Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325 NOMINAL INDEX S.Sarath Kumar v. The District Collector and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 278 Ganesan v. SHO and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 279 M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal...
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
NOMINAL INDEX
S.Sarath Kumar v. The District Collector and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Ganesan v. SHO and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal Additional Director General, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
Sankar v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
Dr G. Selvarajan v. Dr M.S Santhosh and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
G.Francis Raja v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
M/s.KTV Health Foods Pvt Ltd v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - Imports, Custom House Versus M/s. Mahadev Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Sridhar Versus The Superintendent of GST, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
S Krishnamurthy v. Dr Manivasan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
V.Krishnamurthy v. The State of TN and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. R Chitradevi and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
C.Soman v. The Secretary, HR&CE and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
Charu K. Bagadia Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(2), Mumbai, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
B.Ramprakash v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
O. Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
P.Velumani v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
C Sivakumar v. A Srividhya, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
V.S.J.Dinakaran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
K.Lal Bhagadhur Sasthri v. The Director of Medical Education and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
E.Seshan v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
C Joseph Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Ltd. and ors v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
Dr.Sreejith V.Ravi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
B.C. Mohankumar Versus Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
Bava Bahrudeen @ Mannai Bava v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
Asan Basha @ Ashan Batcha and another v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
K Vijayakumar v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Sathiya v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
Edappadi K Palaniswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Sudha Hospital v. The Director of Medical And Rural Health and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Kader Batcha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 316
Mr.P.Adhavan Seral v. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
Siva v. State by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
Jaisankar v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Irfana Nasreen v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
Sureshkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
R.Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 323
M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
Dr.R.Senthilkumar v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
REPORTS
Case Title: S.Sarath Kumar v. The District Collector and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court recently refused to issued directions for registration of a couple's marriage under the Special Marriage Act, stating that the conditions stipulated under Section 4 of the Act for solemnization of special marriages and the procedure thereof contained under Sections 5-13 has to be mandatorily complied with.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench observed that the marriage was performed on 10.06.2022. Only thereafter, notice was given under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, it was not solemnized as per the procedure laid down under the Special Marriage Act. The court observed that since the petitioner did not marry Lediya under the Special Marriage Act, he could not claim benefits under Section 4 of the Act.
Case Title: M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
The Madras High Court has ruled that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 cannot dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the Resolution Plan submitted by the assessee did not contemplate any concession from the Income Tax Department, even though notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee prior to the submission of the Resolution Plan.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan held that the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be interpreted in a manner which is inconsistent with any other law in the time being in force. Thus, the Court ruled that the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Ganesan v. SHO and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
While allowing a revision of the order of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application for further investigation, the Madras High Court recently observed that an application for further investigation can be made even after the commencement of trial. The court observed that bringing out the truth was of utmost importance and that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not put any fetter on the Police to conduct a further investigation after the commencement of trial.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that "Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., does not place any fetter on the Police to conduct further investigation in the case after commencement of trial and whenever they come across any additional information it is just and necessary that the same be brought to the notice of the Court"
The court also observed that by filing the revision, the de facto complainant was only bringing to the notice of the court that an erroneous order had been passed which according to him will lead to injustice. The same would, therefore, not amount to taking over of the prosecution.
Case Title: M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal Additional Director General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court has ruled that officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) are "Central Excise Officers" for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 since they are vested with the powers of Central Excise Officers by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC).
The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan, while considering a bunch of writ petitions, held that that the definition of "Central Excise Officer" in Section 2(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is expansive and that any person, including an officer of the State Government, who is invested by the CBEC with any of the powers of a Central Excise Officer under the Central Excise Act, is a "Central Excise Officer".
Case Title: Sankar v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
Observing that the accused must be given an opportunity to place his defence, the Madras High court recently allowed a POCSO accused's plea for recall of the victim for cross examination.
Justice V.Sivagnanam explained that Section 33 (5) of the Act was introduced only to ensure that the child should not be repeatedly called to the Court for examining as it would affect the mind of the child. In the present case, the victim was no longer a child and had attained majority. Hence, the victim could be called for cross examination to give a last chance to the accused to give his defence.
