Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 NOMINAL INDEX Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234 Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235 SJ Suryah v....
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
NOMINAL INDEX
Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
SJ Suryah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Abdul Rashid Sahib v. Ramachandran and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
S Nalini v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
S Gopikrishnan v. Regional Officer, CBFC and others, 2022 LiveLaw(Mad) 242
Deputy Commissioner of Police v. C Duraisamy, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
P. Sukumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai @ Duraimurugan and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Northern Arc Capital Limited v Sambandh Finance Private Limited and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
K Arumugam v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
A Shanmugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of Advaitha Philosophy through P.S Sundaram and others v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
M/s Ankit Ispat Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
M/s. Fenner (India) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr v. M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram and others v. Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
S. Manjula v. G. Shoba and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
Tvt.LAF Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
Udhaya Kumar v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
B Nagaraj v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
P Venkatachalam v. The Tahsildar (Batch), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
N Syamasundara Naidu v. V Dakshinamoorthy and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
P Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Dharampal R. Pandia versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
Mohamed Jiyaputheen v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
M/s.Progressive Stone Works Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
Mahalakshmi v. The Superintendent of Police and others, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 272
St. Mary's Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. .The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Sunku Vasundhara v State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
Dinesh v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
P.Sudha v. The Secretary and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
REPORTS
Case Title: Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has observed that persons belonging to the same class cannot be discriminated against by creating an artificial class between them on the basis of date of retirement.
The order of Justice C Saravanan came as a relief to the retired employees of various State Transport Undertakings (STU) who had approached the Court seeking implementation of the recommendations of the VII Central Pay Commission and for revision of their pension.
The Court also observed that the State Transport Undertaking were part of the State Transport Department. Thus, there was an understanding that the salaries and pensions of the employees in STUs will be on par with their counterparts in Government Services. Thus, there was no reason to discriminate those employees who have retired earlier.
Case Title: Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court has observed that the pendency of a criminal case that is at the FIR stage is not a bar for the issuance of a passport. However, in cases where the final report has been filed, permission of the concerned Court has to be obtained for issuance of a Passport, it further said.
Justice GR Swaminathan further observed that such a requirement is applicable only when the concerned person wants to leave India and not when the person wants to come back to India.
Case Title: Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court came to the rescue of around 25 doctors by directing the respective medical colleges and the Directorate of Medical Education that they could not withhold the original education certificates collected at the time of admission, merely on the ground that the petitioners had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the bond for compulsory service.
"It is well settled that an Educational certificate is not a marketable commodity, therefore, there cannot be exercise of any lien in terms of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It has been held in catena of cases that management cannot retain the certificates of the students."
Case Title: SJ Suryah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court recently held that when an assessment order is quashed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on technical grounds, the same cannot be made a ground to evade criminal prosecution before the concerned court under the Income Tax Act.
Justice G Chandrasekharan was considering a plea filed by cine actor SJ Suryah for quashing the prosecutions against him before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I) Chennai, Alikulam Road on the ground that the Income Tax Appellate Authority had set aside the assessment order against him.
The court observed that the the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposed the appeals only on the ground of limitation and not on merits. From the complaint allegation it was clear that despite, giving notice, statutory notice as detailed in the complaint, petitioner has not filed return, paid advance tax and tax demanded, suppressed the real and true income by not filing the return in time. These matters had to be necessarily tried before the Court as the violations were liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Section 276 C (1), 276 C (2), 276 CC and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sahib v. Ramachandran and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently observed that trial courts should refrain from acting solely on memo filed by the counsel of the party conceding the substantive right of the party viz-a-viz the subject matter of the suit, or right of defence, for passing any non-adjudicatory decree or appealable orders.
Justice N Seshasayee observed that though there is not a complete ban on considering the memo filed by the counsel of the parties, what must be looked into is the effect that the memo and the consequential order will have on the rights of the parties.
The court also held that though a lawyer is authorized to act on behalf of his client through the Vakalatnama, there should be an express authority granted to him to enter into compromise and the same could not be implied.
