Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 50NOMINAL INDEX Ganeshkumar v The Principal Secretary to Government, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus K.M.Mammen, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 Dr R Karpagam v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Others, 2024 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
NOMINAL INDEX
Ganeshkumar v The Principal Secretary to Government, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus K.M.Mammen, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
Dr R Karpagam v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
Nagoorkani v The Commissioner and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
A Rajkumar v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
University Health Network v Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
M/s.Radha Industries Versus Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
G.Shanugam v. Tmt.P.Amudha, I.A.S, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
Annavelu v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
Rajesh Das IPS v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
BNY Mellon Technology Private Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
Murasoli Trust v National Commission For Scheduled Castes, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
S Paul Kithiyon v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
O Panneerselvam v Edappadi K Palaniswami, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
ML Ravi v Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
S Harish v Inspector of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
Apsara Reddy v Joe Micheal Praveen, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
P Gunasekaran v The Deputy Inspector General (Prison), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Dr P Perumalsamy v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
Selvam @ Selvakumar and others v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
Ouwshitha Surendran v National Medical Commission and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
Anamallais Bus Transports P Ltd verses The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
Jak Communications Private Limited Verses Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
Amala Paul v Deputy Superintendent of Police and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
VA Anand v State Information Commission and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
Dr A Paramasivan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Info Edge (India) Ltd. v Google India Ltd and Others (batch cases), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
R Jaganathan v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
M Yogamagi v The Secretary to the Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
R Raja v Government of Puducherry and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
R Sasikala Devi v The AAO/ Assistance Secretary and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
L Ganapathy v The Assistant Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
CA V Venkata Sivakumar v The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
R. Ochappan vs. Keerthana, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
C Ve. Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
State of Tamil Nadu v S Krishnaswamy, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
Marlena Ann v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
Sujithkumar @ Sonaimuthu v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Chennai Metropolitan Development, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
M/s.Tulip Nilgiris Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise (Appeals), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
Sri Guberan Steels Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
CR Balasubramanian vs. P Eswaramoorthi [Crl.O.P.No.947 of 2024], 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
A.Kaliyaperumal v. The Superintendent of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
S Paulraj v The Principal District Judge and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
D Senthilkumar v Government of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
Annadurai v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
Vikas Chudiwala v R Ravinder Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
P Prabhu v Regional Transport Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
REPORTS
Case Title: Ganeshkumar v The Principal Secretary to Government
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
The Madras High Court recently issued a compendium of procedures to be followed by the Advisory Board under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act 1982, while conducting an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of Clause (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice KK Ramakrishnan made it clear that the compendium was to be strictly followed by the State Advisory Board till the State came up with a law within Article 22(7)(c) of the Constitution. Article 22(7)(c) empowers the Parliament to prescribe laws to be followed by the advisory board while considering the detention of a person.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus K.M.Mammen
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
The bench of Justice R. Mahdevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, while upholding the order passed by the single judge, held that since the penalty was reduced from 300% to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 279(1A) of Income Tax. The section deals with non-prosecution for tax offences where the penalty is reduced.
The judgement has been delivered a writ appeal filed by the tax department challenging the order of the single judge who remitted the case back to Director General Income Tax ( Investigation ) with a direction to compound the case under Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
The Madras High Court recently observed that the removal of a wife's uterus after being diagnosed with Ovarian cancer during the subsistence of marriage and subsequent inability to have a progeny will not be mental cruelty to the husband warranting dissolution of marriage.
The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji thus confirmed an order of the Family Court dismissing the Husband's plea for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of mental cruelty, desertion and suppression of material fact.
Case Title: Dr R Karpagam v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
The Madras High Court has asked the authorities to take all steps as per the existing guidelines while conducting the Masi festival in the Adhi Karuvannarayar temple located in the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve in February.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a public interest litigation filed by one Dr. R Karpagam seeking to regulate the movement of people in the tiger reserve during the festival.
