Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 295 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 333 NOMINAL INDEX Deepak and Another v The Chief Educational Officer and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 295 Felix Jerald v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 296 Natraj v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 297 A Manikandan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 298 M Kathirvel v The Inspector General...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 295 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
NOMINAL INDEX
Deepak and Another v The Chief Educational Officer and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
Felix Jerald v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
Natraj v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
A Manikandan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
M Kathirvel v The Inspector General of Registration, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
Kompress India Private Limited Versus Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
NT Stalin Barathi v The District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
P.Sibiga Dharshini v The District Collector and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
Suo Motu RC v Additional Superintendent of Police and Suo Motu RC v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The Directorate of Enforcement and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
G Pandi v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
A Kamala v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Official Assignee v S Arjunlal Sunderdas (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
Kannan Swaminathan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
T Balaji v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
D Kumaresh v The Chief Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
C. Ve Shanmugam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
A Krishna Prasath v The Director General of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
C Ve Shanmugam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
M/s.Jindal Pipes Limited Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer (Int), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
V Senthil v The Secretary, Bar Council of TN & Puducherry, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
K Amrithalal v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
M Selva Kumar v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
Mr G Venkateshan v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Sathiyamurthy v Arputha Mary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
Maharaja v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
S.Doctor Viswanathan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
Viterra India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
Siva Vijayan v Home Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
Dharani v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
Preetha v Inspector of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
Manohar Thangaraj v Rt.Rev.ARGST Barnabas and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
M/s. Ohm Sakthi Blue Metals Versus The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
Tvl.Deepa Traders Versus The Deputy Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The State of Tamil Nadu v. SG Pushpalatha Gracelin and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
R Rakkiyappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
CS Vaidyanathan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
ANS Prasad v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
REPORTS
Case Title: Deepak and Another v The Chief Educational Officer and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court recently observed that the LKG and UKG classes would be covered under the Right to Education scheme as the state is regularly reimbursing the expenses incurred by these classes in the schools.
Justice Anita Sumanth noted that the object of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act was to make education available for all children from pre-school till 8th Standard and the same was paramount while understanding the Act. The court thus stated that the object of providing education would override any other technical concerns.
Case Title: Felix Jerald v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Madras High Court has granted bail to Youtuber Felix Jerald in a case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. The court however asked Jerald to close his YouTube channel “RedPix 24x7” in which the interview with Savukku Shankar was aired.
Justice TV Thamilselvi passed the orders on a petition filed by Jerald. Previously, when Jerald had moved a bail petition with respect to the case registered by the Cyber Police, the court had dismissed the petition noting that Jerald had provided a platform to Shankar for making the alleged defamatory statements.
Case Title: Natraj v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
The Madras High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against R Natraj, former DGP and ex-MLA for allegedly forwarding an offensive message about CM MK Stalin in a WhatsApp Group.
Justice G Jayachandran was inclined to quash the proceedings after Natraj expressed regret for his conduct and informed the court that he was willing to circulate the affidavit filed by him, expressing regret, in the WhatsApp group in which the offensive message was forwarded.
It was alleged that Natraj had forwarded a message in a WhatsApp group consisting of 73 members about a statement purported to have been made by MK Stalin. It was further alleged that the message was forwarded to create enmity and ill-will between the two groups.
Case Title: A Manikandan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Madras High Court has asked the state authorities to revoke the remission order and restore the conviction and sentence imposed on Sekar, one of the accused in the 1997 Melavalavu Massacre after he was accused of attacking a man.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that though as per Clause 4 and 5 of the Bond Form No. 130 under Rule 341(8) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 puts a probation period of three years, it could not be assumed that after such period the life convict could indulge in any crime and that the authorities need not bother about the same.
Case Title: M Kathirvel v The Inspector General of Registration
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
The Madras has held that the 2022 Amendment which introduced Section 77A to the Registration Act with respect to Tamil Nadu and gave powers to the District Registrar to cancel an instrument if it was found to be fraudulent or bogus was unconstitutional.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar held that through the amendment, the registering authority was given an unfettered, unguided, and unlimited power which may end up causing irretrievable damage to the real owners of the properties and affect their rights.
Case Title: Kompress India Private Limited Versus Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court while quashing the detention order held that if an invoice, bill of supply, delivery challan, or bill of entry and a valid e-way bill in physical or electronic form for verification are available, then action may not be initiated.