Case Title: L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court bench of Justice M Nirmal Kumar recently dismissed a revision petition against the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Court Egmore dismissing a defamation complaint against the President and Secretary-General of the All India Yadav Maha Sabha. The petition was filed by one Nandagopal Yadav, who was suspended from the post of Vice President of the Sabha.
The court observed that nowhere in his sworn statement, the petitioner had stated that the imputation had directly or indirectly in the estimation of others lowered the moral or the intellectual character of the petitioner. Further no ingredient was made out for commission of the offence.
Case Title: K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
Justice M. S Ramesh of the Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of employees of Co-operative societies and directed the Chief Secretary, the Secretary (Co-operation), and the Registrar of Co-operative societies, Government of Puducherry to pass orders for disbursement of unpaid salaries, earned leave encashment, EPF Contributions, ESI benefits, and other admissible entailments, due to them for their respective services. The court directed the dues to be paid within three months from receipt of copy of the order.
The court held that even though Society cannot be Characterized as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a writ was maintainable to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the Society. In the present case, since there was a public duty upon the Government, the petition was maintainable.
Case Title: S Nalini v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
S. Nalini, who was one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, recently withdrew an application she had moved before the Madras High Court seeking emergency leave for her husband- Sridharan alias Murugan, another convict in the case.
When the matter came up before the bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice A D Jagadish Chandra on Monday, the prison officials informed the Court that Nalini's representation was rejected in light of the prison offences committed by her husband Murugan. The Superintendent had passed the aforesaid order in terms of Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
In light of the same, the petitioner decided to withdraw the present writ petition and challenge the order of rejection passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons before the appellate authority.
Case Title: P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever complaints are made to the Statutory Authorities, they are expected to act upon the same and not keep it pending indefinitely. The authorities are expected to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders in reasonable time.
Justice MS Ramesh of the Madurai Bench observed as follows:
"It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time."
Case Title: S Gopikrishnan v. Regional Officer, CBFC and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Mad) 242
A litigant on Wednesday withdrew his petition in Madras High Court seeking directions to the Central Board of Film Certification to telecast statutory warning with the words "Knives and Sickles used in this movie are made of paper and colour water is used as blood" in forthcoming films.
The plea was withdrawn after the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala warned of dismissing the plea with costs. The bench observed that the petition was moved merely for publicity and without any materials.
Highlighting that the certification by CBFC is appealable, the court suggested that in case the litigant had a complaint regarding the certification of certain movies, he could challenge the same before the appropriate authority.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Police v. C Duraisamy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court on Wednesday commuted the death sentence of Marudupandian to life imprisonment in the Kannagi-Murugesan Honour Killing case. Marudupandian is Kannagi's brother. The Court also confirmed the life sentence of others including Kannagi's father Duraisamy. Further, two convicts were acquitted of the offence.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice AA Nakkiran passed the orders on a reference made by the Special Court, Cuddalore. The convicts had also appealed against the order of the special court.
"There are no castes, dear child. Identifying persons on the basis of upper caste and lower caste is a sin." the court quoted these words of Mahakavi Subramanya Bharathiyar, and expressed deep anguish over the fact that even after almost a century of his demise, these lines of the Mahakavi seem to remain only in the primary school textbooks and nowhere else. The court also suggested common burial for Dalits and non Dalits in the countryside as a means of annihilation of caste in the country.
Case Title: P. Sukumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed one Sukumar for forming an Investigation Team under the head of a retired High Court Judge for inquiring into the alleged irregularities committed by the Election officer cum Revenue Divisional officer while conducting the elections to the Water User Association.
While dismissing the petition, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the petition was not one for public interest but was a "private interest litigation". The court also held that a direction for investigation by a retired Judge cannot be issued unless it is determined that the matter requires serious investigation or is of great public interest.
Case Title: State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai @ Duraimurugan and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madras High Court recently observed that social media intermediaries operating in India are governed by the Acts and Rules of the land. They have a duty to ascertain that videos are in accordance with the policies and guidelines. If these videos are found to be in violation, they have a duty to block such channels without insisting on FIRs or any Court orders.