Shop Cannot Be Closed Forever Merely For Keeping Banned Tobacco Products For Sale: Madras High Court
Case Title: Nagoorkani v The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
The Madras High Court recently commented that a shop could not be closed forever merely for keeping banned tobacco products for sale. The court thus directed the Food Safety and Drug Administration authorities to de-seal the shops.
Justice GR Swaminathan highlighted that the Food Safety and Standard Rules 2011 provided for sealing shops only during the inability to adhere to procedures contemplated under Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. The court thus noted that even if there was justification in initially sealing the premises, at some point it had to be de-sealed.
The court added that the shop owners had a right to carry on business as guaranteed under the Constitution. Adding that the Constitution did not give a right to trade in banned items, the court opined that the shopkeepers could still sell other products in their shops and by sealing the shop, their right to livelihood was affected.
Madras High Court Stays ED Summons To Private Contractors In Sand Mining Money Laundering Case
Case Title: A Rajkumar v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
The Madras High Court on Friday stayed the operation of summons issued to private contractors in connection with the ongoing investigations by the Enforcement Directorate in the sand mining money laundering case.
Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan granted a stay on a plea by A Rajkuamr, partner of RS Construction, Shanmugam Ramachandran, and K Rethinam. The court had previously also stayed the operation of summons issued to the District Collectors in connection with the investigation.
Case Title: University Health Network v Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
Rejecting an appeal claiming forum conveniens, the Madras High Court observed that the High Court will continue to have territorial jurisdiction, irrespective of the location of the appropriate patent office if a part of the cause of action arose within its territory.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that in the present case, the original petitioner had a patent and was conducting business in Chennai. Thus, the court rejected the appellant's argument that the rights of the parties played out in Delhi and that the Delhi High Court should have heard the matter.
Case Title: M/s.Radha Industries Versus Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court has directed the verification of certificate of origin within 30 days and in case of failure of verification within time release the seized areca nut is subject to providing a bond for 100% of the value of goods but without insisting on a bank guarantee.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that areca nuts have a limited shelf-life and the risk of contamination and deterioration of goods increases over time.
Case Title: G.Shanugam v. Tmt.P.Amudha, I.A.S
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
While issuing guidelines to the Police and the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) for permitting and holding route marches in the future, the Madras High Court commented that men in power should not attempt to prevent an individual's right of thought and expression.
Justice G Jayachandran also added that men in power should not be biased while permitting citizens to express their views and any restriction must pass the test of reasonable restriction.
Case Title: Annavelu v State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
Quashing a criminal case registered against a man for conducting a demonstration against the arrest of DMK Youth Wing Secretary, the Madras High Court observed that every person had a democratic right to raise his voice against the government demanding legal action and when such a right was exercised, it could not be said to be “unlawful” or “illegal”
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench observed,
“The petitioner along with others simply made agitation. It is a democratic right of every person to raise voice against the political or Government demanding legal action. Such a right has been exercised by the petitioner. So, that cannot be construed as 'unlawful or illegal',” the court observed.
Case Title: Rajesh Das IPS v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by former Tamil Nadu DGP Rajesh Das seeking to transfer an appeal against his conviction from the Villupuram Principal District Court to any other court.
Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the plea and observed that there was no prima facie materials to order a transfer. The court also directed the lower appellate court to complete the hearing in the appeal by January 24th, 2024 and pass orders on merit as expeditiously as possible.
The court noted that no grounds raised by Das warranted transfer of the case and in fact Das, in his own accord was trying to create an impression that there was reasonable apprehension.
Case Title: BNY Mellon Technology Private Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
While setting aside the order disposing of assessee's objection for re-opening of assessment pursuant to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and the consequent reassessment order, the Madras High Court held that there is no scope for re-opening of the assessment, since the reasons cited for same was inspired from change of opinion of the Assessing officer.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that “there is no case made out for reopening the Assessment that was completed earlier. Reopening of the Assessment was inspired from a review and a change of opinion by the subsequent officer. Such practice has been deprecated and frowned upon by the Courts” (Para 35)
Case Title: Murasoli Trust v National Commission For Scheduled Castes
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
While dismissing a petition filed by Murasoli Trust challenging a notice issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Caste, the Madras High Court called the trust's action unnecessary and uncalled for as the commission was acting within its jurisdiction.
