Madras High Court Monthly Digest - September 2022 [Citations 376 to 418]
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 376 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 418 NOMINAL INDEX V Kannan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 376 Woodlands Theatres v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 377 Dr. P R Subaschandran v. State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 378 E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 379 K. Samad & Anr. versus Reliance Capital Limited, 2022...
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 376 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
NOMINAL INDEX
V Kannan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
Woodlands Theatres v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
Dr. P R Subaschandran v. State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
K. Samad & Anr. versus Reliance Capital Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
S. Annapoorni v. K Vijay, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s.Ganges International Private Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
M/s. Sunwin Papers versus M/s. Sivadarshini Papers Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
India Yamaha Motor Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
B Shanmugam and others v. Karthik Dasari, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
Dr. A Packia Raj and others v. State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
Kamalanathan and others v. State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
Gokul Ajith and others v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
Kanthan v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
K.J.Suriyanarayanan v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
Jegan @ Ellamaran and others v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
M Satheesh v. Secretary, Revenue Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
Anandam Gundluru v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
Minor V Amrutha v. Council for Architecture and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
S.Ravi Selvan v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & customs and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
Andal Dorairaj & Ors. versus M/s. Rithwik Infor Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
TCI Freight Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
Kasthuribha and Indira Nagar Residents Welfare Forum v. Secretary, PWD, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
Nordex India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
Deepan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
B Ramkumar Adityan v District Collector, Thoothukudi, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
Registrar Judicial v. Shankar @ Savukku Sankar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
Innovators Facade Systems Ltd. versus Larsen & Toubro Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
Sowdha Mani v. State, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 410
M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
Manokaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
Dr. R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
V Anusha v. B Krishnan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
Gotla Alex Binoy v. IOP Chennai, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
Richa Sharma v. Ganesh Kasinathan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 416
SJ Sheik Abul Asim v The Registrar cum Chairman and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
Mohammed Siddiq v. Rasheeda Begum and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
REPORTS
Case Title: V Kannan v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
The Madras High Court on Thursday granted conditional bail to Hindu Munnani office bearer and stunt master Kanal Kannan for his remarks seeking to demolish the statur of Periyar outside Srirangam temple. The court while granting bail, however, criticised the recent trend of making such remarks. The court stated that it had become a fashion to make such comments.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan granted him bail on condition that he shall file an affidavit before the Egmore Court guaranteeing that he will not make any such statements in the future. He has also been directed to appear before the police two times for a period of four weeks.
2. TN Govt Prescribed "Very Low" Parking Fees In Cinema Theaters: High Court Quashes GO
Case Title: Woodlands Theatres v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
The Madras High Court recently found that the charges fixed by Tamil Nadu government for parking in cinema theaters is "very low" and directed the State to re-fix the same, keeping in view the fees levied by Municipal Corporations and Railway authorities.
Rule 91(B) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Rules 1957 empower the State to fix parking charges for the vehicles parked in the cinema theatres in the state. The petitioner theatre had challenged the fee fixation claiming that parking rates for all other places except cinema theatre was higher.
Case Title: Dr. P R Subaschandran v. State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
While disposing of a petition seeking to frame a set of guidelines for proper instruction of physical education in public and private schools, the Madras High Court stressed on the need for physical education in schools.
The court directed the state to constitute a committee to monitor and ensure that physical education is given due importance and requisite infrastructure in all schools is made available.
The committee shall be constituted by the Government within one month and shall be headed by the Secretary to the Government, School Education Department. The committee shall identify the schools not having requisite infrastructure for imparting physical education and ensure physical education is given necessary importance.
4. Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Restoring Status Quo Ante As On 23rd June In AIADMK
Case Title: E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the order of a single judge restoring the status quo ante in the AIADMK party as on 23rd June, 2022.
The bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the orders allowing an appeal preferred by Edappadi Palaniswamy.
Further, the court held that when majority of the General Council members, who were elected by the primary members, were in favour of convening a general council meeting on 11th July and had also supported the resolutions made on 23rd June, the balance of convenience was in favour of the appellants.
5. Section 8 Of A&C Act Falls Outside The Scope Of Section 42: Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: K. Samad & Anr. versus Reliance Capital Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
The Madras High Court has reiterated that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is an exception to Section 42 of the A&C Act. The Court added that if Section 8 is also brought within the ambit of Section 42, it would defeat the sublime philosophy underlining arbitration i.e., party autonomy.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar ruled that a party has no choice of jurisdiction while filing a Section 8 application, and that it is a Hobson's choice for it since it is constrained to file an application under Section 8 in the Civil Court where the civil suit has been filed by the opposite party.