"There is a contract between the intermediaries and the channels. In case of any violation of the conditions, it is the duty of the intermediaries to remove or block the channel as per the terms of their agreement...The intermediaries are not expected to insist for FIR or any court orders to remove the videos which are in violation of their guidelines. If it is not blocked or removed even after it was brought to their knowledge, the intermediaries are committing the offence under Section 69A (3) of the Information Technology Act."
Case Title: Northern Arc Capital Limited v Sambandh Finance Private Limited and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
While discussing extensively the scope of issuing summary judgments, the Madras High Court recently observed that suits cannot be summarily decreed at the instance of a plaintiff unless such plaintiff satisfies the court that the suit claim stands duly proved.
The two requirements for the grant of summary judgments under Rule 3 Order XIII-A CPC are that the applicant should establish that the counterparty has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim/succeeding the claim and that there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording oral evidence.
With reference to an application for summary judgment, Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy observed that both the parties are required to set out the grounds on which the application is being prosecuted or defended, along with all documents proposed to be relied upon for such purpose. The court also observed that even though the Rules stands so, the burden of proof is primarily on the applicant. Thus, the applicant had to establish that the counterparty had no real prospect of defending the claim or succeeding in the claim.
Case Title: K Arumugam v State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court recently quashed the FIR against a man, who tried to reconcile the differences between a couple through compromise, but was himself dragged into the embroil with the filing of a FIR against him by one of the spouse.
"It is a classical case, good samaritan turned into foe in the process of conciliation between the husband and wife," Justice G Ilangovan observed at the outset.
The court also observed that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC would not stand in the present case as the alleged offence had taken place in the house of the accused and not in a public place or in public view. The court also opined that the allegation made against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 1998 would not attract.
Case Title: A Shanmugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
While dismissing a Police Inspector's plea for retrospective promotion, the Madras High Court has observed that entertaining such belated claims will result in unsettling the settled position. The court reiterated that settled positions cannot be unsettled after a lapse of many years.
Finding the petition to be devoid of any merits, a bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed as follows:
"The employees, who have slept over their rights, cannot wake up one fine morning and knock the doors of the Court for the purpose of redressal of their grievances, which all are otherwise lapsed on account of efflux of time"
17.Smartha Brahmins Not A Religious Denomination, Madras High Court
Case Title: Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of Advaitha Philosophy through P.S Sundaram and others v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Smartha Brahmins were just a caste/community without any peculiarity specifically attributable to them that distinguished them from other Brahmins of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, they could not be identified as a religious denomination and were not entitled to benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench was considering an application made by some members belonging to the Smartha Brahmin community claiming minority status for an institution run by them. Observing that the appellants had failed to establish that they constitute a denomination as Smartha Brahmins in the state of Tamil Nadu, the court held that the suit was mainly filed only to wriggle out of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Act 1973 by invoking the benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution.
18. Order Of ITAT Is Based On Evidence, Findings Based On Facts, Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Appeal
Case Title: M/s Ankit Ispat Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a tax appeal observing that there were no substantial question of law arisen for consideration.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was based on the evidence adduced before the same. "Such well-considered findings of the appellate authorities do not warrant any interference at the hands of this court", it observed.
Case Title: M/s. Fenner (India) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directing the assessing officer to exclude the royalty income from the business profits for the purpose of calculation of deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad observed that the appellant could not produce concrete evidence to assert that the royalty income received from a subsidiary company was related to export business. Thus, the decision of the tribunal did not warrant any interference.
20. Period Of Limitation Under S.153 Of Income Tax Act Applies To Remand Proceedings: Madras HC
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr v. M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court recently observed that the period of limitation under the Sections 153 (2A) or 153 (3) was applicable even for remad proceedings before the Assessing Officer, Transfer Pricing Officer or the Dispute Resolution Panel. The entire proceedings had to be conducted within a period of 9 months as contemplated under Section 144C (12) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad further observed that in matters of transfer pricing, when the matter was remanded to the DRP, the Assessing Officer had to pass a denova draft and complete the entire proceedings within 12 months as otherwise the very purpose of extension would become meaningless.
