Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 to October 9, 2022

Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

NOMINAL INDEX

P Senthil v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

Kaladi v. District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

K Seeni Thevar v. The Joint Commissioner and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. versus J. Vengatesh & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

SEEMAN and others Vs. IOP, CHENNAI, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

Ravichandran v. State [Crl.A.No.65 of 2020], 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

REPORTS

1. [Matrimonial Disputes] Evidence Of Woman's Family Members Cannot Be Brushed Aside Merely Because They Are Interested Parties: Madras HC

Case Title: P Senthil v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

The Madras High Court recently observed that while deciding upon matters involving matrimonial disputes, the courts should not brush aside the evidence of the woman's family members merely because they are interested parties.

Justice P Velmurugan observed that in these types of matters, it is the family members who can notice the incidents and come forward to give evidence since a third party may not interfere in such matters thinking that it's a family dispute.

The court observed that mere non-production of a medical certificate or not lodging of the complaint soon after the occurrence was not fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially in matrimonial disputes. This was because a newly married girl will not immediately rush to the police station to lodge a complaint in a quarrel as she would take time to settle the issues instead.

2. Ambedkar & Periyar Respected Leaders, No Objection On Installing Their Statues In Tamil Nadu: High Court

Case Title: Kaladi v. District Collector and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

Directing the Thoothukudi District Collector to take a decision on a resident's representation seeking permission to install statues of social reformer Thanthai Periyar and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar at his property, the Madras High Court has said there cannot be any objection from anyone against it as both of them are respected by people in the state.

"As far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, there cannot be any objection from anyone for erecting the statues of Thanthai Periyar or Dr.Ambedkar. The people individually have respects for these leaders," said Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup.

3. Worshipping God Is Every Individual's Right: Madras High Court Directs HR&CE To Enquire Into Affairs Of Temple Closed For Over A Decade

Case Title: K Seeni Thevar v. The Joint Commissioner and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

The Madras High Court recently emphasized on the right of every individual to worship a god according to his personal faith. The court was dealing with a challenge against a notice issued by the "Fit Person" of Arulmigu Gurunathasamy Temple, which has remained closed since 2011, stating that the temple will be re-opened on 7th October 2022.

Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed,

In the light of the fact that the worshipping of a god is a right of every individual according to his personal faith, it would be appropriate to direct the 1st respondent herein to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the temple under the provisions of the HR & CE Act [The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act], and decide the rights of the parties in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

4. Arbitral Award Directing Specific Performance Of Contract, Cannot Be Set Aside On Ground Of Inequitable Nature Of Contract: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. versus J. Vengatesh & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award directing specific performance of a contract, cannot be set aside on the ground that the nature of agreement between the parties was not capable of specific enforcement. The Court added that the said issue related to the construction of an agreement, which cannot be made a ground for interference of the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Division Bench of Justices Paresh Upadhyay and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that an arbitral award cannot be interfered on the ground that it directed specific performance of a contract which was inequitable in nature and which gave an unfair advantage to a party.

5. Madras High Court Quashes Case Against 13 Protestors Who Allegedly Raised Slogans Against National Education Policy 2020

Case title - SEEMAN and others Vs. IOP, CHENNAI

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

The Madras High Court recently quashed a case against 13 persons who had allegedly raised slogans condemning the implementation of National Education Police 2020 by the Union Government.

Quashing the proceedings the bench of Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan noted that the police officer was not a competent person to register an FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC and thus, the FIR or final report was liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.

Further, regarding the charge of Section 143, the Court observed that since the complaint did not state how the protest formed by the petitioners and others was an unlawful protest and also, it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC, therefore, the final report was liable to be quashed

6. Section 119 Evidence Act | Madras High Court Lays Down Principles For Examining Witnesses Who Are Unable To Speak

Case title - Ravichandran v. State [Crl.A.No.65 of 2020]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

The Madras High Court, in a judgment delivered in a criminal appeal, laid down certain significant principles relating to the examination of witnesses (who are unable to speak) under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court significantly held that wherein a witness is not able to either communicate verbally or give his evidence in writing and can only communicate through signs, then it is mandatory for the court to take the assistance of the interpreter and order recording of such statement by way of videography. In essence, the Court has held that the proviso to Section 119 applies only to such witnesses who give evidence by way of signs.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

1. Madras High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea For Digitisation Of Medico-Legal Documents

The Madras High Court recently sought the response of the Central and the State government on a plea seeking computerisation of medical records having legal importance, including postmortem report, accident/injury report, etc.

The case came up before the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar.

The petitioner sought directions from the court to implement Medico-Legal Examination and Postmortem Reporting (MedLeaPR) software in all Government hospitals.

2. Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Disposes Of 2000 Cases In 20 Days

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently disposed of over 2000 cases in just 20 working days. This speedy adjudication in the cases was done by the division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad of the Madurai Bench.

The bench disposed of 2085 cases since its sitting on September 5. Of these, 938 were main cases including 776 writ petitions, 147 writ appeals and 1147 miscellaneous cases. The bench also disposed of cases that had been pending for more than six years.