Case Title: S. Annapoorni v. K Vijay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Madras High Court on Friday ruled in favour of original jurisdiction of High Court for hearing child custody and guardianship cases in a 3:2 majority decision.
Justice R Mahadevan, Justice M Sunder and Justice AA Nakkiran delivered the majority judgment and held that the jurisdiction of the High Court on original side is not ousted in view of explanation (g) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. They further observed that the judgement in Mary Thomas continued to be a good law.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh however ruled against original jurisdiction of High Court and held that Mary Thomas was not a good law.
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s.Ganges International Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
The Madras High Court, consisting of Justice R. Ramdevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, has held that the assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit of the service tax already paid but the assessee was unable to claim due to a transitional provision that has come into effect from 01.07.2017.
The court directed the appellant to consider the application of the assessee under section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, based on the available materials on merits and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, within a period of six weeks.
Case Title: M/s. Sunwin Papers versus M/s. Sivadarshini Papers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court has ruled that if an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), of ruling on its own jurisdiction, has the effect of concluding the arbitral proceedings, the same would be challengeable under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that since registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) is not compulsory, the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal accepting the plea of lack of jurisdiction due to the non-registration of the claimant under the MSMED Act, is patently illegal and in conflict with the public policy of India.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
The Madras High Court has ruled that interest on late GST remittances is levied even if credit in electronic cash or credit ledgers is available.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that unless an assessee actually files a return and debits the respective registers, the authorities cannot be expected to assume that available credits will be set-off against tax liability.
Case Title: M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings and held that an audit objection does not satisfy the requirement of the Assessing Officer having an independent "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, that too after the elapse of nearly six years.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that all materials with regard to the computation of tax under the provisions of MAT were available before the Assessing Authority during the original assessment proceedings.
11. Madras High Court Restrains ED From Proceeding Against TN Minister Senthil Balaji
Case Title: B Shanmugam and others v. Karthik Dasari
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
The Madras High Court recently allowed a petition moved by Minister Senthil Balaji and two others and quashed the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate.
Justice T Raja and Justice K Kumaresh Babu made the orders after observing that the proceedings emerging from the FIRs was quashed in one case and stayed in two others. The court observed that when a stay had been granted, it would eclipse the proceedings initiated thereunder pending disposal of the suit.
Case Title: Dr. A Packia Raj and others v. State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by three doctors seeking to set aside the GO passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu giving special preference to "In Service Doctors" in admission to Post Graduate courses.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that a challenge to the above GO had already been decided by a division bench. The division bench had also observed that no arbitrariness can be made out from the data pertaining to only one academic year.
Case Title: Kamalanathan and others v. State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
Stressing on the importance of preserving water bodies, the Madras High Court recently stated that water bodies play a significant role in maintaining ecology and environment and usage of land earmarked as waterbody for any other purpose would be detrimental to the society at large. The court thus highlighted that it was the duty of officials to preserve and protect government lands which have been reserved for specific purposes.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala were disposing petitions challenging the notices issued in Form III under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007.
Case title - Gokul Ajith and others v. The State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to 3 BJP workers who allegedly waylaid the Car of the State Finance Minister, abused and insulted him, and threw slippers toward his car bearing the national emblem on August 13, 2022.
However, the Court did term the entire incident as very unfortunate as it emphasized that the political ideologies may differ, but, while exercising the democratic right, when the same turn violent and ugly, then causality will not be the political opponent, but the society at large which every political party intends to serve and evolve.
Case Title: Kanthan v State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
The Madras High Court recently remarked that information technology today is posing a great challenge in upbringing of teenagers, whose minds are often affected by easily accessible pornography, misleading them and making them indulge in sexual offences without understanding its consequences.
The Madurai bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice N Anand Venkatesh emphasized that whenever these teenagers are arrested, efforts should be made to attend to their mental perversity.
Case title - K.J.Suriyanarayanan v. State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
The Madras High Court recently observed that once FIR has been registered against a person, his/her re-examination by the investigation agency on its own should not be permitted merely by registering another FIR with regard to the same occurrence.