Case Title: Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram and others v. Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of the Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and held that gold/silver ornaments that are worn in person and exceed Rs. 50,000 in value have to be declared before the Customs Authority.
Justice C Saravanan opined that the law was unambiguous in this regard. Though exemptions were provided under the Baggage Rules, 2016 it was limited to the extent permitted under the Rules. The court also opined that import of jewelry worth more than Rs. 50,000 could not be considered as bonafide baggage and could not be exempted from paying customs duty.
Case Title: S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by S. Nalini and RP Ravichandran, convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, seeking premature release.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the High Court did not have special powers that the Supreme Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution. Thus, it cannot order their release, like the Supreme Court did for Perarivalan, another convict in the assassination case. Hence the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
23. Gift Deed Not Effective When Possession Not Handed Over; Can Be Cancelled: Madras High Court
Case Title: S. Manjula v. G. Shoba and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Madras High Court recently upheld the cancellation of a gift deed after noting that the possession was not handed over and that the deed was not acted upon by the parties. Hence, the High Court agreed with the trial court's decree dismising a suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed.
The bench of Justice AA Nakkiran agreed with the finding of the court below that the possession was not handed over and the gift deed was not acted upon hence, it was not a valid gift deed.
Case Title: Tvt.LAF Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has held that Section 129 of the CGST Act provides for the detention and seizure of the vehicle upon condition that an order of detention/seizure shall be passed at the time of detention/seizure and duly served upon the person transporting the goods.
Case Title: Udhaya Kumar v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
While quashing criminal proceedings against a person who was arrayed as an accused during a raid of a Massage centre which was allegedly a brothel, the Madras High Court bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that merely because the petitioner was in the place, he could not be fastened with penal consequences.
The court opined that since there was no evidence to show that there was coercion by the petitioner on the sex workers to commit the act, he could not be penalised for his mere presence at the place.
Case Title: A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
While allowing an appeal by a father seeking custody of his minor child, the Madras High Court bench of Justice M.Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan, observed that the order of the single judge was passed without affording an opportunity to the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence.
"It is settled law that while deciding the Original Petition to appoint the guardian the courts should allow the party to let in oral and documentary evidences. In such view of the matter, on that ground alone, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.423 of2020 is liable to be set aside." the court observed.
Case Title: K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
While dismissing a petition for interim custody of Rs.10 lakhs seized in a job racketing case, the Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy expressed his displeasure at the way people were willing to pay huge sums of money for getting a job. He enunciated that public appointments were made through a selection procedure and could not be obtained by paying bribes. He highlighted that such persons did not realise that it took years of work to earn such salaries and gave no thought to the plight of persons who scored more marks than them.
28. No Prohibition For Issuance Of Legal Heirship Certificate To Class-II Legal Heirs: Madras High Court
Case Title: D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
While allowing a petition filed by a woman for issuing a legal heir certificate for her deceased brother, the Madras High Court bench of Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose reiterated that there was no bar to issuing a legal heir certificate to a class-II heir.
The court thus directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's application on merits and after affording her a fair hearing and after hearing any such other person that the respondent deems fit to inquire. The Tahsildar was also directed to pass the final orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Case Title: Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court recently allowed a petition filed by a Sanitation Inspector for quashing an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 25000 (highest under the Right to Information Act) for providing inadequate reply in an RTI Application.
The bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed that the petitioner was only providing reply upon the directions of the Municipal Commissioner and was himself not a designated Public Information Officer.
The court observed as under:
"This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was not designated as Public Information Officer and has not acted as in-charge Public Information Officer. In such circumstances, the information furnished by the petitioner is only based on the direction of the Municipal Commissioner that is the second respondent, without assigning any designation as in-charge Public Information Officer. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/-, as penalty, which is the maximum punishment that is prescribed under the Act is liable to be interfered and the impugned order is quashed. If any amount is recovered based on the impugned order, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner."
Case Title: B Nagaraj v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person who purchases a piece of land after the issuance of notification for its acquisition by the government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala dismissed the appeals filed by subsequent purchasers of a property, who were challenging the acquisition after twenty years. The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (2008 (9) SCC 177) which held that any purchase, after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is "void ab-initio" and thus, subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition proceedings.