The bench of Justice S.Srimathy has observed that the respondent department issued the notice, carried out the inspection on the same day, and also passed the order on the same day. As per the provisions prescribed, the respondents department ought to grant time for seven days to reply. Since the inspection, notice, and orders were passed on the same day, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: NT Stalin Barathi v The District Collector
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
While rejecting a man's application for police protection, the Madras High Court recently observed that police protection should be granted only in appropriate cases, and granting police protection to a person who had invited a situation of threat due to his criminal or anti-social activities will be against public morality.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar added that in our country, several journalists had lost their lives for publishing news against corruption and social evils, government officials were murdered while preventing illegal sand mining and theft and people fighting for public cause were targeted. The court added that the state could consider granting police protection to such protection but not to persons who, due to their own conduct, were faced with threat perception.
Case Title: P.Sibiga Dharshini v The District Collector and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
The Madras High Court recently quashed a pre-release condition imposed by the Indian Overseas Bank asking a student to give an apology letter for circulating posters against the Bank while sanctioning her education loan.
Justice Murali Shankar noted that the Nationalised Banks could not treat a loan applicant, especially a student as their servant or a person obeying their orders. The court added that even if it was accepted that the student's father was the office bearer of the NGO which had protested against the Bank, it was not a ground for the Bank to seek an apology from the student who had nothing to do with the protest.
Case Title: Suo Motu RC v Additional Superintendent of Police and Suo Motu RC v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside the discharge of Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran and Thangam Thenarasu in disproportionate assets case.
Justice Anand Venkatesh reversed the discharge of the ministers and directed them to appear before the Special Court. Finding that there was prima facie material to proceed with the trial, the court directed the special court to frame charges and proceed with the trial expeditiously on a day-to-day basis.
Calling it one of the worst forms of abuse of process, the court noted that the conduct of the Investigating Officers pointed to a clear nexus between the DVAC and politicians to ensure that criminal prosecutions were short-circuited against the ministers after they came to power. The court added that the statutory power of further investigation had been used for oblique purposes.
Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The Directorate of Enforcement and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Minister challenging the PMLA proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Proceedings against him.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam dismissed Radhakrishnan's plea and asked him to cooperate with the investigating agency to complete the probe in the money laundering case and allow it to file a final report before the special court.
The allegation against the Minister is that while serving as an MLA of Tiruchendur Assembly Constituency and subsequently as a Minister for Housing and Urban Development Department during the period from 2002-2006, he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.2,68,24,7555/- in his name, his wife's name, two brothers and three sons. Based on this, the Directorate of Enforcement filed an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) which was sought to be quashed in the present case.
Case Title: G Pandi v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
The Madras High Court recently expanded the scope of treating a deity as a juristic personality in law and held that when an idol in a temple is treated as a living person, closing the temple without allowing the customary pujas would amount to the deity's imprisonment. The court observed that no temple could be locked and sealed on the grounds of law and order.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that just like how a devotee has the right to offer worship, the deity also has a right to observance of the customary rituals. The court highlighted that it had to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction whenever the interests of minors, the mentally ill, and idols were at stake and thus, it was the duty of the court to uphold the right of the parties to perform rituals. The court thus made it clear that as long as there was no practice of untouchability or other practices offending the rights of others, a temple could not be closed or shut down indefinitely.
Case Title: A Kamala v State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the detention of Youtuber Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam ordered Shankar to be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case. The court observed that the detention order passed by the State was not compliant with the essential requirements for invoking the Preventive Detention Act.
The court noted that there was an element of malice in the action taken by the State. The court observed that the State had moved with a prejudicial view in light of the publications made by Shankar against the Government and its officials.
Case Title: The Official Assignee v S Arjunlal Sunderdas (Died) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court had directed the production company Studio Green to deposit one crore each before releasing the movies Thangalaan starring Chiyan Vikram and Kanguva starring Suriya.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice CV Karthikeyan made the orders on an execution petition filed by an Official Assignee appointed by the High Court to deal with the estate of realtor and financier Arjunlal Sunderdas after he was declared insolvent. In 2019, the division bench had allowed a petition filed by the Official Assignee directing Studio Green to pay a sum of Rs. 10,35,00,000/- with an interest of 18% p.a.
Madras High Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Litigant For "Disruptive Attitude" During PIL Hearing
Case Title: Kannan Swaminathan v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a litigant for filing a public interest litigation without any public element.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji noted that the litigant had displayed a disruptive attitude during court proceedings and had no regard for the court's decorum. Even after engaging a counsel, the court observed that the litigant kept arguing parallelly and disrupted the court proceedings. The court thus directed him to deposit Rs. 50K to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
Case Title: T Balaji v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Madras High Court has issued a set of guidelines to all stakeholders for dealing with cases and counter cases.
