Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232 NOMINAL INDEX Agavai (Name Changed) v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 Case Title: M.Ani v. The Government of Tamilnadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 193 Hema Jwaalini and others v. The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 194 Nakshatra Bind A.K v. State of...
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
NOMINAL INDEX
Agavai (Name Changed) v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
Case Title: M.Ani v. The Government of Tamilnadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
Hema Jwaalini and others v. The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
Nakshatra Bind A.K v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Project Director (LA), NHAI versus T. Palanisamy and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Deputy Superintendent of Police v. The Deputy Director Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
Mrs. Noorjahan Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
Suresh Rajan v. The State rep. by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
Thirumalai and Others v. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College & Hospital v. The Government of Puducherry and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
M/s.Srinivasa Stampings Versus The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
Lakshmi Ammal and Others v. Gejaraj (died) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
Mrs. Noorjahan versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and M/s. AMK Solutions Private Ltd. & Ors. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot Versus The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
Lakshmi Ammal (died) and Others v. Ammayi Ammal (died) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
K. Murugan v. The Registrar and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
M/s.Vetrivel Explosives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
N. Sarojini v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
S. Mohankumar v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
R Barathbaran (died) and others v. R. Nallathambi, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
P. Anandhraj, Joint Director and Others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
P.R Srinivasan v. The Commissioner, HR&CE and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
G. Sendrayan v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
Nandha Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital represented by Chairman v. The Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy and Others & other connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
Pranav Srinivasan v. The Government of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
Ramasamy Gounder @ Senban (died) v. Chinnapillai @ Nallammal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
Prakash A v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
Periammal v. Kamalam and others, LiveLaw (Mad) 219
Sanjay Simon and another v. KG Hospital and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
Union of India versus J. Auuamar and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
S.S.S Prahalathan v. The Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co Ltd v. Kathamuthu and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
Amutha v. The Additional Principal Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
Ganapathy and others v. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
C Shamilakumari v P Chandrasekar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another with connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 227
Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
TR Ramanathan v. Tamil Nadu State Mental Health Authority and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd and Anr. v. TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Arb. O.P. (Comm. Div) Nos. 410 and 412 of 2021., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
REPORTS
Case Title: Agavai (Name Changed) v. The State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras High Court set aside the detention order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Thiruvallur against a 15 years old child in conflict with law, observing that the order was passed in a hasty manner without going into the genuineness of the matter.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandra also observed that a child offender should not be given punishment based on the kind of offense he/she has committed but should be given an individual treatment that is reformative in nature and which is based on his/her need, psychological and social background.
The court also opined that the parents, teachers, schools, community, and law enforcement agencies need to understand, prevent and reduce risk factors that may push children towards adopting behaviors that may harm them. The court further observed that no child is born criminal and it is his/her social factors that make them do acts against the law.
2. TET Not Mandatory For Teachers In Minority Institutions: Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: M.Ani v. The Government of Tamilnadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
The Madras High Court has reiterated that TET qualification cannot be made applicable to minority institutions. The bench of Justice V Parthiban further confirmed the legal position that the prescription of TET qualification in terms of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was not applicable to minority institutions.
In light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pramti Educational and Cultural Trust and Ors. v. Union of India and ors. (2014), the court ordered the educational institutions to grant appropriate annual increment and medical benefits to the petitioner teacher and refund of any amount recovered from the teacher merely on the ground that she has not cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).
Case Title: Hema Jwaalini and others v. The Commissioner of Police and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a criminal petition filed challenging the action taken by Police Authorities against the owners and manager of Willow & Spa and charging them under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), and 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira observed that the petition did not have any merits as the petitioners had suppressed material facts and had merely claimed that the respondent police had fabricated the case due to a cold war existing between them.
With respect to the search procedure to be followed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the court held that the procedures were directory and not mandatory and a mere violation of the same will not vitiate the entire proceedings.
Case Title: Nakshatra Bind A.K v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras High Court recently held that there was no illegality in the state government's decision promoting students and awarding secondary school marksheets, without awarding specific marks to each student, for the reason that the examinations could not be held due to Covid-19.