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that the National Commission for Scheduled Caste was a constitutional body for the benefit of the socially disadvantaged group in the country. The court added that NCSC has all the powers of a civil court including the powers to summon, receiving evidence, requisitioning public records, issue commissions, and other powers stipulated under the Constitution. Thus, the court observed that the commission had only acted within its power when it received a complaint about the deprivation of the legal right of the Scheduled caste members.
Case Title: S Paul Kithiyon v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
In a plea seeking to declare the transport strike called by different trade unions in the state of Tamil Nadu as illegal and unconstitutional, the Trade Unions, on Wednesday informed the court of their willingness to call off the strike in larger public interest and given the Pongal festival.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy invoked the principle of Salus Populi Suprema Lex and observed that welfare of people was to be given utmost importance. Considering the immense hardship that the general public will have to face in the absence of an essential service like Transport, especially during Pongal, which was the largest festival in the State, the court expected the trade unions to rise to the occasion and call off the strike at least till the next conciliation proceedings.
Case Title: O Panneerselvam v Edappadi K Palaniswami
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
A Division bench of the Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an interim order of a single judge restraining former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and expelled AIADMK leader O Paneerselvam from using the party's name, flag, symbol, and letterhead.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the single judge and dismissed Panneerselvam's appeal. The court said that Paneerselvam could approach the single judge to vacate the interim injunction order.
In November last year, Justice N Satish Kumar allowed the plea for interim injunction filed by the party General Secretary Edappadi Palaniswami. Edappadi had approached the court contending that even after expulsion from the party, OPS continued to claim himself to be the coordinator of the party.
Case Title: ML Ravi v Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the election of some MPs and MLAs noting that the issue involved disputed questions of fact which could not be looked into in a writ petition.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing a plea by ML Ravi to declare the election of some MPs and MLAs as null and void and declare the acceptance of their forms as illegal.
Ravi had contended that the respondent MPs and MLAs were members of one political party but had contested the election on the symbol of another political party which was impermissible under law. He submitted that the sworn affidavit filed by these candidates was false and thus the Form B issued was illegal.
Case Title: S Harish v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
Setting aside the criminal proceedings initiated against a man, the Madras High Court recently observed that watching child pornographic videos will itself not attract offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that to attract the offences under the POCSO Act, a child or children must have been used for pornography purposes. In the present case, the court noted that accused had watched pornography videos but had not used a child or children for pornographic purposes. This, in the opinion of the court, could only be construed as a moral decay on the part of the accused person.
With respect to the charges under Section 67B of the IT Act, the accused must have published, transmitted, and created materials depicting children in sexually explicit acts or conduct. The court added that the section did not make child pornography, per se, an offence. Thus, the court noted that the Act did not cover a case where a person had merely downloaded child pornography in his electronic gadget and watched the same without doing anything more.
ALSO READ: Gen Z Grappling With Porn Addiction, Must Be Counselled Out Of It: Madras High Court
Case Title: Apsara Reddy v Joe Micheal Praveen
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court recently ordered YouTuber Joe Micheal Praveen to pay Rs 50 Lakh compensation to Apsara Reddy, a transperson, politician and journalist.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the statements made by Praveen were derogatory and nothing but humiliation to Reddy. The court noted that because of the defamatory statements, some programs in which Reddy was supposed to talk had been cancelled.
The court observed that though a person had a right to post on YouTube, he could not cross his limit and encroach upon the privacy of others. The court added that the right of publication is subject to reasonable restriction and when statements are made touching upon the character, behavior and personal life of any individual, it would have serious impact.