6. Madras High Court Confirms Order Of CB-CID Enquiry Into Medical Admission Scams
Case Title: Dr G. Selvarajan v. Dr M.S Santhosh and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
The Madras High Court on Monday confirmed the order of the single judge directing a CB-CID enquiry in a matter relating to series of scams relating to admissions to the medical courses in state.
The court passed the order on an appeal filed by Dr G. Selvarajan, former secretary of the Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, seeking a stay of a single bench order whereby the court had found Selvarajan along with others guilty of not conducting the mop-up counselling for the management seats.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the proceedings against the appellant could continue and that the court could only interfere with respect to the stoppage of pensionary benefits to the appellant subject to the outcome of the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were to be completed within a period of six months and no extention of time would be granted. The court also agreed with the direction of the single judge to pay Rs. 4 lakh each to the writ petitioners as the students were dragged to the litigation only for the reason that the writ appellant did not conduct mop-counselling.
Case Title: M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
While quashing the assessment order, the Madras High Court held that a demand for GST, interest, and penalty on Form DRC-01A cannot be made without the issuance of a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.
The single bench of Justice M.Nirmal Kumar has observed that the department/respondent has not followed the procedure. After the issuance of notice on Form DRC-01A, the department issued Form GST DRC-01A. If the petitioner has any objections and has not paid the tax as determined, a show cause notice must be issued under Section 74(1) of the TNGST Act. After receiving objections and giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the assessment order ought to have been finalised.
Case Title: G.Francis Raja v. State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
The Madras High Court recently allowed an appeal for quashing criminal proceedings against one Francis Raja accused of forgery and cheating. The court made the order after raising suspicion about the manner in which the further investigation was conducted, especially by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Justice Nirmal Kumar observed a lot of defects in the manner in which further investigation was carried out. The court observed that the Trial Court ought to have noted the manner in which the Deputy Superintendent of Police had carried out the investigation when the case had already been closed as a mistake of fact. Finding that the act of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not in a manner known to the law, the court remarked that the entire further investigation was a tainted and coloured one. The court thus ordered for quashing of the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate.
Case Title: M/s.KTV Health Foods Pvt Ltd v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Madras High Court has allowed a petition for quashing the tender process after the bidders approached the court citing Indonesia's ban on the export of RBD Palmolein and other palm products as a Force Majeure Event which made it impossible for them to complete the tender process.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Indonesia is a major supplier of Palmolein and therefore the ban order imposed by the said exporter itself has momentous consequences on the market.
The major factor that weighed with the court in granting relief was that the Tender Authority failed to open the bid on time and in the intervening period, the ban was imposed. Hence, it was of the view that though bidders offers constitute "Standing Offers" so as to bind them the moment the tenders were opened and accepted by the Respondent Corporation, however, this position will follow only where the tender had taken place as per the tender notification.
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - Imports, Custom House Versus M/s. Mahadev Enterprises
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
The Madras High Court bench of Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice S.Srimathy has allowed the re-exportation of betelnut products subject to the execution of a bond to cover the value of the goods.
The respondent/assessee imported betelnut products with a particular description. The department stated that the assessee had imported goods by mistake. The appellants sought to levy duty by classifying the goods under Chapter VIII. However, the assessee, stating that he cannot afford to pay tax under the classification proposed, submitted a representation to the appellants that the respondent may be permitted to re-export the goods to avoid tax being assessed under Chapter VIII.
The court noted that the respondent had no objection to submitting himself for enquiry. As a matter of fact, the investigation was going on and the respondent had already appeared before the investigative agency once. The court directed the appellants to permit the respondent to exercise the option as per the order of a single judge upon the respondent's executing a bond to the full value of the goods that are sought to be re-exported.
11. Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Harassment By GST Department
Case Title: Sridhar Versus The Superintendent of GST
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
The Madras High Court has dismissed the petition alleging harassment by the GST department.
The single bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the term "harassment" is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criterion. The petitioner, having given a complaint, is bound to cooperate with the police for an inquiry.