A full bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice M Nirmal Kumar, and Justice N Anand Venkatesh were answering a reference made to it relating to case and counter case and how the courts and investigation agencies were required to handle them.
The question that was referred to the full bench was whether the police were required to mandatorily follow the procedure prescribed in the Police Standing Order 566 while investigating a case and counter case and what was the effect of its non-compliance.
The court observed that there was no legal bar in registering two FIRs in a case and a counter-case arising out of rival versions of the same incident. In such cases, the court added that the investigation officer was required to thoroughly investigate both rival versions keeping in mind the PSO.
Case Title: D Kumaresh v The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the payment of Rs 10 Lakh as ex gratia payment to the families of Kallakurichi Hooch tragedy victims.
Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar dismissed the plea after noting that the ex gratia payments were made on humanitarian grounds. The court noted that the relief was to reward the victims but to help the dependents of the victims who had lost their breadwinners and were struggling economically.
The court further held that the petition was filed without collecting much information challenging a relief package that was paid to ensure the survival of the victim's family with dignity. The court was thus not inclined to entertain the plea, which was challenging the policy decision of the government.
Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
The Madras High Court has quashed a case registered against AIADMK MP C.Ve Shanmugam for his comments against CM MK Stalin and other leaders while participating in a hunger strike.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the alleged comments made by Shanmugam did not cause any disturbance to the harmony nor affected the public tranquillity. The court also noted that the complaints were filed 40 days after the alleged speeches were made which itself would show that no untoward incident was reported due to the alleged speech. The court observed that though the utterances were unparliamentary, it would not attract the offences alleged against Shanmugam.
Case Title: A Krishna Prasath v The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court on Wednesday allowed the Bharatiya Janata Party to conduct a bike rally in Coimbatore carrying the National Flag, as part of the Independence Day Celebrations.
Justice G Jayachandran allowed the petition filed by A Krishna Prasath, District Secretary of the BJP- Yuva Morcha, Coimbatore District.
The court did not find "merit" in the apprehensions raised by the State while denying permission for the rally. It also directed the Director General of Police not to prohibit rallies where the participants carried national flags with dignity and were not causing any hindrance to the traffic.
Case Title: C Ve Shanmugam v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
While quashing cases registered against AIADMK MP C VE Shanmugam for his remarks against Chief Minister MK Stalin during a hunger strike condemning the arrest of former Minister Jayakumar, the Madras High Court observed that making remarks about the government and pointing out the failure to fulfil poll promises would not amount to causing enmity between groups.
Justice G Jayachandran held that per the records, it was clear that the state machinery had been misused as a tool by the ruling party to crush the voice of the opposition and thus the cases deserved to be quashed.
Case Title: M/s.Jindal Pipes Limited Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer (Int)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has held that the taxpayer cannot be mulcted with an unjust penalty due to a minor discrepancy in the PIN code in the GST registration, and the tax invoices are to be construed as a minor violation of the provisions of the respective GST enactments.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the imposition of a penalty for technical venial breach of the provisions or the minor discrepancy in the variance in the address in the tax invoices and the e-way bill would not justify the penalty under Section 129(5) of the GST enactments.
Case Title: V Senthil v The Secretary, Bar Council of TN & Puducherry
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court recently observed that a bar association was not empowered to restrict a lawyer from appearing in court. The court observed that the right to practice law was a fundamental right and such a right could not be taken away by the Bar Association by suspending lawyers.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan further added that an advocate was expected to maintain a cordial relationship with the members of the Bar Association to ensure that the court proceedings are not obstructed.
The court noted that even the Apex Court had observed that boycotts should be used as a last resort by the Bar Association and there could not be continuous boycotts by lawyers affecting the rights of litigants and the justice delivery system.
Case Title: K Amrithalal v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court has recently observed that persons who practice the Allopathy system of medicine after getting a diploma certificate in other Indian systems of medicine were playing with the lives of innocent people who came to them believing them to be genuine doctors.
Justice Murali Shankar noted that fake doctors were a menace to society and the government was expected to deal with them with iron hands. The court however lamented that instead of taking action, the police remained mute spectators and got themselves satisfied with the imposition of fine.
Don't Want To Open Pandoras Box: Madras High Court Junks Plea To DeclareThirukkural As National Book
Case Title: M Selva Kumar v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking to declare Thiru Kural as a “National Book with high values and virtues of India” or the “National Literature of virtue with Ethics of India”.