"If such protection is not given to a suspect, then possibility of abuse of investigating powers by the police cannot be ruled out. It would result into a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary harassment to the accused and registration of multiple FIR's on the same occurrence would be hit by the doctrine of sameness and it would have to be obliterated, as it would amount to violation of fundamental rights of a citizen," the bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan further remarked.
Case title - Jegan @ Ellamaran and others v. State and another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
The Madras High Court has recently quashed a case against 5 persons who had allegedly indulged in a protest and had raised various slogans against Prime Minister for announcing Demonetization.
The bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar observed that the offences against the accused under Sections 143, 188 of IPC @ 143, 149, 353 IPC were not made out.
Case Title: M Satheesh v. Secretary, Revenue Department and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
The Madras High Court has categorically held that the reservation for women in public employment can only be made horizontally and not vertically. The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala, thus, directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to amend the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act of 2016 accordingly or otherwise the same would be declared ultra vires.
Case Title: Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court on Friday directed the National Medical Commission to revisit the office memorandum which directed that fees in 50% seats in Private Medical Colleges and Universities should be at the rate of Government seats. The Court said that the structure should be amended in such a way that merit is not affected.
The NMC has been asked to reconsider the Office Memorandum and if necessary issue a fresh OM. Till such exercise is completed, the present fee structure prescribed shall continue.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala also upheld the validity of Section 10 of the National Medical Commission Act.
20. Madras High Court Acquits Man Who Possessed 1.5 Kg Heroin Believing It To Be Wheat Flour
Case Title: Anandam Gundluru v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
The Madras High Court recently directed the release of a man who was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 rupees for consciously possessing 1.5 kg Heroin for transportation to Kuwait. The bench of Justice G Ilanthiraiyan observed that the appellant had carried the material believing it to be wheat flour and tamarind and not a prohibited substance.
Case Title: Minor V Amrutha v. Council for Architecture and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh to a student for denying her admission to the Architecture course. Justice R Subramanian also observed that the conduct of the respondent was outrageous and inexplicable in that they had acted blatantly in violation of previous court orders.
Case Title: S.Ravi Selvan v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & customs and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
While dismissing a challenge against the formation of an Internal Complaints Committee, the Madras High Court observed that the formation of the Internal Complaints Committee was under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The challenge would therefore fall within the scope of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 and could not be dealt with by the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution.
Justice Abdul Quddhose opined that the petitioner should have taken up the matter with the Administrative Tribunal dealing with service matters and not approach the High Court in the first instance.
Case Title: Andal Dorairaj & Ors. versus M/s. Rithwik Infor Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
The Madras High Court has ruled that the parties have got the liberty to deviate from the terms with respect to the jurisdiction, as contained in the Arbitration Clause; however, the number of such deviations is limited to only one.
The Single Bench of Justice R.N. Manjula held that waiver of the jurisdiction clause contained in the arbitration agreement can be presumed from the conduct of the parties. The Court added that if the parties have waived the earlier agreement on jurisdiction and have substituted a new jurisdiction by conduct, then, in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the parties cannot make any further diversions with respect to the jurisdiction.
24. Transporter Of Goods May Seek Release Of Only The Conveyance: Madras High Court
Case Title: TCI Freight Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court has held that the transporter may seek release of only the conveyance upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions.
The division bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the phrase 'person transporting the goods' in Sections 129(1) and (6) to mean the owner or his agent who has contracted to supply the goods, and not the transporter who will provide the carriage for the same. Both sub-Sections 129(1) and (6) use the phrase 'goods or conveyance' whereas the proviso extends the benefit of release, upon terms, to the transporter, but is restricted to the conveyance alone.
Case Title: Kasthuribha and Indira Nagar Residents Welfare Forum v. Secretary, PWD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
While disposing of a writ petition filed by Kasturbha and Indira Nagar Residents Welfare forum seeking to remove encroachments from the Buckingham Canal lying between Chennai and Puducherry, the Madras High Court emphasised that it was the duty of every individual to protect and improve the national environment and the national assets
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the citizens and the government were two wheels of development and if any one wheel derails, it will affect the development.
The court also pointed out that encroachments were a direct reflection on the failure of the Government to provide basic facilities to the poor.
Case Title: Nordex India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
The Madras High Court has allowed the concessional customs duty benefit on goods used in the rotor of windmills for notional billing to customers.
The single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has observed that the imported rotor blades need no customization and mechanisation. Hence, raising an invoice in the name of the client after importing and transporting it to the customer's site is only a notional exercise. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not the importer and that he is the person who has used it for a specific purpose for which it was imported.
