subject matter of the suit, or right of defence, for passing any non-adjudicatory decree or appealable orders.
Justice N Seshasayee observed that though there is not a complete ban on considering the memo filed by the counsel of the parties, what must be looked into is the effect that the memo and the consequential order will have on the rights of the parties.
The court also held that though a lawyer is authorized to act on behalf of his client through the Vakalatnama, there should be an express authority granted to him to enter into compromise and the same could not be implied.
Case Title: L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court bench of Justice M Nirmal Kumar recently dismissed a revision petition against the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Court Egmore dismissing a defamation complaint against the President and Secretary-General of the All India Yadav Maha Sabha. The petition was filed by one Nandagopal Yadav, who was suspended from the post of Vice President of the Sabha.
The court observed that nowhere in his sworn statement, the petitioner had stated that the imputation had directly or indirectly in the estimation of others lowered the moral or the intellectual character of the petitioner. Further no ingredient was made out for commission of the offence.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Centre has notified the appointment nine additional judges as permanent Judges of the Madras High Court. The centre also extended the appointment of Justice A.A. Nakkiran as Additional Judge Of The Madras High Court for another period of one year.
The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended names for appointment as permanent judges and for extension of term as additional judge on May 10 2022.
Case Title: Tamilnadu Pondyplastic Association v The Government of Tamilnadu and another
Case No: Rev.A 89 of 2019 in W.P No 34065 of 2018
In a set of pleas dealing with the disposal of plastic wastes and other items that are likely to cause pollution to the environment, the Tamil Nadu government has informed the Madras High Court that various awareness activities have been undertaken and a Waste Management Policy has been framed by the Planning Commission which has been forwarded to all the Chief Secretaries of the States.
Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice PT Asha directed the Special Government Pleader and the Assistant Solicitor General to produce the copies of the policy on the next date of the hearing. Since the matter deals with environment pollution, the Court also deemed it fit to suo moto implead the Pollution Control Board.
Case Title: Dr. R Karpagam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden and Others
Case No: WP No. 13711 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Thursday issued notices to the National Board of Wildlife and the National Tiger Conservation Authority in a plea seeking to close down and remove all the illegal resorts/ lodges/ farmhouses operated in the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq were hearing a petition filed by Dr. R Karpagam, founder of Oli Awareness Movement and a teacher by profession.
The matter will be taken up on June 23 2022.
The Central Government on Friday notified the appointment of Advocates Sunder Mohan and Kabali Kumaresa Babu as Additional Judges of Madras High Court