The court noted that the enquiry was pending and, without cooperating with the police, the petitioner could not seek such a blanket direction.
The court directed the police to issue a notice within two weeks to cause the appearance of the petitioner for enquiry. After enquiring the petitioner, the police may either register a complaint, if any cognisable offence is made out or close the complaint.
Case Title: S Krishnamurthy v. Dr Manivasan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
Elaborating on the thought that the measure of a society is the way in which it treats its most vulnerable, the Madras High Court recently issued a slew of directions to the State Government for proper maintenance of the Old Age Homes in the state.
These directions involved frequent inspections, compliance to the executive orders, registration of old age homes, maintenance of record, cancellation of registration in case of non-compliance, and establishment of a grievance cell.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad was adjudicating upon a contempt petition alleging that an earlier order of the Government directing the State to ensure proper compliance of the Government Order dealing with proper administration of Old Age Homes. While issuing direction the court also remarked that the society could not be positively transformed through judicial directions alone and the society had major role to play in ensuring the well being of the senior citizens of the country.
Case Title: V.Krishnamurthy v. The State of TN and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
Coming down heavily on a litigant for approaching the court on his whims and fancies depending upon the change in the political climate of the State, the Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea and imposed heavy costs.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that from the conduct of the Petitioner, it was clear that he would use this Court by filing Writ Petitions whenever the political climate was not in his favour and withdraw the same once it turns in his favour.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. R Chitradevi and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court recently observed that the relevant date while considering the pensionary benefits of Teachers would be the date on which the teacher entered into service and not the date on which the appointment was actually confirmed.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice N Mala relied on the decision in V.Vasanthi v. State of Tamil Nadu wherein, on similar facts, the court had held that the service period of teachers commences from the date of appointment and not from the date of approval, even though the monetary benefits start to accrue only from the date of completion of the training. Thus, the service rendered before the completion of training was also to be considered for pension.
Case Title: C.Soman v. The Secretary, HR&CE and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
Coming down heavily on a Petitioner seeking direction that the non-Hindus should not be permitted to participate in the Kumbabishegam festival of Arulmighu Adikesava Perumal Thirukovil at Thiruvattar, the Madras High Court held that a person belonging to any religion should neither be prevented nor prohibited entry into a temple.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice R Hemalatha approached the issue with a broader prospective. The court even went on to give examples of temples playing songs rendered by Dr. KJ Yesudas, a Christian by birth and how Hindu Worshippers visited Vailankanni Church and Nagore Dargah regularly.
Additionally, the court also pointed out that when such a public function like the Kumbhabhishegam of a temple is performed, it would be impossible for the authorities to check the religious identity of every person to permit entry into the temple.
Case Title: Charu K. Bagadia Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(2), Mumbai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
The Madras High Court invalidated the reassessment procedures on the basis that the reopening of the income tax assessment was conducted by an officer without jurisdiction.
The division bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad has observed that the ACIT Mumbai, who recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment, has no jurisdiction over the appellant, to issue a notice dated 28.03.2018. Though the files pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the appellant were transferred, the ACIT Chennai has no authority to continue the reassessment proceedings. Hence, the notice issued by him was also held to be invalid.
The court held that the notice issued by the ACIT Mumbai under section 148 as well as the consequential notice issued by the ACIT Chennai cannot be allowed to be sustained.
17. Efflux Of Time Valid Ground To Reject Claim For Compassionate Appointment: Madras High Court
Case Title: B.Ramprakash v. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court has observed that a compassionate appointment cannot not be claimed as a matter of right, and only if a person is entitled under the terms and conditions so specified, can the scheme be extended. The court observed that a compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment as no selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility is tested but the appointment is under exceptional circumstances i.e, the death of an employee.
Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that Providing compassionate appointment after a lapse of many years would not only defeat the purpose and object of the scheme, but also the penurious circumstances arose on account of the sudden death became vanished.