Thirukural, written by Saint Thiruvalluvar, is a Tamil language text containing short couplets that deal with teachings on virtue, wealth, and love among other social and political issues.
Dismissing a petition filed by one Selva Kumar, the Madurai bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice Victoria Gowri said that the declaration was a policy decision, to be taken by the concerned government and was not within the domain of the court. The bench also said that it did not want to open a pandoras box as allowing the prayer would result in a situation where every high court would end up passing orders for declaring a particular text as national book.
Case Title: Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
While pointing out that the payment by FPS was not made towards the ESOPs as the Assessee continues to hold the ESOP (Employee Stock Option Purchase) even after the receipt of the compensation, the Madras High Court held the receipt in hands of Assessee qualifies as perquisite and taxable under the head 'Salaries'.
Hence, the High Court refuses to allow 'Nil' certificate of tax deduction u/s 192 in reference to such compensation, which is to be treated as perquisite in lieu of 'salary'.
Further, Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act provides for the valuation of perquisites for tax purposes, which is equal to the cost which has been incurred by the organization/ employer for/ on behalf of the employee.
Case Title: Mr G Venkateshan v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court has emphasised that the term “offences against women” which is excluded from plea bargaining would mean only gender-centric or gender-neutral offences and not non-gender offences committed against women.
Justice G Jayachandran also laid down suggestions which the trial courts could look into while dealing with applications for plea bargaining.
The court suggested that the trial courts could inform the accused about his right to invoke plea bargaining soon after the framing charges, thus allowing the accused to exercise his right before the expiry of 30 days from the date of framing charges as prescribed under Section 290 of BNSS.
Nullity Of Marriage Doesn't Bar Wife From Claiming Maintenance: Madras High Court
Case Title: Sathiyamurthy v Arputha Mary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
While refusing to interfere with an order granting maintenance to the wife, the Madras High Court said that it was a settled position that even if a marriage was declared null by a competent court, it would not bar the wife from claiming maintenance.
Justice G Ilangovan was hearing a plea by a husband to recall an earlier order of the High Court fixing maintenance of Rs5000/- to his wife. The court observed that if the husband had any grievance over the order, he should have taken recourse through proper proceedings. The court, thus denied to interfere with the order stating that the petition filed without following the procedure was not maintainable.
Case Title: Maharaja v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
The Madras High Court recently observed that the popular gay dating app, Grindr was being used for illegal activities. The court was hearing a bail petition of a man who was accused of sexually abusing and robbing another man through the app. The court thus suggested the Investigating officer to report to the Ministry of Electronic & Information Technology so that it could take appropriate action including blocking the app as per with law.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that the app was illegal not because it dealt with homosexual persons, but it served only a prurient purpose and the sexual interest of the parties.
Commercial Tax Officer Not Obligated To Physically Verify E-Way Bills: Madras High Court
Case Title: S.Doctor Viswanathan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High Court has quashed the suspension order of a commercial tax officer who issued refunds to fake exporters without verification.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has observed that, as a quasi-judicial authority, if the petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements that are provided under the relevant Act and the circular, that by itself is sufficient compliance before passing the order of refund of the tax. If, for any reason, it ultimately turns out to be a fake export by a fraudster, the order passed by the petitioner by itself cannot result in the suspension of the petitioner. When the petitioner was exercising his quasi-judicial function, unless there was strong prima facie material against the petitioner involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct, etc., suspension must be the last resort.
No IGST Is Payable On Ocean Freight Under Reverse Charge Mechanism; Madras High Court Directs Refund
Case Title: Viterra India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
The Madras High Court has directed the department to refund the GST paid by the assessee on the ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism.
The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals Private Limited, in which it was held that no IGST is payable on ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism for cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) imports.
Case Title: Siva Vijayan v Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court has allowed Hindu Munnani to conduct demonstrations in the state demanding the Central Government to take action against the genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh.
Allowing a petition filed by the organization, Justice G Jayachandran said that when demonstrations could be held in the state to show solidarity with the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the same could be done for the Hindus in Bangladesh. The court also emphasized that the people had a democratic right to hold peaceful demonstrations.
Case Title: Dharani v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
In an unusual order, the Madras High Court has invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction in a habeas corpus case, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against a woman under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan were hearing an HCP filed by a woman for producing her 5-and-a-half-year-old daughter. The woman had alleged that her elder sister and mother were refusing to hand over the daughter's custody to her.