Case Title: P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
While allowing a petition seeking police protection for the Executive Council and General Council Meeting of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) to be held on June 23, the Madras High Court observed that the State had a duty to provide necessary protection and to prevent any untoward incident in the form of violence.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar made the observations on a petition preferred by P Benjamin, District Secretary of Tiruvallur District and member of the AIADMK.
32. Orders Passed U/S 148 NI Act Are Interlocutory In Nature, Not Revisable: Madras High Court
Case Title: Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
While discussing the scope of revision in case of orders passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Madras High Court recently observed that such orders are interlocutory in nature and are outside the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
The bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a criminal revision petition against an order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai which in exercise of powers under Section 148 of the Act, suspended the order of imprisonment (till the disposal of appeal) for cheque dishonour, subject to a deposit of 15% of the cheque amount.
The court opined that the order for deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not a precondition for the appeal to be taken on file and therefore will not result in a final order deciding appeal. It was only a direction to deposit subject to the final outcome of the appeal and as such was only a matter of procedure. The court highlighted that such orders did not determine the rights of the parties. It was also observed that non passing of such order or accepting any application by the accused would not result in culmination of proceedings
Case Title: P Venkatachalam v. The Tahsildar (Batch)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
A three-judge bench of the Madras High Court recently decided upon the powers of a Tahsildar to issue a Legal Heirship Certificate in matters of intestate-succession for Class-II heirs.
The bench of Justice PN Prakash, Justice R Hemalatha, and Justice AA Nakkiran opined that the concept of heirship is determined through the various personal laws. Thus, the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the Tahsildar has no effect on the legal right of any party which was conferred to him/her under the personal laws.
The Court was of the opinion that the prefix "legal heir" used in the certificates issued by the Tahsildar is clearly a misnomer and that these are merely "relationship certificates" reflecting the opinion of the Tahsildar on the relationship of the applicant and the persons named therein with the deceased; They cannot alter the status of a legal heir which is conferred on an individual under his/her personal law.
Case Title: N Syamasundara Naidu v. V Dakshinamoorthy and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court recently set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate, wherein it was held that a Private Pleader, who was appointed by the complainant to assist the Public Prosecutor, could not conduct an independent prosecution under Section 301(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore had no locus standi to plead on behalf of the prosecution and conduct the case.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the order of the Magistrate was unsustainable since Section 301 of CrPC is not applicable to Magistrate Courts. Further, it observed that merely because the said application was not emanating from the Public Prosecutor/Police, is not a ground to throw it out.
35. Take Criminal Action Against Police Officials Receiving 'Mamool': Madras High Court
Case Title: K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
While dismissing a retired sub-Inspector's plea challenging the order of punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years, the Madras High Court expressed its concern over police officers taking bribes and thereby affecting the welfare of people.
Justice SM Subramaniam was of the view that whenever receiving bribes is traced out, criminal cases should be registered against the police officials. These offences had to be dealt with without showing any leniency or misplaced sympathy.
The court also observed that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution was to ensure that the process through which a decision was taken was in consonance with the rules in force and not the decision itself. In the present case, the court did not find any infirmity with reference to the quantum of punishment imposed.
Case Title: P Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
The Madras High court bench of Justice S.S.Sundar and Justice S. Srimathy recently set aside the order of the District Collector, Theni District wherein the Collector had adjudicated upon the genuineness of a community certificate based upon the report of an Anthropologist and the enquiry report of the Sub-collector.
The court observed that the fact that the District Collector has passed the impugned order without following the procedure as contemplated under the two Government Orders referred to above, is not in dispute
37. Deliberately Concealing The Income, Assessee Can Be Prosecuted: Madras High Court
Case Title: Dharampal R. Pandia versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court has ruled that an assessee can be prosecuted for willfully and deliberately concealing his income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time, even after the return belatedly submitted by the assessee is accepted by the revenue authorities on the basis of which an assessment order is passed.