27. Madras High Court Asks Man To Distribute Pamphlets Against Drunken Driving As Condition For Bail
Case Title: Deepan v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
The Madras High Court recently set a unique condition for bail for a man accused of drunken driving. While granting bail, the bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, directed the petitioner Deepan to distribute pamphlets against "Drunken Driving" everyday in the morning and evening for a period of two weeks.
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v District Collector, Thoothukudi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
The Madras High Court recently directed the Thoothukudi District Collector and police authorities to strictly implement a Circular Memorandum regarding procedure to be followed while granting permission to conduct cultural events, sports events, procession/meeting etc. The authorities were thus to ensure that no obscene or vulgar dance performance or other procession takes place during the Dasara festival in the Arultharum Mutharamman temple.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were hearing a petition filed by one Ramkumar Adityan to direct the police authorities to obtain a declaration from the organisers of all Dasara Groups and Sound Hire Service Providers not to sing and play any non Devotional Songs and Kuthu Pattu during Dasara festival in connection to the festival of Arultharum Mutharamman Thirukovil, Kulasekarapattinam, Thoothukudi District. By doing so, the petitioner sought to stop vulgar and obscene dance performances in the name of Dasara Groups and to protect the Traditional Culture, Traditional Viradham System and Religious sentiments of lakhs of Devotees.
Case Title: Registrar Judicial v. Shankar @ Savukku Sankar and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
The Madras High Court(Madurai Bench) on Thursday sentenced Savukku Shankar to six months simple imprisonment in a suo moto contempt proceeding for his remarks against the higher judiciary. The bench also refused to entertain the request of Mr. Shankar to suspend the sentence until filing of appeal before the Supreme Court. The court thus directed that Mr. Shankar be forthwith taken to custody and lodged in Central Prison, Madurai.
The orders were passed by a bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi. This was the second suo moto contempt proceeding initiated against Mr Shankar.
Case Title: Innovators Facade Systems Ltd. versus Larsen & Toubro Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
The Madras High Court has ruled that where the parties have agreed to give only supervisory powers to a third party with respect to the disputes arising between them, and a clause which does not disclose the intention of the parties to give any adjudicatory powers to the third party, does not qualify as an 'arbitration agreement', as defined under Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that the adjudicatory process is an essential feature of arbitration, in contra-distinction to mediation, and hence, when there is nothing to demonstrate that the contracting parties intended to put an adjudicatory mechanism in place, an arbitration agreement cannot be said to exist.
Case Title: Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
While answering a reference, the Madras High Court Bench of Justice SS Sundar, Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the Registrar does not have the power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify a deed of conveyance made earlier, when the deed of conveyance has already been acted upon.
The court was answering a reference made by Justice S Vaidyanathan with respect to the maintainability of a writ petition against the Registration of a unilateral cancellation deed.
Case Title: Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
The Madras High Court on Monday said that it cannot not direct the State Government to treat all Visually Impaired Persons on par with other Differently Abled Persons who may be incapable of any employment.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation on a plea by Nethrodaya, an organisation working for the differently abled community. The petitioner organization had sought for transfer of the Pension Scheme for the Visually Impaired from the Social Welfare Department to the Differently Abled Department. The second prayer was to enhance the pension of the Visually Impaired persons from Rs. 1000 to Rs.1500 on par with that given to other Differently Abled Persons.
Case Title: M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court has held that in the matters of interception, seizure, and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of "working day" and "holiday" since substantial civil rights of the parties were at stake.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that neither the assessee nor the department could have the luxury of reference to a holiday to delay or protract the proceedings. The acts of interception and retention, though an invasion of the rights of citizens have been accorded statutory sanction in pursuance of the aims and objects of the Goods and Services Act. Thus, it was imperative that the intrusive acts be carried out in strict compliance with the statutory provisions.
Case Title: R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
While dealing with a petition seeking conversion of some Police Officers from Armed Reserve to Law and Order, the Madras High Court observed that suitability and eligibility, etc had to be assessed by the concerned departments and High Courts could not interfere in such matters. Interference was only possible when there was an irregularity in appointments.
The court emphasized that the authorities were the best persons to assess the eligibility of the personnel. Since the personnel posted in the Law and order category had more responsibility and accountability, the government thought it fit to prescribe certain additional criterias. Further, conversion could not be claimed as a matter of right. Even if the conversion was granted to certain personnel violating the guidelines, illegality could not be a ground to claim equality.