In the present case, the mother of the petitioner who was working as a Junior Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of Police died on 14.04.1995. The court also noted that the application was filed on 17.03.2004, i.e. after a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased. "Now after a lapse of about 27 years, the benefit of the Scheme could not be extended in favour of the petitioner", the court noted.
Case Title: O. Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the general council meeting of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that out of the 2665 members of the General Assembly, more than 2100 members have expressed desire to conduct the meeting. "In a democratic set up, the will of the majority will prevail", the court remarked.
The court also reprimanded the manner in which the petitioner was repeatedly approaching the court instead of participating in the meeting and putting forward his ideas. While allowing the conduct of the meeting according to law, the court also held that if anyone was aggrieved that the meeting was not conducted in accordance with law, they could move with a Civil Suit to that effect.
Case Title: S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Central Government has the liberty under the Extradition Act to choose any Magistrate to deal with the fugitive criminals. Such Magistrate need not be the one within whose jurisdiction the fugitive was apprehended.
Justice R Vijayakumar relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Rosiline George Vs. Union of India and others where the court had observed as under:
It is obvious from the plain language of Section 5 of the Act that the Central Government can direct any Magistrate to hold inquiry provided the said Magistrate would have had jurisdiction to inquire into the offence if it had been an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction.....The Act, being a special provision dealing with the extradition of fugitive criminals, shall exclude from application the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In any case, Section 5 of the said code gives overriding effect to the special jurisdiction created under any special or local laws. Sections 177, 188 and 190 of the Code have no application to the proceedings under the Act.
Case Title: P.Velumani v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
While quashing proceeding against an advocate for trespass, the Madras High Court observed that there is a recent trend where the advocates are implicated along with their clients for offences alleged to be committed by the clients with an object of achieving the intended result quickly. Such practice should be condemned and deprecated.
Justice Murali Shankar of the Madurai Bench observed:
"A new trend has been emerging in implicating the Advocates as accused along with their clients with ulterior motive of achieving the intended result quickly or immediately. The practice of implicating the Advocates along with their clients for the offences alleged to have committed by the clients is to be condemned and such a practice is to be deprecated."
Case Title: C Sivakumar v. A Srividhya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
While granting the relief of divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by his wife, the bench of Justice V.M Velumani and Justice S Sounthar recently observed that the act of wife suspecting the character of the husband and making allegations of extra marital affair in the presence of his colleagues would all amount to mental cruelty. The court also noted that the respondent wife had also given police complaint connecting the appellant husband with his female colleagues without specifically naming anybody. Such a police complaint would also amount to cruelty when it is not substantiated by any evidence. The court observed that during the time of separation, the respondent had removed her thali chain. The court opined that tying of Thali Chain was an essential ritual in marriage ceremony and its removal was an unceremonious act.
Case Title: V.S.J.Dinakaran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
While confirming the order of the single judge dismissing a challenge to the provisional attachment under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the Madras High Court held that there is no provision for providing an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses from whom they have collected the information regarding benami property, at the preliminary stage and therefore, the question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise at the preliminary stage. It is applicable only during the adjudicatory proceedings.
A division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad observed:
"The provisions of law mandate the respondent authorities to furnish such documents, particulars or evidence and provide an opportunity of being heard to the appellant only at the stage of adjudication proceedings; and there is no provision under the Act to provide an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the witnesses at the preliminary stage."
Case Title: Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
Dismissing a writ petition filed against a circular issued by the Union Bank of India taking away Leave Travel Concession for travel abroad, Justice SM Subramaniam observed that such decision was taken in view of the policy of the Government and in the absence of any statutory right, the same did not warrant interference. The court observed as under:
Concessions or facilities extended by way of Administrative Instructions beyond the scope of the rules cannot be construed as an absolute right to the employees.. Regulation 44 remains as the same, providing right to travel within India by the shortest route and therefore, the Administrative Instruction/ Circular, granting an additional facility by way of discretion to travel abroad is to be construed as concession/facility and cannot be construed as a service right, so as to enforce the same.