Case Title: P Gunasekaran v The Deputy Inspector General (Prison)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Granting leave to two convicts who were accused in an NDPS case, the Madras High Court recently observed that even prisoners who had committed heinous crimes were entitled to be treated as human beings which was a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that rules regarding ordinary leave to prisoners were meant to bring consistency while granting leave but these rules had to be mended when it came to the relationship between a mother and son. The court added that it was tyrannical to deprive a son from attending his mother's death ceremony.
Case Title: Dr P Perumalsamy v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madras High Court recently upheld an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulation 1954, bringing the Chairman and Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) under the purview of the State Vigilance Commission and Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption with effect from August 9, 2011.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the amendment did not affect the rights of the Chairman and members nor did it change the service conditions. The court observed that only an investigation agency was being provided for and thus the amendment could not be said to be arbitrary.
Case Title: Selvam @ Selvakumar and others v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
The Madras High Court recently observed that the trial courts were not following the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 2014-2016 dealing with witness examination. The court remarked that some trial judges were not following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court but were adjourning cases at the request of the counsels appearing for the accused to earn a good name at the bar.
Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to set aside an order of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai The Sessions judge had dismissed a petition filed by the petitioners to recall some witnesses.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
The Madras High Court recently observed that a husband who was not interested in living with his wife and children by not giving them any financial assistance and not including their names in the Railway Service register would be committing cruelty.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji were dealing with an appeal preferred by a wife challenging a Family Court order granting divorce to the husband on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The court however noted that none of the reasons stated by the husband were proved as per law and in fact, the wife was able to show that it was the husband who had not discharged his duties even while the wife was willing to lead a peaceful life.
Case Title: Ouwshitha Surendran v National Medical Commission and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
The Madras High Court has recently directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to grant an eligibility certificate to a Foreign Medical Graduate and register her as a Medical Practitioner if there is no other impediment. The NMC had earlier rejected the eligibility certificate on the grounds that she had not studied English as a subject.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing an appeal by the graduate, Ouwshitha Surendran, against a single-judge order holding her ineligible as per the rules. The court however noted that Ouwshitha qualified as per Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 since she had undergone all her education till her MBBS Degree in English Medium which was not less than the core course of English as prescribed by NCERT.
Case Title: Anamallais Bus Transports P Ltd verses The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
While observing that transaction pertaining to loan between two concerns wherein the liability of borrower stood reduced in the books of accounts to an extent of payment made to clear the liability of assessee appears to be in accordance with law, the Madras High Court ruled that penalty under Section 271E of Income tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied on repayment of loan in absence of cash transaction.
The High Court made it clear that the question of dealing with cash transaction does not arise and therefore penalty under Section 271E cannot be levied.
Case Title: Jak Communications Private Limited Verses Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
Remarking that there cannot be any restriction/limitation for filing application for compounding of offence contrary to Section 279(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Madras High Court quashed the order rejecting application for compounding of offences filed by the assessee and its directors on the ground that the same is filed beyond the period of 12 months as prescribed in CBDT Circular dated Sep 16, 2022.
At the same time, the High Court clarified that the limitation period in the CBDT Circular is directory, not mandatory, and thus cannot bind the assessee or the Writ Court.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Bhavninder Singh In Cheating Case By Actress Amala Paul
Case Title: Amala Paul v Deputy Superintendent of Police and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
The Madras High Court has set aside the bail granted to actress Amala Paul's ex-partner Bhavninder Singh in a cheating case filed by the actress.
Asking Bhavninder to surrender before the Investigating Agency, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the bail order had impeded the investigation as it did not impose any conditions. The court added that if the orders are passed to scuttle further investigation, the entire criminal justice system will fail and fall.
Case Title: VA Anand v State Information Commission and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court recently upheld an order of the State Information Commission directing an employer to furnish the salary information of an employee sought by his wife.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that when the matrimonial proceedings were pending between the husband and the wife, the quantum of maintenance would depend upon the husband's salary and the wife could make a rightful claim only when she knew the details of the salary.