Case Title: Sowdha Mani v. State
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 410
While dealing with a petition by BJP functionary Sowdha Mani seeking return of her phone which was seized in connection with an investigation following objectionable retweets, the Madras High Court observed that delay in production of material objects before the Jurisdictional Magistrate would vitiate the entire prosecution.
In the present case, the material (phone) was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate six days after its seizure.
Observing that this unexplained delay of six days could not be brushed aside, Justice P Velmurugan ordered the Director General of Police to take stringent action against the investigating officer.
36. GST Registration Cancellation: Madras High Court Directs Changes In Architecture Of GST Portal
Case Title: M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
The Madras High Court has directed the GST department to take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable changes in the architecture of the GST Web Portal to allow the petitioners to file their returns and pay the tax/penalty/fine.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that payment of tax, interest, fine/fee, etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any input tax credit which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners.
37. Two Women Kept In Illegal Detention For 128 Days, Madras High Court Awards Rs 5L Compensation
Case Title: Manokaran v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court recently directed the State to pay Rs five lakh compensation each to two women who were unauthorisedly kept in preventive detention for more than four months.
"The sequence of events in the case on hand reveals beyond any doubt that it is a classic case of bureaucratic lethargy and slumber, which has played a lot in depriving the personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," said the division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira.
Case Title: Dr. R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
Dismissing a university professor's petition against trial court's refusal to order investigation on his complaint, the Madras High Court recently said Section 3 (1) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act comes into play only when a person is trying to promote ill feelings against the members of SC or ST community as a group.
Section 3 (1) (u) criminalises any communication that promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe.
39. Marriage Not For Mere Carnal Pleasure, But Mainly For Progeneration: Madras High Court
Case Title: V Anusha v. B Krishnan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
Dealing with an estranged couple's case related to the custody of their children, the Madras High Court in a recent order said marriage is not for "mere satisfying the carnal pleasure" but mainly for the purpose of progeneration. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy was dealing with a petition filed by a woman, lawyer by profession, for interim custody of her two minor sons from her husband, who is also a lawyer.
Stating that though courts are mindful of the interest of the child, Justice Ramasamy said it is "to be lamented" that the law leaves the child "with only one hand, rather than two". The court also said child "brought into this vicious world through the act of the two individuals for their pleasure" is made to suffer for no fault of his.
Case Title: Gotla Alex Binoy v. IOP Chennai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
Granting anticipatory bail to a biker accused of performing dangerous stunts on a public road, the Madras High Court directed the 22-year-old to upload a video on his Instagram account against reckless driving and also report before a trauma ward duty doctor at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital for three weeks.
The directions are part of the conditions imposed by the court while granting him the pre-arrest bail. Justice AD Jagadish Chandira ordered the accused to report to the Duty Doctor at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital and assist the Ward Boys at the Trauma Ward in taking care of the patients from Tuesday to Saturday between 8 am and 12 PM for three weeks.
41. Madras HC Sets Aside Order Requiring Wife To 'Serve Snacks' To Estranged Husband During Visitation
Case Title: Richa Sharma v. Ganesh Kasinathan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 416
The Madras High Court recently allowed a mother's appeal against a single judge order requiring her to treat her estranged husband, during child visits, as an "Athithi" (Guest) and show hospitality by providing snacks and dinner, etc.
The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the single judge was swayed by what should be the conduct of the parties towards each other and that prescribing such stipulations was not relevant for deciding their rights.
Case Title: SJ Sheik Abul Asim v The Registrar cum Chairman and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
While hearing a Degree Graduate's plea seeking to allow him to study law in the absence of a 12th Standard Degree, the Bar Council of India informed Justice GR Swaminathan that as per the decision taken by its Legal Education Committee on 21st May 2022, diploma courses and polytechnic courses will be treated at par with a 12th standard certificate.
Case Title: Mohammed Siddiq v. Rasheeda Begum and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that as per the settled legal position, there is no bar or prohibition on initiating simultaneous proceedings for claiming maintenance under different statutes. The parties however should disclose about previous maintenance petition before the subsequent court.
Justice Murali Shankar of Madurai Bench was deciding upon the plea of a husband, who was seeking to quash the proceedings before the Family Court, Thiruchirappalli in which the wife had moved a Maintenance case.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
When the Madras High Court registry put forward a query as to whether appeals whose value was less than one lakh rupees could be entertained in view of the amendment brought in by the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019, Justice PT Asha observed that the right to appeal accrued on the date of filing the claim petitions and therefore the amendment was not applicable to claims filed prior to the amendment.