Case Title: K.Lal Bhagadhur Sasthri v. The Director of Medical Education and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
Observing that digitisation should lead to empowerment and not deprivation, the Madras High Court recently directed the Director of Medical Education and its Selection Committee to award a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to a student who failed to register himself for the NEET counselling process due to technical glitches and poor internet connectivity in his village, thereby losing admission prospects.
The Madurai Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the state had an obligation to compensate a student who was deprived of his entitlement due to "digital divide". The court also directed the Department to ensure that the selection procedure is conducted in such a way so that incidents like these do not occur in future.
Case Title: E.Seshan v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
The Madras High Court recently expressed alarm at the "day in and day out" illegal transportation and slaughter of cows and other animals in open places in the State.
A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that such situation can arise only when the administration fails to ensure compliance of the provisions of the statutory laws and does not take timely action against the defaulters.
The court was hearing a plea claiming that the provisions with respect to prevention of cruelty to animals namely the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001; the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, the Prevention of Cruelty in Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 etc were being violated in the state. The court found merit in the plea and issued a slew of directions for protection of animals
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
Madras High Court on Friday disposed of a writ petition filed actor Vijay challenging the order of Commercial Tax Department directing the actor to pay penalty for non-payment of entry tax for a BMW X5 luxury car imported by him from the United States in 2005.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar directed that the penalty for non-payment of entry tax could be levied only from 29th January, 2019 when a division bench of the court had directed that car importers were liable to pay entry tax. The court held that the penalty was to be calculated from the date of the order till the actual payment of the entry tax and not from the day of actual import.
Case Title: Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Ltd. and ors v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High Court recently imposed a penalty upon a company for allotting shares in violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and opined that though the charge was not separately framed under Section 24(2), the penalty was imposed by the authority keeping in mind the ingredients of the section.
The bench of Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus imposed two penalties on the company. Firstly, under the unamended Section 24(1) of the Act for allotting shares in violation of the act and secondly under the amended Section 24(2) of the Act for violating the directions of SEBI.
Case Title: Dr.Sreejith V.Ravi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court recently directed a doctor, who was in violation of his compulsory service bond executed for a period of 10 years, to either serve a bond period of two years or pay an amount of Rs. 50 lakh in breach thereof.
The court thus set aside the impugned order passed by the Dean of Tirunelveli Medical College wherein the college had called upon the young Doctor to pay a sum of Rs. 2 crores as damages for breach of bond condition.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench observed as under:
I am more than certain that when it comes recovery of bond amount, the authorities will adopt an uniform policy throughout the State. Either the petitioner has to serve for the bond period of two years atleast from now on or he has to pay the amount of Rs.50 Lakhs as fixed by the Government themselves. The impugned order is quashed with the aforesaid clarifications.
29. Madras High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Rejecting The GST Registration Application
Case Title: B.C. Mohankumar Versus Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the GST registration application. The court held that if the assessing authority is inclined to reject the application, which he is entitled to, he must assign reasons for such objection and adhere to proper procedure, including due process.
Case Title: Bava Bahrudeen @ Mannai Bava v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court recently allowed a criminal appeal and granted bail to a man booked by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) over his social media posts, allegedly instigating Muslims to act against Hindus and create communal disharmony amongst different religions.
The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira opined that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was involved in any violent activity and the only allegation was regarding uploading of Facebook posts. The court was also satisfied that the organization was not a terrorist organization. Considering that the appellant was in custody for more than 300 days and that there was no likelihood of the trial being completed at the earliest, the court was inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
Case Title: Asan Basha @ Ashan Batcha and another v. The State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to seven members of Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath who participated in the meetings against the recent Karnataka High Court Hijab judgment. The anticipatory bail was granted keeping in view that the prime accused had already been granted bail and after taking on record the joint affidavit filed by the petitioners tendering their unconditional apology.
Justice Murali Shankar of the Madurai Bench, while granting bail also observed that every person has a right to express their views but the same should be done in a good faith. In the present case, the speakers had in fact exceeded the limits and went to the extent of threatening the Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court.