Case Title: Dr A Paramasivan v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
The Madras High Court recently observed that though the legal principle of justice delayed is justice denied is well established, however, hasty justice is not preferred over delayed justice.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira was dealing with the plea of a man seeking transfer of the trial against him. The petitioner apprehended that his case would not be considered fairly after the trial judge refused to postpone the trial in light of the petitioner's medical condition.
The court remarked that while eliminating the delay in the disposal of criminal cases, due care needs to be taken to prevent undue speed and haste as the same would result in unfair play. The court added that the case of the defence should not be discouraged while attempting to expedite criminal trials.
Madras High Court Dismisses Appeals By Indian Startups Against Google's New Billing Policy
Case Title: Info Edge (India) Ltd. v Google India Ltd and Others (batch cases)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed the appeals preferred by 13 Indian companies challenging Google's new billing policy.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu, however, allowed an earlier interim protection against delisting to continue for 3 weeks, following which the protection would exhaust.
In August last year, a single judge had dismissed 14 petitions by Indian startups challenging the new user choice billing system by Google. The single judge had observed that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India and that the remedy available under the Competition Act is much more comprehensive than that available before a civil court. The court added that the pleas are barred by Section 61 of the Competition Act which expressly forbids civil courts from hearing any lawsuit or action that the Commission is authorized to decide.
Case Title: R Jaganathan v State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
The Madras High Court has stayed the ongoing investigation against the Vice Chancellor of Periyar University, R Jaganathan, in an alleged case of fund misappropriation.
Justice Anand Venkatesh stayed the investigation pending the disposal of a plea by Jaganathan to quash the FIR against him. The court opined that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute an offence. After considering the materials, the court also opined that the prosecution was instituted with an ulterior motive.
Case Title: M Yogamagi v The Secretary to the Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
The Madras High Court recently observed that as per a Government Order issued by the Labour and Employment Department, the family pension of a deceased employee need not be considered while assessing the income of the family while considering an application for compassionate appointment.
Justice L Victoria Gowri was hearing a plea challenging the rejection of compassionate appointment. The court also noted that as per the Government Order, when a person in the family of the deceased was employed before the death but was living separately without extending any financial assistance, the same would not come in the way of giving compassionate appointment.
Case Title: R Raja v Government of Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
The Madras High Court today held a special sitting to hear a plea challenging the half-day closure of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry on account of the Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha Ceremony to be held in Ayodhya tomorrow.
The Court disposed of the PIL upon noting the Union's submission that the hospital would remain sufficiently staffed and accept emergency cases even during the half-day closure.
A division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharata Chakravarty had assembled for a special Sunday hearing to hear a plea by the petitioner challenging a circular issued on 19th January through an Office Memorandum by the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, declaring that JIPMER Hospital in Puducherry would observe a half-day and be functional only from 2:30 pm on Monday 22nd January on account of the Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha Ceremony to be held in Ayodhya.
Case Title: R Sasikala Devi v The AAO/ Assistance Secretary and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
The Madras High Court recently directed the SBI Life Insurance Company to settle the claim amounts to the family of a man who had defaulted in paying premiums on account of hospitalization.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the default was neither intentional nor wilful and the non-payment was only because the insured was hospitalized and taking treatment and had passed away subsequently.
Case Title: L Ganapathy v The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
The Madras High Court on Monday disposed of a plea challenging the rejection of permission to live telecast the Ram Mandir inauguration programs in a private hall.
Justice Anand Venkatesh held a special sitting in the early hours of Monday to hear the matter. The court took note of the State's submission that there was no prohibition against conduct of functions, singing Bhajans, uttering Rama Nama and Annadhanams on account of the auspicious ceremony. The court however added that the same should be done responsibly to avoid any law and order problem.
The court added that care must be taken to ensure that no misinformation or wrong information was being spread and it should be understood that devotion was for bringing peace and not to disturb the equilibrium of the society.
