Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 266 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 294 NOMINAL INDEX K Nizamuddin v The Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 266 Balakrishna Reddy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 267 Mr.P.N.Vignesh v The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council, BCI, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 268 M/s.Practo Technologies Pvt.Ltd v The Tamil...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 266 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
NOMINAL INDEX
K Nizamuddin v The Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Balakrishna Reddy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
Mr.P.N.Vignesh v The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council, BCI, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
M/s.Practo Technologies Pvt.Ltd v The Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Association and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
T.S.Jawahar Ali Khan v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
Porkodi v State and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
C.Aranganayagam (Deceased) v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
D Prabhu v The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Sri Nithyanadha Swami v .Sri La Sri Harihara, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
SV Subbiah v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
G Karthikeyan v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
Arjunan v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
High Court of Madras v D Sasikumar and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Ghanshyam Hemdev v Pyramid Audio India Pvt Ltd and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
G.Abdul Khadar Ibrahim v Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
Thameem Sindha Madar v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
Kajendran J v Superintendent of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
K Govindaraj v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
Kandasamy v The District Superintendent of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
State of Tamil Nadu and Others v All India Private Schools Legal Protection Society, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
Sapphire Foods India Ltd v The Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Raja Murrugan v Superintendent of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
The Chief Revenue Controlling Authority Chennai Versus R.Muniyandi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
Karthikeyan and Others v Thangapandian, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
Arulraj and another v The Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
Thejo Engineering Limited Versus The Deputy Director of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
Vipul Kumar Tulsian and anr vs M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
Larsen & Toubro Limited vs M/s.Texmo Pipes and Products Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Secretary, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly v P Sivakumar (batch cases), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Case Title: K Nizamuddin v The Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court recently closed a public interest litigation seeking to frame standard operating procedures for preserving, protecting and maintaining the CCTV footages inside police stations and ensuring its availability to prevent possible human rights violation.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq closed the plea after considering the State's plea that CCTV cameras have been installed in almost 99% of the police stations and steps have been taken to preserve the footage for a period of 18 months.
Case Title: Balakrishna Reddy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside the conviction and sentence imposed om former Tamil Nadu Minister Balakrishna Reddy.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that there were several lacunas in the prosecution case and the benefit had to be given to the appellant (Balakrishnan). The orders were passed on appeals preferred by Reddy and others challenging his conviction.
In January 2019, a special court had convicted Reddy to 3 year imprisonment in a 1998 arson case in connection with a protest against illicit liquor. Over 150 villagers had gathered in front of Bagalur Police Station and protested against police inaction in removing illicit arrack units in the area. The special court had convicted Reddy after noting the damage to public property, and burning of police vehicles.
Case Title: Mr.P.N.Vignesh v The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council, BCI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on lawyers soliciting work through online websites in violation of Bar Council of India Rules. The court has asked the Bar Council of India to issue circulars/instructions/guidelines to State Bar Councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings against lawyers for advertising or soliciting their services directly or indirectly.
The court added that action should be taken against any form of advertising including furnishing newspaper comments, or producing photographs to be published in connection with cases, etc.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that the legal profession, unlike others, was not a job or a business and the intention was to provide welfare to the society. The court added that though a fee was paid to the lawyers, it was paid out of respect for their time and knowledge. The court added that providing ranking or customer ratings to lawyers demeaned the profession and was against dignity and integrity.
Case Title: M/s.Practo Technologies Pvt.Ltd v The Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Association and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court recently disposed of an appeal against an order of a single judge prohibiting the online sale of drugs and cosmetics.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan took note of the Government's submission that it was in the process of finalizing a new policy. The court directed the Union Government and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation to expedite and finalize the police and notify the same.
Till such time, the court ordered status quo on the condition that online sale of drugs must be made only through or by licensed Druggists and Chemists. The court directed the competent authorities to initiate appropriate action against the individual offenders in the manner known to the law. The court noted that the policy will have far-reaching consequences and the Government would have to consider various issues raised by the stakeholders.
Disciplinary Authority Must Record Reasons If Disagree With Enquiry Authority: Madras High Court
Case Title: T.S.Jawahar Ali Khan v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, while deciding a Writ Petition held that the disciplinary authority must record its reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry authority against an employee's dismissal.
Case Title: Porkodi v State and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
After a special hearing held on Sunday morning, the Madras High Court permitted the burial of late Bahujan Samaj Party Tamil Nadu chief Armstrong to be held at a private property in Pothur Village in Thiruvallur district in Tamil Nadu. The court also gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the authority if they intended to construct a memorial manimandapam, hospital, school etc in Armstrong's name.
Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan also asked all parties to co-operate with the government and conduct the burial procession in a peaceful manner. The court further directed the police to give appropriate police protection for the procession.
The court passed orders on petition filed by wife of late BSP leader K Armstrong seeking permission to bury his body in the party office at Chennai.
Case Title: C.Aranganayagam (Deceased) v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
The Madras High Court recently refused to set aside the conviction of former Tamil Nadu Labour Minister C Aranganayagam in a disproportionate assets case. While the court dismissed an appeal preferred by Arangayagam, it also upheld the acquittal of Anraganayagam's family members.
Justice G Jayachandran thus confirmed the confiscation of properties of Arangayagam, who passed away on April 29, 2021.
The case against Arangayagam was that while serving as the Minister for Labour and Education, during 1991-1996, he had accumulated wealth disproportionate to his income. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai registered a case and he was charged with offenses under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Along with Arangayagam, a case was also registered against his wife and two sons for abetment.
Case Title: D Prabhu v The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
The Madras High Court recently noted that it was high time that the Government of Tamil Nadu rethink its liquor policy for the welfare of the people in the state, especially the younger generation who are the pillars of tomorrow.
The court added that a conscious decision could be taken based on public opinion and though taking a decision may not be an easy task, that should not justify the State's support to the liquor policy presently in place.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Government Rules, regarding the location of TASMAC shops, should be for the protection and welfare of the people. However, presently, the Rules appear to be made to protect the TASMAC shops whose aim is to enhance the sale of intoxicating material that ultimately affect the society.
Case Title: Sri Nithyanadha Swami v .Sri La Sri Harihara
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Sri Nithyananda Swami challenging an order of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai allowing successor senior pontiff Sri Harihara Gnanasambanda Desiga Paramachariya Swamigal to be added to the suit pending in relation to appointment of a junior pontiff to the Madurai Adheenam.
Justice R Vijayakumar opined that the application for amendment did not call for any interference.
Case Title: SV Subbiah v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court has recently directed the State Government to issue appropriate circulars to all District Collectors, competent authorities and to Government Pleaders indicating them to conduct Government-related land cases properly and defend the government on merits and per the law.
The court also called for coordination between Government Pleaders and officials for defending cases across courts in the State.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan added that in case of any ex-parte decree being passed by the courts, any improper conduct by the Government Pleader or official concerned must be identified and the competent authority must initiate appropriate action.
Case Title: G Karthikeyan v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court recently declared illegal, a Government Order (GO) reserving compassionate appointments in the Noon Meal Scheme to females.
Noting that the GO was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that it not only affected the male children of female employees but put the female employees a par below to that of their male counterparts.
The court noted that if 100% of the vacancies in a particular department are reserved for women, the applications for compassionate appointment could be forwarded to the District Collector or to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to be considered under the general pool for being appointed in other suitable posts.
Case Title: Arjunan v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
While granting compensation to the family of a man who succumbed to burn injuries sustained while disposing of bio-medical waste, the Madras High Court recently remarked that when the government could pay families of persons who knowingly consumed spurious liquor Rs. 10 Lakh, the innocent victims deserved no less.
Justice GR Swaminathan added that it was unfortunate that the State resisted such applications in which it should have conceded the prayer straightaway. The court noted that it was an apposite case for invoking the Doctrine of Benevolent exercise of Power and thus granted compensation to the family.
Case Title: High Court of Madras v D Sasikumar and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
The Madras High Court has recently sentenced Sub-Registrar, Thiruvarur to two months of simple imprisonment for conniving with a private individual and fabricating documents which were produced in court for getting favorable orders. The court, however, suspended the execution of imprisonment for 30 days allowing the parties to file an appeal.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that if the court shuts its eye to such actions, it would encourage unscrupulous officials to engage in such activities with private individuals and achieve their goals. The court thus emphasized that such fabrication of documents could not be condoned especially in registering officers where the entries have a bearing on the rights of the individuals.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Hemdev v Pyramid Audio India Pvt Ltd and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
The Madras High Court has stayed the re-release of Kamal Hassan starrer 1991 Tamil Movie “Gunaa” amidst copyright infringement claims.
Justice P Velmurugan granted an ad-interim injunction on an application made by Ghanshyam Hemdev. Noting that the balance of convenience favored Hemdev, the court was inclined to grant the ad interim injunction. Meanwhile, the court also issued notices to the respondents, Pyramid Audio India Pvt Ltd, Evergreen Media Pvt Ltd, and Prasad Film Laboratories.