Case Title: M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court recently set aside the order of conviction of one M/s. RK Emu Frams which was convicted under Sections 120B, 420, and 406 IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection Of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act after observing that the order of conviction was passed without hearing the appellant/accused.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the right of the accused to be represented was an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and that even when the counsel for the accused is absent, the Court should not remain helpless and must appoint an Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.
Case Title: K Vijayakumar v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
Coming to the aid of a 13 years old rape victim, the Madras High Court recently allowed termination of her 28 weeks + 3 days old pregnancy on a plea by the girl's father.
Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that even though the pregnancy had crossed the legal period of 20 weeks, it had to be noted that she was a small statured girl and was not mentally or physically strong to withstand the pregnancy. Apart from this, the court also noted that the girl's father, the Petitioner herein, was an agricultural labourer and if the pregnancy was allowed to continue, not only the victim girl but the whole family would suffer. The court also noted that it had wider power under Article 226 of the Constitution than what is prescribed under section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
While discussing the power of the court to discharge an accused under Section 245(2) of the CrPC, the Madras High Court recently observed that the words "at any previous stage" used in the provision would mean the stage from when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the case.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed as under:
"The phrase "at any previous stage of the case" means a case on file with cognizance being taken , as otherwise, there cannot be a 'discharge' from the case. Therefore, I am of the view that in this case, the stage of Section 200 of Cr.P.C., itself has not commenced and even before that such application (discharge) cannot be filed."
Case Title: Sathiya v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
In a rare incident, the Madras High Court released a mother, convicted for killing her two daughters, on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy saw the case as a testimony to the gender inequality prevailing in the country.
The court found it to be a case of "Nalla Thangal syndrome" wherein unable to bear the taunt of the society, the state of mind of the mother led her to attempt suicide and kill her children along with it. This concept of "state of mind" had been previously considered by the court in the case of Suyambukani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and was later reiterated by a division bench in Poovammal Vs. State.
Case Title: Edappadi K Palaniswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed the order of Revenue Divisional Officer sealing the headquarters of AIADMK party. Justice Sathish Kumar directed the RDO to hand over the keys of the headquarters to Palaniswamy and also directed the police to provide necessary protection to ensure that no untoward incident takes place. In view of the violence that had taken place last week in connection with the sealing, the court also directed Edappadi Palaniswamy to not allow party cadres to enter the building premises. The court also directed the registry to keep the pendrive containing video footage of the violence in safe custody.
Case Title: C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
While adjudicating a man's plea for permanent absorption into the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) on the ground that he had been continuously rendering temporary services since 25 years, the Madras High Court heavily criticised the practice of back door appointment that was prevalent in the country.
Justice S M Subramaniam opined that the practice of back door appointment was infringing the fundamental rights of all those candidates who were trying to secure public employment through open competitive process.
Case Title: M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy recently observed that whenever a vehicle is involved in a crime, the same cannot be returned to the owner when confiscation proceedings are pending before the authorities.
Though there were divergent views taken by the court in various judgements, the instant bench was inclined to follow the observations made by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Uday Singh [(2020) 12 SCC 733] wherein the court held as under:
"29.4.......The jurisdiction under Section 451 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the authorised officer initiated confiscation proceedings."
Case Title: Sudha Hospital v. The Director of Medical And Rural Health and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed an order of the Government of Tamil Nadu sealing Sudha Hospital in Erode for their alleged involvement in illegal sale of oocyte from a 16 year old girl.
Justice Abdul Quddhose quashed the order after observing that the respondent authorities had failed to record in writing the reasons for suspending the registration of the clinic establishment without issuing any notice, as was necessary under proviso to Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishment (Regulation) Act 1997 and Section 20(3) of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
Case Title: Kader Batcha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court on Friday directed Central Bureau of Investigation to probe into the allegations levelled against retired IPS Officer AG Ponn Manickavel for his alleged collusion with idol smugglers. The orders were issued by Justice G Jayachandran in a plea moved by a former Deputy Superintendent of Police Kader Batcha.
The court concluded that for it to satisfy its conscious, it was necessary that there was an impartial investigation. To ensure the same, the court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to ensure fair and impartial investigation. For this, the court deemed it fit to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Case Title: Mr.P.Adhavan Seral v. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that informations touching upon the right of privacy of third parties cannot be sought through RTI applications without putting them on notice.
