A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414 NOMINAL INDEX Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407 M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw...
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
NOMINAL INDEX
Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
Sowdha Mani v. State, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 410
M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
Manokaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
Dr. R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
V Anusha v. B Krishnan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
REPORT
Case Title: Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
While answering a reference, the Madras High Court Bench of Justice SS Sundar, Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the Registrar does not have the power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify a deed of conveyance made earlier, when the deed of conveyance has already been acted upon.
The court was answering a reference made by Justice S Vaidyanathan with respect to the maintainability of a writ petition against the Registration of a unilateral cancellation deed.
Case Title: Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
The Madras High Court on Monday said that it cannot not direct the State Government to treat all Visually Impaired Persons on par with other Differently Abled Persons who may be incapable of any employment.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation on a plea by Nethrodaya, an organisation working for the differently abled community. The petitioner organization had sought for transfer of the Pension Scheme for the Visually Impaired from the Social Welfare Department to the Differently Abled Department. The second prayer was to enhance the pension of the Visually Impaired persons from Rs. 1000 to Rs.1500 on par with that given to other Differently Abled Persons.
Case Title: M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court has held that in the matters of interception, seizure, and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of "working day" and "holiday" since substantial civil rights of the parties were at stake.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that neither the assessee nor the department could have the luxury of reference to a holiday to delay or protract the proceedings. The acts of interception and retention, though an invasion of the rights of citizens have been accorded statutory sanction in pursuance of the aims and objects of the Goods and Services Act. Thus, it was imperative that the intrusive acts be carried out in strict compliance with the statutory provisions.
Case Title: R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
While dealing with a petition seeking conversion of some Police Officers from Armed Reserve to Law and Order, the Madras High Court observed that suitability and eligibility, etc had to be assessed by the concerned departments and High Courts could not interfere in such matters. Interference was only possible when there was an irregularity in appointments.
The court emphasized that the authorities were the best persons to assess the eligibility of the personnel. Since the personnel posted in the Law and order category had more responsibility and accountability, the government thought it fit to prescribe certain additional criterias. Further, conversion could not be claimed as a matter of right. Even if the conversion was granted to certain personnel violating the guidelines, illegality could not be a ground to claim equality.
Case Title: Sowdha Mani v. State
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 410
While dealing with a petition by BJP functionary Sowdha Mani seeking return of her phone which was seized in connection with an investigation following objectionable retweets, the Madras High Court observed that delay in production of material objects before the Jurisdictional Magistrate would vitiate the entire prosecution.
In the present case, the material (phone) was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate six days after it's seizure.
Observing that this unexplained delay of six days could not be brushed aside, Justice P Velmurugan ordered the Director General of Police to take stringent action against the investigating officer.
6. GST Registration Cancellation: Madras High Court Directs Changes In Architecture Of GST Portal
Case Title: M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
The Madras High Court has directed the GST department to take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable charges in the architecture of the GST Web Portal to allow the petitioners to file their returns and pay the tax/penalty/fine.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that payment of tax, interest, fine/fee, etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any input tax credit which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners.
7. Two Women Kept In Illegal Detention For 128 Days, Madras High Court Awards Rs 5L Compensation
Case Title: Manokaran v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court recently directed the State to pay Rs five lakh compensation each to two women who were unauthorisedly kept in preventive detention for more than four months.
"The sequence of events in the case on hand reveals beyond any doubt that it is a classic case of bureaucratic lethargy and slumber, which has played a lot in depriving the personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," said the division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira.
Case Title: Dr. R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
Dismissing a university professor's petition against trial court's refusal to order investigation on his complaint, the Madras High Court recently said Section 3 (1) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act comes into play only when a person is trying to promote ill feelings against the members of SC or ST community as a group.
Section 3 (1) (u) criminalises any communication that promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe.
9. Marriage Not For Mere Carnal Pleasure, But Mainly For Progeneration: Madras High Court
Case Title: V Anusha v. B Krishnan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
Dealing with an estranged couple's case related to the custody of their children, the Madras High Court in a recent order said marriage is not for "mere satisfying the carnal pleasure" but mainly for the purpose of progeneration. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy was dealing with a petition filed by a woman, lawyer by profession, for interim custody of her two minor sons from her husband, who is also a lawyer.
Stating that though courts are mindful of the interest of the child, Justice Ramasamy said it is "to be lamented" that the law leaves the child "with only one hand, rather than two". The court also said child "brought into this vicious world through the act of the two individuals for their pleasure" is made to suffer for no fault of his.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: M Saravanan v. Principal Secretary and others
Case No: WP(MD) No. 3633 of 2014
The Madras High Court on Friday observed that the state government should show seriousness in removing invasive plant species from forests. The special bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing a batch of cases regarding protection of the western ghats area.
The state had informed the court that the files regarding removal of invasive species were under consideration and had been sent to the Finance department for concurrence.
To this, the court orally observed that the state had to show more seriousness in dealing with the issue.
2. President Appoints Justice T Raja As Acting Chief Justice Of Madras High Court
The President has appointed Justice T Raja, senior-most Judge of the Madras High Court as Acting Chief Justice with effect from September 22, 2022 consequent to the superannuation of Justice M Duraiswamy, who is the current Acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court.
Case Title: V Adarsh v. Union of India and ors
Case No: WP No. 25205 of 2022
The Madras High Court has sought a response from the Central Government on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022.
The petitioner, V Adarsh, has challenged Sections 2 (1) (a) (iii), 2 (1) (b), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act as being unconstitutional, illegal and void. He contended that the sections are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 20(3), 21 and 51 of the Constitution thus, in effect going against the basic structure of the Constitution.
After briefly hearing the matter, the court directed Deputy Solicitor General of India R Shankaranarayan to file a counter affidavit within six weeks.
Case Title: D Soundararajan v Director General of Prosecution and others
Case No: WP No. 25066 of 2022
A man has recently approached the Madras High Court seeking permission to sit on an indefinite fast demanding disclosure of former CM Jayalalithaa's Will.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan on Monday heard the petitioner and directed the Government to check if any representations made by the petitioner were pending before the Collector or other concerned authorities.
5. Madras HC Lists Former Minister SP Velumani's Quashing Petitions Before Special Bench
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v. The Director and others
Case No: WP No 34845 of 2018
The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the Registry to place the quashing petitions filed by former Tamil Nadu minister SP Velumani before a division bench that deals with cases relating to MPs and MLAs. The bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan also extended the interim stay till the next date of hearing before the appropriate bench.
6. Madras High Court Allows RSS Workers' Plea To Conduct Route March On October 2
Case Title: S. Shanmugasundaram v. State of Tamilnadu and others
Case No: WP No. 24540 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Thursday directed the State authorities to grant permission with reasonable restrictions to the RSS to conduct their route march on October 2nd.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed the authorities to grant permission before the 28th of September.
The members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) had moved the Madras High Court seeking permission to conduct a procession (Route March) wearing their uniform and led by a musical band on 2nd October 2022 and conduct a public meeting thereafter.
Case Title: M Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case No: WP No. 9740 of 2018
The Madras High Court on Friday reserved orders on a plea filed by Advocate Radhakrishnan in 2018 seeking to quash certain clauses in a Tamil Nadu Government Order which in effect allowed law graduates to apply for the post of Civil Judge, without enrollment.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice PD Audikesavalu reserved the order after hearing the Petitioner in person and Advocate B Vijay for TN Public Service Commission