The Single Bench of Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed that the concealment and suppression of income by the assessee came to light only after a survey operation was conducted and that the assessee had filed his return only after a statutory notice was issued to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Court held that the assessee had willfully and deliberately concealed his true income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time.
Case Title: Mohamed Jiyaputheen v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
The Madras High Court recently allowed the plea filed by a former District Judge seeking to amend an order for compulsory retirement as that of voluntary retirement.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the issue did not require adjudication on merits. The court noticed that the order of compulsory retirement was not being challenged and the prayer was limited to substituting the order of compulsory retirement with the order of voluntary retirement. As this prayer did not require any adjudication of merits, the court allowed the application.
Case Title: M/s.Progressive Stone Works Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
The Madras High Court has reiterated that a writ petition is not maintainable if an alternative statutory remedy was available to the taxpayer.
The single bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that there are a few exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. Firstly, where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question. Secondly, in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Thirdly, authorities have resorted to invoking the provisions that were repealed. Fourthly, when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice,
Case Title: Mahalakshmi v. The Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 272
Justice V. Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench recently directed the Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent Of Police and Inspector of Police of Sankarankovil Town Police Station, Tenkasi District and Inspector of Police, Rajapalam Police Station, Viruthunagar District to preserve the CCTV footages recorded on the 6th and 7th April in connection with an allegation of illegal detention against certain police officials after observing that the same was important to adjudicate the issue involved in the case.
41. Madras High Court Dismisses School's Plea Against Adjacent Opening Of Fuel Pump
Case Title: St. Mary's Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. .The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
The Madras High court recently dismissed a petition moved by a school challenging grant of NOC to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, for opening of a fuel pump adjacent to its building.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala opined that the contentions raised in the challenge were not maintainable. The court however directed HPCL to ensure that all the necessary safety measures were observed while operating the retail outlet and no inconvenience should be caused.
Case Title: Sunku Vasundhara v State Bank of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The High Court of Madras Bench comprising of Justice T. Raja and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, while adjudicating a writ petition filed in Sunku Vasundhara v State Bank of India, has held that when an effective and statutory remedy lies before the Appellate Authority i.e. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), aggrieved parties cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India for relief. The order was passed on 15.06.2022.
Case Title: Dinesh v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
Finding laches in the case of the prosecution, the Madras High Court recently set aside the order of conviction and sentence of a man who was accused of murdering his friend and burying his body, allegedly over the friend's refusal to perform homosexual activities with him.
The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira observed that since the prosecution case could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it was not safe to convict the man on the basis of an extra-judicial confession.
The bench further observed that the burden of proving facts within special knowledge does not shift on the accused by pressing into service Section 106 of the Evidence Act when the prosecution could not prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused.
Case Title: P.Sudha v. The Secretary and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court on Wednesday disposed of a writ petition seeking reservation for third gender in government jobs after it was informed by the Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram that the Government had already issued necessary orders way back in 2015, granting the benefit of reservation to the community and had brought Transgender persons under the category of "Most Backward Class" for reservation of seats in educational institutions and appointments in the services of the State.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala opined that no further directions were necessary and that the present writ petition was unnecessary.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Centre has notified the appointment nine additional judges as permanent Judges of the Madras High Court. The centre also extended the appointment of Justice A.A. Nakkiran as Additional Judge Of The Madras High Court for another period of one year.
The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended names for appointment as permanent judges and for extension of term as additional judge on May 10 2022.
Case Title: Tamilnadu Pondyplastic Association v The Government of Tamilnadu and another
Case No: Rev.A 89 of 2019 in W.P No 34065 of 2018
In a set of pleas dealing with the disposal of plastic wastes and other items that are likely to cause pollution to the environment, the Tamil Nadu government has informed the Madras High Court that various awareness activities have been undertaken and a Waste Management Policy has been framed by the Planning Commission which has been forwarded to all the Chief Secretaries of the States.
Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice PT Asha directed the Special Government Pleader and the Assistant Solicitor General to produce the copies of the policy on the next date of the hearing. Since the matter deals with environment pollution, the Court also deemed it fit to suo moto implead the Pollution Control Board.