Justice Anand Venkatesh was dealing with a plea seeking directions to the Tamil Nadu Information Commission to provide details with respect to persons who have registered themselves in the district employment office under the special category of Inter Caste Marriage and to furnish the certificates provided by such persons.
Case Title: Siva v. State by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of conviction of a man accused of murder after observing that the trial court was misled in corroborating the statement of witnesses recorded under S. 164 CrPC with the medical evidence when in fact all the independent witnesses had turned hostile.
Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira took note of the judicial precedents where the courts have clearly laid down that the statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC are not substantive evidence and that they can only be used to corroborate/contradict the statement of a witness.
Case Title: Jaisankar v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
While quashing a final report against a man accused of being in possession of an intoxicating drug and charged with Section 4(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937, the Madras High Court observed that the prosecution was a malafide one.
After going through the materials available on record, Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that though it was alleged that 96 rum bottles were found in possession of the accused, there was no evidence except the statement of the investigating officer. The court also noted that even though the courts do not generally go into the materials collected by the police, if it was found that the prosecution itself was without any material, the same could be quashed.
Case Title: Irfana Nasreen v. The State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
Allowing an application for alteration of FIR filed by an estranged wife, the Madras High Court recently directed the respondent police to register offences under Section 417 and 420 of IPC for cheating against the husband who deceived the wife by non-disclosing his impotency.
Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench directed the respondent police to add the offences along with already existing Section 498-A and 406 and submit the final report within four months after investigation.
Case Title: S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Freedom Fighter's Pension could not be brought under the category of family income for grant of family pension. It observed that Freedom Fighter's pension is given to honor the sacrifices made by them for the nation in the freedom struggle. Justice B Pugalendhi thus allowed a woman's plea to draw a family pension arising out of her mother's service in addition to the freedom fighter's pension.
Case Title: Sureshkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High court recently gave a clean chit to Madurai's former Commissioner of Police, S. Davidson Devasirvatham in connection with matters pertaining to issuance of fake passports to Sri Lankan and Indian Nationals by using forged documents.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan observed that field enquiry police officer play the most crucial in verification process and the buck stops with the nodal officer. "Involvement of the officials above the said rank may not really arise."
Case Title: R.Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 323
On a plea seeking the inclusion of photographs of the Prime Minister and the President of India in the advertisements for the 44th Chess Olympiad organised by the Federation Internationale des Echecs [FIDE], the Madras High Court directed the State government to ensure that the pictures of the Prime Minister and the President are included in all the advertisements. The division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice S Ananthi also directed the government to ensure that in future events also, these directions are followed.
Case Title: M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumnath has quashed the VAT assessment and directed the department to follow the procedure set out in the circular regarding the issue of mismatch.
The court ordered that the procedure set out in the circular be applied to the present case as well. The orders of assessment are set aside to enable both parties, i.e., the assessee as well as the department, to engage in the finalisation of the issue in line with the circular.
Case Title: Dr.R.Senthilkumar v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor registered with State Homoeopathy Medical Council who was found practicing in Allopathy Medicine.
Justice Teeka Raman observed that Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani practitioners who are registered in the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine are eligible to practice in the respective system with Allopathy based on the training and teaching they had in the Course. The court however cautioned that such persons cannot exclusively practice Allopathy medicine.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
In a welcoming gesture, Justice GR Swaminathan of Madurai bench of the Madras High Court issued a letter on Monday to the members of the bar informing them that lawyers who are young mothers could ask for a specific time slot to argue their case after informing the Court Officers.
This was however subject to the condition that such advocates should pass on the dates and events, case laws which they are going to rely on and the proposition which they want to advance to the court a day earlier. The advocates should also be well prepared so that they consume minimum time of the court.
Senior Advocate P Wilson, also a Member of Parliament from DMK party, has addressed a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging for due representation of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in local bodies, like Municipalities and Panchayats.