2. Litigant Moves Madras HC Seeking Removal Of Former CM Karunanidhi's Photos From Govt Websites, Ads
A litigant, S Venkatesh has recently moved the Madras High Court seeking to declare display of photos of former CM Karunanidhi on government websites, advertisements, posters and banners as illegal.
When the matter came up for hearing today, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala adjourned the proceedings while directing the petitioner to submit translated copies of the documents annexed.
He has contended that displaying of the photo of a former CM in the Government websites and web portals of Government Department institutions, which are owned by Government, is against the spirit of constitutional democracy.
3. TN Bar Council Suspends Practice Of Six Lawyers For Various Offences
The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry recently suspended the practice of six lawyers considering their involvement in various offences.
The notification dated 1st September 2022 issued a prohibitory order against the advocates from practicing in any court, tribunals, or any other authorities.
Of the six advocates, three have criminal cases pending against them with one also being prosecuted under the POCSO Act. One advocate had suppressed the fact that he was working as a Government School teacher in Kohima at the time of enrollment. The other two lawyer had threatened certain individuals to grant recognition to their lnhabitants Puducherry Advocates' Welfare Association.
The Madras High Court recently emphasised that media should show some sense of responsibility while publishing the news, especially with regard to children. The remarks were made by Justice N Satish Kumar while considering the progress made by the investigation team in the Kallakurichi student death and the consequent violence.
The court also highlighted that freedom of speech should not be used to spread falsity and instead, social media should be conscious of its duty to the citizens and should share only genuine news.
The Tamil Nadu government on Friday informed the Madras High Court that the policy for protection of rights of transgender persons is at its final stage and that all steps will be taken to implement the policies at the earliest.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh has thus granted a further 12 weeks' time to the State notify the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules.
Coming down heavily on the print and visual media for disclosing the names and details of the victims of sexual abuse and sexual violence during the trial, the Madras High Court restrained print and electronic media from publishing details of the victims, their family members, and the witnesses or any materials pertaining to the deposition of the victims.
The court observed that publishing such details would have an intimidating effect on the victim and would consequently lead the offenders to walk free. Thus, even though media thrives on ratings, it should not play with the lives of the people.
7. Madras High Court Overrules TN AG's Objection To ASG Appearing For Ex-Minister In Corruption Case
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v. The Director and others
Case No: WP No. 34845 of 2018
While hearing the pleas filed by Former Minister SP Velumani to quash two FIRs filed against him for alleged irregularities in awarding corporate contracts, the Advocate General for Tamil Nadu, R Shunmugasundaram raised strong objections against current ASG and Senior Advocate SV Raju appearing for the minister.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala was however not inclined to accept the objection raised by the AG.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, on Saturday, remarked that the Judges and Lawyers were the software of the system and the duty was upon the Judges and the lawyer to innovate and ensure justice delivery. He was speaking at the Madras High Court on the occasion of laying of the foundation stone for a multi-storeyed combined court building to house the subordinate courts in Chennai and for the Commencement of renovation of the old Law College Heritage Building for the use of Madras High Court.
The Madras High Court bench of Justice R Subramanian on Tuesday directed the National Testing Agency to produce the original OMR sheet of a candidate after she approached the court alleging that she was given another candidate's answer sheet after correction.
The petitioner, KS Bhavamirthne, who had appeared for the NEET (UG) 2022 Examination conducted by CBSE for admission into the medical course, claimed that the copy of OMR sheet that was handed over to her after publication of result was not the one filled by her during the examination.
10. Madras High Court CJ Munishwar Nath Bhandari Appointed As Chairman Of SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal
The President of India on Thursday appointed Madras High Court Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari as the Chairman of Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act (SAFEMA) for a period of four years or till attaining the age of seventy years or until further orders, whichever is earlier in terms of Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 read with Tribunal Reforms Act 2021.
The Madras High Court has granted interim injunction to G Square Realtors against defamatory allegations made by Youtuber Savukku Shankar. Justice CV Karthikeyan observed:
If ever anybody either through the print media or through electronic media or in any other form seeks to voice out opinion, caution should be exercised and a code should also be maintained that such opinion should be put forth in the first instance to the person who would be either directly or indirectly affected by such opinion expressed, obtain their remarks on the same and then put forward both the opinion and the remarks as an information to be disseminated to the general public and leave it to the general public to form their opinion.