Case Title: CA V Venkata Sivakumar v The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
While dismissing a challenge made to Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code which gives powers to the Insolvency Professional Agency (IPA) to monitor the conduct of the Insolvency professional, the Madras High Court recently observed that merely because the provision gave powers to both the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and the IPA, it would not become arbitrary or give a presumption of double jeopardy.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the conferment of powers to the IBBI and IPA by itself would not amount to conferring unbridled power as the regulation and bye-laws provided for checks and balances. Noting that there was no excessive power being granted, the court added that Section 204 was only an enabling provision and there was no constitutional infirmity in the provision.
Any Person Can File Plea U/S 125 CrPC Seeking Maintenance On Behalf Of A Minor: Madras High Court
Case Title - R. Ochappan vs. Keerthana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madras High Court has observed that Section 125 of CrPC does not prohibit any person from filing a maintenance petition on behalf of a minor.
The bench of Justice KK Ramakrishnan opined thus while holding that a married woman is not barred from filing a plea on behalf of her minor brother seeking maintenance from their father.
The Court found justification in the revision court's order to grant maintenance to the minor brother, even though only the married sister had initiated the revision against the dismissal of the maintenance claim concerning her, and no revision had been filed by the minor brother.
Case Title: C Ve. Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
Emphasising on the need for a good opposition, the Madras High Court recently observed that for a democracy to operate successfully, it is important to recognise the opposition and give it an institutional form.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that the opposition plays a major role in providing checks and balances in the functioning of the democracy and by making constructive criticisms about the policies of the ruling government, the opposition could make the government accountable to the public and make them work in accordance with the social welfare and public good.
At the same time, the court also cautioned the opposition from using harsh languages to raise criticism. The court remarked that in the name of voicing concerns, the opposition should not have a vituperative outburst as such sharp language would result in maligning the government and could be considered defamatory. The court added that when such languages was used, it would side track the issues raised.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v S Krishnaswamy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
The Madras High Court recently upheld an order granting compensation to a man who had suffered injuries during a bandh following the arrest of the then-erstwhile Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in 2001.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held the State responsible along with the political party that had called for the bandh. The court observed that the State was vicariously liable for its inaction during the situation and not taking proper care of the law-and-order situation.
The court noted that the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation had admitted that there were untoward incidents obstructing the operation of vehicles and causing damage to the vehicles on 30th June, 1st July and 2nd July 2001. The court thus opined that when the respondent authorities had already witnessed untoward incidents happening on the 30th June, they could have taken necessary precautions for the following days.
Case Title: Marlena Ann v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed DMK MLA E. Karunanithi's son and daughter-in-law to appear before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai (Special Judge for SC/ST cases). The duo have been accused of allegedly beating and verbally abusing their 18-year-old house help, belonging to the scheduled caste community. As per the latest reports, the couple have now been arrested.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that in view of the amendments made to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the court could not routinely issue directions. The court was thus not inclined to allow the couple's request to direct the lower court to consider their bail applications on the same day of their surrender.
Case Title: Sujithkumar @ Sonaimuthu v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on a man accused of allegedly committing sexual assault on his neighbour on the false promise to marry.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the victim girl to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Take Steps To Ensure Upcoming Bus Stands Are Disabled Friendly: Madras High Court To CMDA
Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Chennai Metropolitan Development
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High recently directed the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to ensure that the upcoming bus terminals in Koothambakkam, Venpakkam, Varadarajapuram and Mamallapuram are constructed by duly complying with the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea by disability rights activist Vaishnavi Jayakumar seeking directions to the CMDA to ensure that the newly constructed Kilambakkam Bus Terminus is compliant with the design and standards prescribed in the Harmonised Guidelines.
Case Title: M/s.Tulip Nilgiris Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise (Appeals)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court has held that an IGST refund claim may be made before the expiry of two years from the relevant date. The relevant date is required to be computed from the date of export of the goods concerned by any mode.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that since the refund claim pertains to exports made between July 2017 and November 2017 and the refund application was filed on January 9, 2019, it is clear that the refund application was made within two years from the relevant date.