He further suggested moving census, which is presently in the Union List as per Entry 69, List I, Schedule VII of the Constitution, to the Concurrent List so that the States can conduct their own census and the same would aid the State in maintaining an accurate list of backward classes contemplated under Article 342-A(3).
The Chief Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu, Mr. V Irai Anbu recently circulated a letter to his subordinates including Additional Chief Secretaries, Principal Secretaries, Secretaries to Government, all heads of departments and all district collectors calling upon them to implement court orders within time for avoiding contempt proceedings.
The letter was in response to an observation made by the Chief Justice expressing displeasure over delay in implementation of Court Orders by the Departments. The Chief Secretary also observed that of late, there was a delay in filing the writ appeals also which caused the petitioners in concerned cases to file contempt against Government Department for non-implementation of court orders.
Case Title: S Sushma and Anr v. Director General of Police and Ors
Case No: WP 7284 of 2021
While issuing a slew of directions for the upliftment of the LGBTQ+ community, the Madras High Court has directed the National Medical Commission to enlist "Conversion Therapy" as professional misconduct.
This comes in continuation of the earlier directions issued by the court wherein the Commission was directed to ensure that the State Medical Councils shall notify conversion therapy as misconduct in their rules so that there is consistency bet the Commission rules and the Council rules.
When the matter came up on Friday, Justice Anand Venkatesh looked into the Draft Conduct Regulations 2022, which has been put in the public domain and suggestions have been invited. The court noted that only gender-based discrimination had been included as misconduct and "Conversion Therapy" was conspicuously absent.
ALSO READ: Steps Being Taken To Make LGBTQIA+ Glossary More Simple: State Tells Madras High Court
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court has directed the Madurai bench registry to register a suo motu case of criminal contempt against Youtuber/Commentator Savukku Shankar for his tweets against the judge. The court also directed the registry to implead social media intermediaries like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube and send notices to their compliance officers. The court also impleaded the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
Savukku Shankar had through his tweets alleged that the Judge had "met someone" in connection to the proceedings against another Youtuber Maridhas thus raising questions on the order passed by the judge which was in favor of Maridhas.
Expressing concern over the manner in which a visiting parent is often treated by the parent who is in custody of the child, the Madras High Court recently observed that every child has a right and need for an unthreatened and loving relationship with both the parents.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy remarked that every child has a right to access both parents and get the love and affection of both parents. Whatever be the differences between the spouses, the child cannot be denied company of the other spouse.
Case Title: U. Manickavel v. State rep. by Secretary and others
Case No: WP No. 2627 of 2014
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department to take immediate steps to remove uniformed officers serving as orderlies at the residence of higher officials and to use these forces for the benefit of the public at large. Justice SM Subramaniam took note of a Government Order issued in 1979, abolishing the orderly system in Police Department. The court noted that All India Service Conduct Rules, 1968 clearly stipulate that the misuse of an official position is misconduct.
The court also directed the higher officials to voluntarily surrender all the orderlies which will show their real courage in terms of accepting the good conduct in accordance with the All India Services Conduct Rules.
Case Title: N. Joebhoy Gomez v. Government of India and others
Case No: W.P No. 19140 of 2022
A litigant has recently moved the Madras High Court against the grant of a censor certificate to the Tamil movie Yaanai, starring Arun Vijay. The petitioner seeks revocation of the censor certificate and removal of certain portions of the movie contending that the same portrayed the fishermen's community in a bad light.
When the matter came up for consideration, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala adjourned the matter as the counsel for the petitioner was absent.
Case Title: P.Kuppusamy v. The District Collector and others
Case No: WP No.26472 of 2014
In a matter pertaining to fraudulent appointment to the post of Operator of the Over Head Water Tank of Muthur Town Panchayat, the Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the jurisdictional police to register a criminal case and proceed in accordance with law.
Justice SM Subramaniam directed the Executive Officer to register a complaint setting out the entire facts along with the documents to the jurisdictional Police, within a period of one week. Upon receiving the complaint, the police was directed to register the same and proceed with the investigation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District was directed to file a status report after conducting investigation.