The Madras High Court recently directed its Registrar General to render an explanation as to how a judge can handle a single typed set (single volume) containing 800 pages.
Justice R Subramanian sought an affidavit in this regard after it was informed that the Registry was insisting on filing single volume, even if the pages were in excess.
Case Title: S Kaushik and others v. State
Case No: Crl OP 19887 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to quash the FIR registered against 31 students belonging to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) for protesting near Chief Minister MK Stalin's residence.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that such protests near high security places could not be allowed.
The case of prosecution is that the students had attempted to siege the house of the Chief Minister. When police party attempted to stop them, they pushed the police, tore their uniform and also broke the barricades. They also damaged the rear view mirror and the indicator light of the police jeep, it is alleged. The students then shouted slogans seeking justice for a student who died by suicide due to forceful conversion.
Case Title: Aadi Rajaram v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Case No: WP No. 24978 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition alleging that former Tamil Nadu CM O. Paneerselvam had misused the personal security granted to him.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the petition holding that the Petitioner has no locus standi.
The petitioner, Aadi Rajaram had contended that the former CM had misused the personal security granted to him for his personal agendas and illegal activities. Mr. Paneerselvam was granted Y+ security by the Government of India in April 2017. Later, in January 2020, this security was withdrawn. The petitioner contends that even though the security was withdrawn, the Respondent authorities have continued to give police protection to Mr. Paneerselvam, even though he is not holding any prominent position and there is no real threat to his life.
15. No Plans To Return Elephant Joymala To Assam: TN Govt Tells High Court
Case Title: N Sivaganesan v. The Secretary to Government and others
Amid rifts between the Assam and the Tamil Nadu government over the custody of Joymala- a temple elephant leased by Assam to Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu government on Thursday informed the Madras High Court that it did not intend to send the elephant back to Assam.
Additional Advocate General J Ravindran made the submission before a bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan. The court was hearing an urgent PIL filed by N Sivaganesan, a field scientist on wildlife conservation.
16. Moving Education From Concurrent List To State List: Madras High Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench
The Madras High Court recently referred to a larger bench, an issue pertaining challenge to the removal of Education from the State List to the Concurrent List.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan directed the registry to place the note on the administrative side before the Acting Chief Justice for constitution of a Full Bench.
The directions were issued in a plea by Aram Seyya Virumbu Trust which challenged the validity of Section 57 of the Constitution (Fourty-Second Amendment Act) 1976 so far as it relates to Entry 11 of List II and Entry 25 of List III. The petitioner contended that the section was ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: M Saravanan v. Principal Secretary and others
Case No: WP(MD) No. 3633 of 2014
The Madras High Court on Friday observed that the state government should show seriousness in removing invasive plant species from forests. The special bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing a batch of cases regarding protection of the western ghats area.
The state had informed the court that the files regarding removal of invasive species were under consideration and had been sent to the Finance department for concurrence.
To this, the court orally observed that the state had to show more seriousness in dealing with the issue.
18. President Appoints Justice T Raja As Acting Chief Justice Of Madras High Court
The President has appointed Justice T Raja, senior-most Judge of the Madras High Court as Acting Chief Justice with effect from September 22, 2022 consequent to the superannuation of Justice M Duraiswamy, who is the current Acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court.
Case Title: V Adarsh v. Union of India and ors
Case No: WP No. 25205 of 2022
The Madras High Court has sought a response from the Central Government on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022.
The petitioner, V Adarsh, has challenged Sections 2 (1) (a) (iii), 2 (1) (b), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act as being unconstitutional, illegal and void. He contended that the sections are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 20(3), 21 and 51 of the Constitution thus, in effect going against the basic structure of the Constitution.
After briefly hearing the matter, the court directed Deputy Solicitor General of India R Shankaranarayan to file a counter affidavit within six weeks.
Case Title: D Soundararajan v Director General of Prosecution and others
Case No: WP No. 25066 of 2022
A man has recently approached the Madras High Court seeking permission to sit on an indefinite fast demanding disclosure of former CM Jayalalithaa's Will.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan on Monday heard the petitioner and directed the Government to check if any representations made by the petitioner were pending before the Collector or other concerned authorities.