The court highlighted that the same is a policy decision and does not warrant any interference from the court.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was considering a writ appeal filed by a XIth standard student against the order of the single judge and to declare the Government Orders as illegal and arbitrary and to strike off the same.
Case Title: The Project Director (LA), NHAI versus T. Palanisamy and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Madras High Court has held that an arbitral award that does not provide for payment of mandatory statutory compensation with respect to the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 is perverse.
The Single Bench of Justice P.T. Asha held that an Arbitrator exercising jurisdiction under the National Highways Act has to be more vigilant in ensuring that the arbitral award is fair and that the land owner is compensated adequately as per his legal entitlement. The Court upheld the order of the District Judge that had set aside the arbitral award and had directed the competent authority to pay compensation to the land owner as provided under the statute.
Case Title: The Deputy Superintendent of Police v. The Deputy Director Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Deputy Director, UIDAI to furnish details of 35 Aadhaar Cards sought by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, "Q" Branch CID, Chennai City.
Justice G Jayachandran made the above order on a plea by the Deputy Superintendent following rejection of his request by the UIDAI, seeking information about the Aadhaar Card Numbers along with KYC documents submitted by the applicants of the concerned Aadhaar cards.
The relief sought by the petitioner was to direct the respondent to share the Aadhaar card information including the genuineness of the Aadhaar Cards, whether they were issued to the same person, and any updates from the date of issue to date done to these numbers(including name, address, date of birth and mobile number), and the details of the authorized person who can make/have made the corrections, the certified copied of the applications along with the KYC documents submitted by the applicants. The petitioner submitted that the same was necessary to complete the investigation with respect to a crime relating to fake Indian Passports possessed by Sri Lankan Nationals.
The court also held that the intention of the petitioners for obtaining the information was merely to ascertain whether the Aadhaar cards seized by them were genuine or not and if so, to ascertain on what basis these were issued to such Foreign Nationals. Thus, furnishing of such information does not amount to the disclosure of private details of any individuals but to determining the existence of such individuals, and as such is not prohibited by the Puttaswamy judgment.
7. Initiation Of Malicious Prosecution By Income Tax Dept. Abusing Power: Madras High Court
Case Title: Mrs. Noorjahan Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Madras High Court bench of Justice G. Jayachandran has held that the suppression of material facts, the intentional suggestion of falsehood and the non-application of mind go to show that there was a malicious prosecution initiated by the Income Tax department by abusing its power. The petitioners need not be forced to undergo the ordeal of a trial, which has no legs to stand on.
The two petitions were filed to quash the complaint on the ground that there was a lack of ingredients to prosecute the petitioners under section 276 C (2), besides suppression of fact and non-application of mind.
The court said that a "culpable mental state" which can be presumed under section 278E of the Income Tax Act would come into play only in a prosecution for any offence under the Income Tax Act when the offence requires a "culpable mental state" on the part of the accused. Section 278 E is really a rule of evidence regarding the existence of mens rea by drawing a presumption, though rebuttable. That does not mean that the presumption would be applied even in a case in which the basic requirements constituting the offence are not disclosed. In particular, when the tax is paid much before the process for prosecution is set into motion. The presumption can be applied only when the basic ingredient that would constitute any offence under the Act has been disclosed. Then only, the rule of evidence under section 278 E of the Act regarding the rebuttable presumption as to the existence of a culpable mental state on the part of the accused would come into play.
Case Title: Suresh Rajan v. The State rep. by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to an alleged Maoist on a condition that he shall swear an affidavit, stating that he owes faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and that he does not believe in the Maoist ideology or the ideology of the CPI(M). He shall also state that he does not believe in violence as an ideology and would do nothing to subvert the Constitution of India.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice AA Nakkiran in a criminal appeal preferred seeking to set aside the order of Special NIA Court refusing bail to the Appellant, Suresh Rajan.
Along with the above conditions, the court also directed the Rajan to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties (blood relatives of the petitioner) for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Court. He shall also furnish his permanent address and shall inform the trial Court and the respondent about any change in his address. He was also directed to appear before the Special Court daily at 10:30 A.M and mark his signature.