After granting custody to the woman, the court went a step further and examined the POCSO proceedings initiated against her on the complaint of the sister and the mother. Noting that a scheming attempt had been made by the sister and mother to get custody of the minor child, the court observed that there was not an iota of legally permissible evidence against the woman to proceed under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Preetha v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
The Madrasa High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a woman for allegedly killing her husband who tried to sexually assault their 21-year-old daughter in a drunken state.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that on perusing the materials, it was clear that the act was committed under private defence and it was obvious that the woman had committed the alleged offence to save the honour of her daughter.
The court referred to the statement of the daughter along with the photographs and the post-mortem report to conclude that the prosecution under Section 302 of the IPC was erroneous. The court observed that the act was a clear case of private defence which attracted Section 97 of the IPC.
Case Title: Manohar Thangaraj v Rt.Rev.ARGST Barnabas and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Madras High Court recently held that while minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions, the appointment in these institutions if aided by the government, could not be limited to a particular religious denomination.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that when the institution was receiving funds from the state exchequer, the principles of secularism demanded that the appointment process be open to all.
The court observed that the right of the institutions to receive grant from the government is coupled with the obligation to appoint competent teachers and this obligation could be discharged only if there is a wide choice of candidates. The court thus held that the appointment of candidates from the diocese list would not be good for the administration.
Case Title: M/s. Ohm Sakthi Blue Metals Versus The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
The Madras High Court has quashed the order, not condoning the delay of 1 day, on the ground that the extended time limit for availing input tax credit (ITC) is retrospectively applicable.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the GST Council, in its 53rd meeting, recommended extending the deadline for filing GSTR-3B returns for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, and the said extension applies retrospectively from July 1, 2017.
The court, while allowing the petition, held that the department refused to condone the delay and also proposed to reverse the ITC under Section 73(1) of the GST Act, which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and is hence liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Tvl.Deepa Traders Versus The Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court has condoned the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal on the grounds that the notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no hard copy was served on the assessee.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the delay was not wilful but due to bona fide reasons, and a reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. SG Pushpalatha Gracelin and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs.5 lakh on the State of Tamil Nadu for filing appeals against orders directing it to pay salaries to Assistant Professors.
While ordering the exemplary costs, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice L Victoria Gowri said it hoped the order would serve as an example and prevent the State from filing such appeals. The court also called the petitions an “atrocious game” played by the State on its citizens.
The State had appealed against a 2023 order of a single judge directing it to pay the pending salary of Assistant Professors. The court observed that it did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the single judge. The court thus dismissed the appeals with exemplary costs. Out of the costs, the court ordered half the amount to be paid to the CANCARE Foundation.
Case Title: R Rakkiyappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently observed that as per the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules 1933, the period of absence from work for employment abroad shall not be treated as a break in service and must be counted for pension and other purposes.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that even as per a Government Order issued in this regard, the period of absence during employment abroad should be treated as an extraordinary leave and should not be considered a break in service but one without allowance.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Rakkiyappan who had approached the court after his leave period was not counted for pension, other terminal benefits, annual benefits and for Carrier Advancement Scheme (CAS).
Case Title: CS Vaidyanathan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
The Madras High Court recently observed that temple prasadam is a key element in worship which gives immense satisfaction to the devotees and thus the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department should consider preparing and distributing the prasadam on its own without leasing it to commercial operators or other individuals.
Justice B Pugalendhi also remarked that the Prasadam is a blessing of the deity and it is the duty of the temple administration to ensure the quality of the Prasadam provided in the temple. The court thus wondered how the department would ensure the quality of the Prasadam when its production and supply were leased out to private individuals.
Noting that temple was not a place for commercial activities, the court examined the income generated by leasing out the Prasadam stalls to private individuals and the income generated when the Prasadam is prepared and provided by the temple itself. The court noted that temples could generate higher income through Prasadam stalls by preparing it in the temple itself.
Case Title: ANS Prasad v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to stall the Formula 4 Street Race that is scheduled to be held in Chennai on August 31st and September 1st, 2024.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji allowed the race to be conducted subject to obtaining a license from the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) which was to be obtained on or before noon on 31st August. The court also made it clear that if the license was not obtained within the stipulated time, the event could not be conducted.
The bench passed the interim orders after considering the affidavit filed by the Chennai City Traffic Police assuring that the free flow of traffic would not be affected and that there wouldn't be any hindrance in accessing the Government Hospital. The court had previously dismissed a batch of pleas challenging the conduct of the Formula 4 race in 2023. The event was however postponed following Cyclone Michaung which hit Tamil Nadu in December 2023.