Case Title: G.Abdul Khadar Ibrahim v Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a police constable, who was punished for keeping a beard "following the commandments of Prophet Mohammed".
Stating that India is a land of diverse religions and customs, bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri held though police department warranted maintaining strict discipline, it would not mean that a personnel belonging to the minority community can be punished for maintaining a beard.
The court noted that as per an Office Memorandum issued to the Madras Police Gazette, while permission could not be granted to officers to maintain beard, Muslim police officers were entitled to maintain a beard throughout their lifetime.
Case Title: Thameem Sindha Madar v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court has allowed the conducting of Muharram ceremonies with the beat of drums, santhanakoodu, and Kuthirai pancha processions in the Ervadi Town in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.
Justice GR Swaminathan emphasized that the right to conduct a religious procession was protected under Article 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Constitution and it was not open for members of fundamentalist Thowheed Jamath to dictate how other members should conduct the festival. The court also added that when one's fundamental rights were under threat, the administration had a duty to uphold the rights but it was unfortunate that the administration had succumbed to the threats held out by the Thowheed Jamath members.
The court also remarked that like language, religion was not the same everywhere, and if the people in Ervadi believed in Music, the beat of drums, horse, and chariot processions, to expect them to conform to Saudi Arabian practice was nothing short of a Talibanic outlook.
Case Title: Kajendran J v Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
Noting that there was no standard operating procedure to deal with the products of conception after a Medical Termination of Pregnancy done for a minor pregnant girl, the Madras High Court observed that a guideline needed to be issued and followed across the state.
The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that after a fetus less than 24 weeks old was completely sent to Forensic Science Lab and analysis was done, there was no standard operating procedure available and there was no facility to preserve the product of conception. The court thus made it clear that once the analysis was complete and a report was submitted by the FSL, the sample should be retained by the FSL till the completion of the case and destroyed after that.
The court also emphasized that the samples should not be handed over to the investigation officer and should never reach the hands of the victim girl or her family. With respect to fetus beyond 24 weeks, the court noted that the femur alone was handed over to the FSL, and the rest of the products of conception should be treated as Bio-Medical waste and destroyed as per the procedure.
Case Title: K Govindaraj v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
The Madras High Court recently restrained the Enforcement Directorate from carrying out its investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against private contractors in connection with alleged illegal sand mining.
The Court noted that there was no scheduled offence in the present case and hence the PMLA investigation was not sustainable. Till there was a scheduled offence registered and detection of the proceeds of crime, the ED cannot carry out its investigation.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the ED had initiated the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act without any basis and without identifying any proceeds of crime. It noted that sand mining was not covered under the scheduled offences under the PMLA. The court added that unless a case in the scheduled offence was registered and such an offence generated proceeds of crime, the ED could not have initiated any action. The court further observed that even if ED's materials were to be accepted, it would only show that they have unearthed large-scale illegal mining that generated illegal money.
Case Title: Kandasamy v The District Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
While asking the state to consider a representation by the Bharatiya Janata Party to conduct a protest, the Madras High Court highlighted that the right to expression is an essential part of democracy.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that in a democratic country, every political party had a right to conduct an agitation, and a peaceful protest could deepen a democracy's reach and improve its chances of survival.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and Others v All India Private Schools Legal Protection Society
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to issue circulars/instructions/orders to all the school administrations across the State, asking them not to insist on the production of a Transfer Certificate by a child seeking admission. The court has also asked the schools to refrain from making unnecessary entries in the TC regarding non-payment or delayed payment of the school fee. The court added that in case of any violation, appropriate action should be initiated under the RTE Act and other relevant laws.
Noting that TC was not a tool for schools to collect arrears of fee from the parents, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan observed that when an entry regarding arrears of fee is made in the TC, it would stigmatize the child and was a form of mental harassment under Section 17 of the Right to Education Act.
Case Title: Sapphire Foods India Ltd v The Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
The Madras High Court has stayed an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department suspending the license of Sapphire Foods India Ltd, operators of the fast-food chain KFC in Thoothukudi.
Justice GR Swaminathan agreed with the petitioners and observed that the order was liable to be dealt with on several grounds. The court noted that as per the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the authorities were to first issue an improvement notice and in case of non-compliance, could suspend the license. In the present case, the court noted that the authorities had straightaway suspended the license in the first instance.
Case Title: Raja Murrugan v Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
Expressing shock over a lawyer seeking protection for running a brothel center, the Madras High Court has asked the state bar council to ensure that members are enrolled only from reputed institutions and restrict the enrolment from unreputed institutions from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and other states.