21. Madras HC Lists Former Minister SP Velumani's Quashing Petitions Before Special Bench
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v. The Director and others
Case No: WP No 34845 of 2018
The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the Registry to place the quashing petitions filed by former Tamil Nadu minister SP Velumani before a division bench that deals with cases relating to MPs and MLAs. The bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan also extended the interim stay till the next date of hearing before the appropriate bench.
Case Title: M Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case No: WP No. 9740 of 2018
The Madras High Court on Friday reserved orders on a plea filed by Advocate Radhakrishnan in 2018 seeking to quash certain clauses in a Tamil Nadu Government Order which in effect allowed law graduates to apply for the post of Civil Judge, without enrollment.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice PD Audikesavalu reserved the order after hearing the Petitioner in person and Advocate B Vijay for TN Public Service Commission
Case Title: Ramalingam v The Director General of Police and ors
Case No: WPNo 18455 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the parents of a school girl, who died by suicide in Kallakurichi in July, to hand over her mobile phone to the CB-CID and cooperate with the investigation.
During a hearing of the petition filed by the 17-year-old's father for a proper investigation in the case, the Public Prosecutor Hassan Mohammed Jinnah submitted that the girl's parents were not willing to hand over the mobile phone that she had been using during her stay at the hostel.
The court had earlier directed the CB-CID to expedite the probe.
"They are not handing over the phone. If they hand over the phone of the girl, the investigation can be completed easily," the PP submitted before the court.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain the appeal against a single judge order of granting permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to carry out processions across Tamil Nadu on October 2.
Advocate NGR Prasad today made a mentioning before the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar for hearing of an appeal preferred by Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) leader and MP Thirumavalan challenging the single judge order by which the court directed the police authorities to grant permission to RSS to conduct route march with certain conditions.
The court agreed with submission of Registrar General and concluded that it was bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court and thus refrained from entertaining the appeal.
Case Title: Isha Foundation v. Union of India
Case No: WP No. 467 of 2022
'Sadhguru' Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Foundation on Wednesday told the Madras High Court that it was exempted from seeking prior Environmental Clearance as it came within the purview of Educational Institutions.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar was hearing the plea filed by the Foundation challenging a notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Government initiating prosecution against the foundation for carrying out construction work between 2006-2014 at Coimbatore, without obtaining mandatory environmental clearance as per the Central Government's Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
The petitioner institution claimed that since it was a "Yoga Institute" which worked for the model development of persons, it came within the purview of educational institution and was exempted from seeking mandatory clearance before construction.
ALSO READ: Isha Foundation Exempted From Seeking Prior Environmental Clearance: Centre Tells Madras HC
The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition seeking directions to the Tamil Nadu Government to take over the management of a private school in Kallakurichi where a student had died by suicide in July this year.
Citing that such an order will have large implications, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar observed as under,
"We could issue such directions to the TN Govt. But there are so many schools in the state of Tamil Nadu. Every school will have some problems. If today your Petition is allowed, tomorrow a lot of people will come asking similar reliefs. The government cannot merely takeover the management. It'll have to take over the land, pay salaries etc. Imagine the implications such a direction will have. We cannot do that"
27. Madras High Court Judge Asks Registry To Deduct 'Professional Tax' From HC Staff Salary
Justice SM Subramaniam of Madras High Court has recently written to the Registrar General asking him to direct the Registry to deduct professional tax applicable to the High Court staff.
These observations came after General Secretary of Federation of Anti Corruption Teams India, Mr. C Selvaraj sent a complaint to Justice Subramaniam informing him that the staff and judges of the Madras High Court were not paying professional tax for several years even though proper Acts and Rules were in force.
28. RSS Route March: Madras High Court Directs TN Government To Grant Permission For November 6
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Tamilnadu government to grant permission for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct their route march on November 6th instead of October 2. Meanwhile, the court decided to keep the contempt petition against the Tamil Nadu government pending to ensure proper compliance.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan passed the orders on a contempt petition moved by RSS against State's refusal to grant permission despite court orders passed on September 22nd when the court had ruled positively and directed the state to grant permission.
29. Restaurant Inspections: Madras High Court Restrains Food Safety Officers From Taking Media Along
The Madras High court on Friday directed the Food Safety Officers to not take media or television crew to hotels and restaurants for food inspection.
Instead, the court said, the officers could seek the assistance of private camera persons and use such footage only for the purpose of prosecution.
Justice R Suresh Kumar observed that taking television crew to the kitchens even before the samples were collected was improper.