Case Title: Sri Guberan Steels Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment order and held that the defect was not cured due to the availability of records in the custody of the central GST authority.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that a composite order of assessment was issued with regard to four defects, and the documents on record disclose that the non-availability of records, on account of such documents being in the custody of the Central GST authority, undoubtedly impacted the petitioner's ability to respond to two defects.
Case title - CR Balasubramanian vs. P Eswaramoorthi [Crl.O.P.No.947 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
The Madras High Court has directed the District Courts across the State of Tamil Nadu to not mechanically impose a condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount/cheque amount u/s.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
For context, in an appeal against conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 NI Act, the appellate court, as per Section 148 NI Act, has the power to grant suspension of sentence pending appeal with imposition of a condition for payment of a minimum 20% of compensation/fine amount as ordered by the trial court.
Case Title: A.Kaliyaperumal v. The Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
The Madras High Court has recently held that the reckoning date for calculating the limitation period under Section 469 of CrPC would be from the date of filing of the final report and not the date of registration of FIR.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that in a case emanating from the FIR, cognizance is taken by the Magistrate upon the filing of the final report. The court added that the basis of the FIR is only information received by the police authorities and not a “complaint” of which cognizance is taken.
Case Title: S Paulraj v The Principal District Judge and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash the punishment imposed on the Head Clerk of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur in connection with the missing of two plaints and pro-notes in plaints.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice R Vijayakumar held that the order of imposing a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was not in any way disproportionate to the misconduct and gross dereliction of duty committed by the Head Clerk. The court added that the Head Clerk, who was in charge of the custody of the documents had committed grave misconduct and even chose not to bring the matter to the notice of the Presiding Officer.
Palani Temple Not A Picnic Spot, Cannot Allow Entry Of Non-Hindus Beyond Flagpole: Madras High Court
Case Title: D Senthilkumar v Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
While directing the state government to install boards indicating that non-Hindus are not permitted entry into the Palani temple beyond the flag pole situated at the entrance of the temple, the Madras High Court today emphasized that temples are not covered under Article 15 of the Constitution and hence restriction of entry for non-Hindus could not be said to be improper. The court also directed the authorities to maintain the temple as per Agamas, customs and practices.
The court said temples are not tourist spots and even if one wanted to admire the architecture of the temple, entry should be restricted to the “kodimaram” or flag pole situated at the entrance of the temple.
Case Title: Annadurai v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court recently observed that the court competent to initiate confiscation proceedings and issue directions for disposal of seized materials with respect to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act is the Magistrate Court, which is the court competent to take cognisance of the offence.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus took a different view than what had been laid down by the full bench of the Madras High Court last year.
The court noted that under the Mines and Minerals Act, the Special courts were established for speedy disposal of the cases but these courts could not take cognisance of an offence without an order of committal. This was because under Section 30-C of the Act, a Special court was deemed to be a court of session and as per Section 193 CrPC, a Sessions Court was barred from directly taking cognizance.
Case Title: Vikas Chudiwala v R Ravinder Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court has referred to a division bench the question of whether the proprietor of concern would alone be considered as the drawer of a cheque when a prosecution has been initiated against the proprietary concern under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that there were two contradictory views on the same issue and thus an authoritative pronouncement was necessary. This was more so since the provision was under criminal law and had to be given a strict interpretation.
Case Title: P Prabhu v Regional Transport Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
The Madras High Court has recently observed that while exercising powers under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Regional Transport Authority cannot pre-judge the guilt of a person charged under a criminal case and seize driving licenses without filing a final report by the police.
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench was dealing with a batch of pleas seeking directions to the Regional Transport Officer to return the driving license seized by the officials following the registration of criminal cases against the petitioners.
The court noted that the authorities could initiate action under S. 19 of the MV Act only based on a report by the Police and thus, merely on the registration of an FIR, the police officer did not have any power to seize the license. The court added that of any action was to be taken, the police had to forward a report to the concerned RTA, who after being satisfied that any of the contingencies as provided in the Act exists, and after giving an opportunity to the license holder, will pass appropriate orders.