Case Title: Dr. R Karpagam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden and Others
Case No: WP No. 13711 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Thursday issued notices to the National Board of Wildlife and the National Tiger Conservation Authority in a plea seeking to close down and remove all the illegal resorts/ lodges/ farmhouses operated in the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq were hearing a petition filed by Dr. R Karpagam, founder of Oli Awareness Movement and a teacher by profession.
The matter will be taken up on June 23 2022.
4. Two Additional Judges Take Oath In Madras High Court
Justice Sunder Mohan and Justice Kabali Kumaresh Babu were sworn in as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court on Monday. Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari administered the oath for the newly appointed judges.
The centre had notified their appointment as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court on June 3rd 2022.
With their swearing in, the Madras High Court now has a working strength of 58 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 75.
Case Title: S Karthik Gopinath v. State and another
Case No: Crl OP 13166 of 2022
Youtuber S. Karthik Gopinath has moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the FIR filed against him for allegedly misappropriating funds worth several lakhs, collected for renovation of the Arulmigu Madhura Kaliamman Temple in Perambalur district. The Police had also filed an application for custodial interrogation.
When the matter came up before Justice N Sathish Kumar on Tuesday, the court adjourned the hearing while directing the Police to submit the details of misappropriation. In the meanwhile, the court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide upon the bail application moved by the petitioner on Wednesday itself.
6. Madras High Court Appoints First Woman Mace Bearer
In a first, the Madras High Court has appointed a woman mace bearer. Justice R.N Manjula is the first to utilise the services of the court's first woman mace bearer. Justice Manjula is also a member of the Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee-I (GSICC-I)
The Mace bearer/ Chobdar, a position traditionally held by men, is an officer who carries the mace and walks before a dignitary signifying the dignitary's power. In courts, the mace helps in the free passage of Judges between the court halls.
Case Title: S. Annapoorni v. K Vijay
Case No: Application No 5445 of 2018
On day two of the hearing pertaining to the original jurisdiction of the High Court to hear child custody and guardianship matters owing to the advent of the Family Courts Act 1984, the Additional Solicitor General for Madras High Court R. Sankaranarayanan made his submissions favouring the ouster of High Court's jurisdiction.
At the outset, the ASG stated that he was not appearing for the government but in his personal capacity.
He stated that if there was a law that was enacted by the Parliament or the Legislature providing something different from that provided in the Letters Patent, the same shall have authority over the Letter Patent, as provided under Clause 44 (which would prevail over Clause 17).
8. Ayodhya Case Mediator Sriram Panchu Moves Madras High Court Against Withdrawal Of Police Protection
Case Title: Sriram Panchu v. The State and others
Case No: W.P No. 14503 of 2022
Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu, who was the Supreme Court-appointed mediator in the Ayodhya Case, has recently approached the Madras High Court against withdrawal of police protection granted to him.
Mr. Panchu was given Z Category protection following an order of the Supreme Court in 2019. However, the Security Rearrangement Committee had withdrawn this security recently.
Case Title: U. Manickavel v. State rep. by Secretary and others
Case No: WP No. 2627 of 2014
Coming down heavily on the abuse of power among higher police officials, the Madras High Court has observed that indiscipline amongst higher officials of the police department causes disaster consequences. When the higher officials are not maintaining the expected level of discipline, they may not be in a position to control the force, which would result in the force losing morale.
Justice SM Subramaniam also cited instances of allegation in the public domain, as follows:
"Already there are several such allegations in the public domain regarding the usage of black film in the official vehicles by the higher officials of the police department, misuse of the department's name in the private vehicles, abuse of police force in the name of orderly in their residences or otherwise and several such allegations are either unnoticed or no action has been taken by the Government."
Case Title: G.Karthick v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP No. 12929 of 2022
A public interest litigation filed recently before the Madras High Court against the installation of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi's statue was withdrawn on Tuesday.
The petitioner, G. Karthick, had contended that one of the respondents, A Rajendran, in collusion with Government authorities, secured patta over and above the land owned by him in the given survey number and was now attempting to put up construction on the land.
Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v. State Commissioner for persons with disability and another
Case No: WP No. 11041 of 2020
The Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) on Wednesday informed the Madras High Court that it had taken steps to retrofit thirty-two metro stations to make them disabled-friendly and the same will be completed within six weeks' time.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala was considering an application filed by a cross-disability rights advocate to direct the state and CMRL to retrofit its existing metro stations to comply with the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons With Disabilities and Elderly Persons issued by the Ministry of Urban Development in 2016 and to strictly comply with Section 41 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 read with Rule 15 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.
12. Covid-19 On The Rise: Madras High Court Issues Preventive Directions
Amid rising covid cases in the State, Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari of the Madras High Court has issued directions to be followed by Advocates and others while appearing in courts.
These preventive directions are as follows:
1. Advocates, parties appearing in person, Advocates' Clerks, Officers, and Staff members shall strictly adhere to the COVID-19 protocols, such as wearing face masks, washing hands frequently, sanitizing, and maintaining social distance inside the High Court campus.
2. Entry of Litigants is restricted inside the High Court campus unless their presence is specifically required by the courts concerned in relation to the court proceedings.
3. All the entrants shall sanitize their hands and undergo thermal scanning for temperature before frisking.
4. Gathering in the corridors or any other place within the High Court campus, shall be avoided.
The Madras High Court conducted a midnight hearing to decide upon the appeals preferred by M Shanmugham, AIADMK's general council member against the single judge order passed earlier in the day where the single judge refused to restrain the party from making any amendments to its bye-laws.
The appeals were heard by Justice Sunder Mohan and Justice Duraiswamy at the former's residence. The bench restrained the party from making any resolutions other than the 23 resolutions already approved. The court observed that it was important for the members to be informed about what was going on and no resolutions could be passed without such an agenda.
The hearing commenced at around 12.30 am and the interim order was pronounced around 4.30 am.
Earlier on Wednesday, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy had refused to restrain the party from amending its bylaws. The court had observed that it was a settled principle that the courts cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a party/association. It was open for the association/party to pass resolutions and frame bye-laws.
14. NEP Not Backed By Statute, State Not Obligated To Implement It: TN Govt Tells Madras High Court
Case Title: Arjunan Elayaraja v. The Secretary & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 818 of 2022(PIL)
The Tamil Nadu government has told the Madras High Court that the National Education Policy does not have any statutory backing and hence, there is no statutory obligation on the state to implement the same.
The development comes in a counter affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department in response to a plea filed by one Arjunan Elayaraja seeking implementation of NEP in Tamil Nadu.
As per State, the proposed NEP 2020 had strong centralising tendencies which could have a destabilizing effect on the federal characteristics of the Indian Union. It also said that a bare reading of the NEP would make it clear that it did not have any statutory backing and remained only as a policy as on date. As such, there was no statutory obligation on the state to implement the same and for this very reason the petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
15. Consider Implementing Empty Liquor Bottle Buy-Back Scheme Across Tamil Nadu: High Court Tells TASMAC
Case Title: G.Subramania Koushik v. The Principal Secretary and others
Case No: WP 15120 of 2019
The Madras High Court on Friday opined that TASMAC's buy-back scheme implemented in the Nilgiris region should be implemented across the state of Tamil Nadu. The observations were made by Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy in a batch of pleas for protection of the Western Ghats area.
When the matter was being heard, the Managing Director of TASMAC submitted a status report according to which 63% of the bottles sold in the region came back. Seeing this, the court observed as under:
On seeing the report that 63% bottles have come back, we are of the opinion that the buy back scheme should be implemented in the entire state so that damage to environment can be controlled.
Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v. The Directorate of Enforcement and Another
Case No: W.P.No.16467 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Wednesday stayed, till the next date of hearing, the money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate against Minister of Fisheries, Fishermen Welfare and Animal Husbandry for the State of Tamil Nadu, Anitha Radhakrishnan.
The interim relief was granted by the bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira in a plea by the Minister seeking to quash the enforcement proceedings. The court also granted time to the Enforcement Directorate to file their counter.