Justice B Pugalendhi observed that it was high time the bar council realised that the reputation of advocates was decreasing in the society. The court added that it was unfortunate that the brother service business was being done by a person claiming to be an advocate from the Kanyakumari District which is known for being 100% literate.
Interest Can't Be Demanded When Entire Stamp Duty Paid During Pendency Of Appeal: Madras High Court
Case Title: The Chief Revenue Controlling Authority Chennai Versus R.Muniyandi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
The Madras High Court has held that interest cannot be demanded when the entire amount as demanded by the authorities has been paid even during the pendency of the appeal.
The bench of Justice R. Vijayakumar has observed that the present appeal has been filed under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Only after orders are passed by the Court will the liability get fastened upon the purchaser to pay interest on the belated payment. The entire amount as demanded by the authorities has been paid even during the pendency of the appeal. The interest cannot be demanded because the belated payment does not arise.
Case Title: Karthikeyan and Others v Thangapandian
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
The Madras High Court has made it clear that no prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is needed to prosecute police officers below the rank of Inspector of Police.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar observed that though Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteed the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, it could not be misconstrued to apply against the hierarchies in the administrative aspects.
The court was answering a reference made to it on whether the term “removable by government” could be interpreted in a broad perspective to include police officers from the rank of Constable to Inspector of Police.
The court noted that the legislation, in its wisdom, had restricted the scope and application of the provision with a reasonable differentia. The court added that if the word “any person” in Article 14 of the Constitution was assumed to have exempted and excluded classification and restriction in all enactments, no statute with any reasonable differentia could ever be implemented.
Case Title: Arulraj and another v The Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court recently criticized the police force for not acting appropriately in cases involving bribery during elections. The court remarked that though the police were the only machinery that could act against such offenses, in many cases, the police were taking sides and not prosecuting expecting favors from political parties.
Justice B Pugalendhi further observed that bribing voters during an election was not just an offense against an individual but an offense against society. The court added that such bribing destroys the very basis of democracy. The court also remarked that since the police were not acting against the offenders, people ended up committing subsequent offence.
Foreign Tax Credit Can't Be Denied In Spite Of Accepting Computation: Madras High Court
Case Title: Thejo Engineering Limited Versus The Deputy Director of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
The Madras High Court has held that the claim of foreign tax credit cannot be denied in spite of accepting the computation.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, on examining the company tax return and the activity statements, appears prima facie that the petitioner has remitted taxes through the Australian branch. It is clear that foreign tax credit in respect thereof was claimed by the petitioner by filing Form 67 with relevant annexures. On examining the intimation under Section 143(1) and the rectification order, the foreign tax credit was computed by the assessing officer, and the computation tallied with the foreign tax credit claim of the assessee. In spite of accepting the computation of the taxpayer, the tax credit relief was denied.
Case Title: Vipul Kumar Tulsian and anr vs M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has set aside an arbitral award where the opposite party proceeded with arbitration unilaterally and appointed the Arbitrator without any intimation to the claimants. Further, the claimants neither received notices of hearing nor appeared before the Tribunal, and consequently, the Arbitrator did not afford any opportunity to claimants to contest the matter.
Therefore, the bench held that such an arbitral award was against the public policy of India and violated the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Larsen & Toubro Limited vs M/s.Texmo Pipes and Products Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court division bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has held that if it is proved that if it is established that the parties are ad idem, a formal contract signature by the other party is not necessary to enforce the arbitration agreement.
The High Court noted that, to establish an arbitration agreement, there must be mutual consent between the parties. Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act allows an arbitration agreement to be derived from various forms of communication, including electronic means, as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act. This provision states that even without a formal contract, if parties are found to be ad idem, they cannot avoid liability under the agreement.
The High Court emphasized the importance of the parties' intentions in determining the existence of an arbitration agreement. It held that arbitration is fundamentally consensual and its enforcement relies on the parties' agreement to settle disputes through this mechanism.
Case Title: The Secretary, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly v P Sivakumar (batch cases)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside a single judge order that quashed show cause notices issued to current CM MK Stalin and other MLAs from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party on the issue of breach of privilege while displaying gutka sachets inside the Tamil Nadu Legislative assembly in 2017.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan made it clear that issues such as breach of privilege could not be washed away with a new assembly. The court highlighted that such issues should be deliberated for the people's best interest.
Though it was argued that the breach of privilege proceedings lapse with the dissolution of the assembly, the court noted that if such a view was to be accepted, the purpose of granting privileges would become meaningless. The court highlighted that in such situations, the members may end up not taking the privileges seriously thus leading to utter chaos.