The Special Court was given the liberty to cancel his bail and remand him to custody if he adopts any dilatory tactics during the trial or if any other situation so warrants. If he absconds, a fresh FIR shall be registered against him under Section 229-A IPC
Case Title: Thirumalai and Others v. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.T Asha recently held that the benefit of exemption from payment of Court Fees can be claimed only before the Motor Accident Tribunals and not on appeals before the court.
Such exemption was at the discretion of the Judicial Officer and is available only before the Claims Tribunal.
The two issues that the court considered were whether the Provisions of Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 would apply to Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act without giving proof of indigent circumstances and whether the claimants who have obtained exemption can withdraw the amounts deposited without paying the Court Fees.
Case Title: Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College & Hospital v. The Government of Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
The Madras High court recently set aside the order of the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Government of Puducherry (GOP) cancelling the admissions of 778 students in the MBBS course on the ground that their admission to these course was made illegally, without following merit.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made the orders on a batch of writ petitions filed by the students and the colleges alleging that the order of the MCI was illegal, arbitrary and made without observing the principles of natural justice.
The court held that the order was made without considering the procedure of admission adopted by the colleges and that passing of such draconian directions was arbitrary. The court also observed that implementation of such directions would turn out to be disastrous for the students who were now pursuing their fifth year of the MBBS course. The court also observed that the students cannot be put in a disadvantage due to the inability of the concerned authorities to formulate a proper mechanism for admission.
Case Title: M/s.Srinivasa Stampings Versus The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan held that the taxpayer is liable to pay interest if there is a belated payment of tax declared in the returns filed.
As per Section 50 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, every person who is liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, but fails to pay the tax or any part thereof to the government within the period prescribed, shall, for the period for which the tax or any part thereof remains unpaid, pay, on his own, interest at such rate as may be notified by the government on the recommendations of the Council.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has also clarified on 26.8.2020 that no recovery of interest shall be made for the past in the light of the decision taken by the GST Council in its 39th meeting on delayed payment of GST.
The court noted that interest has been demanded on the net tax liability of the petitioner on account of belated payment of tax during the aforesaid period under Section 50(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Case Title: Lakshmi Ammal and Others v. Gejaraj (died) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh recently observed that an unregistered agreement for sale may be received as evidence for considering the relief of specific performance.
It was of the view that the inadmissibility of the unregistered document will only be with respect to the protection sought under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Even though the sale agreement was not registered, it can be acted upon as evidence for deciding the relief of specific performance.
The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth(Wright) Issar and Others (2018) wherein it was observed that a document is required to be registered, but if unregistered, can still be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
Case Title: Mrs. Noorjahan versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and M/s. AMK Solutions Private Ltd. & Ors. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court has quashed the complaints filed by the income tax department against the assessee for wilfully attempting to evade payment of tax under Section 276 C (2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of malicious prosecution, non-application of mind and abuse of power.
The Single Bench of Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran ruled that to invoke the deeming provision of Section 140A (3) to hold the assessee as an assessee in default, there should be a default in payment of tax in true sense. The Court added that the income tax department had malafidely supressed material facts regarding payment of tax by the assessee while issuing sanction for prosecution of the offence under Section 276 C (2).
Case Title: Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot Versus The State Tax Officer (Adjudication)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan has held that form GST DRC-16 merely attaches immovable properties. There was no attachment to any bank accounts. The assessee appeared to be interested in dragging on the proceeding, though it appeared to be in arrears of huge amounts of tax.
Case Title: Lakshmi Ammal (died) and Others v. Ammayi Ammal (died) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
Explaining the legal principle of Approbate and Reprobate, the Madras High Court has recently observed that the foundation of the law of election is that a person cannot accept and reject the same instrument.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that a person cannot be allowed to make a judicial or a quasi-judicial forum to act upon a document in order to get a favorable order and thereafter disown the document and continue to deal with the property. A competent Civil Court cannot give its approval for such dishonest conduct and sanctify such illegal act.
The court also discussed a recent decision where the court had similarly held that the party claiming right over the scheduled property cannot take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/ courts.
Case Titile: K. Murugan v. The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
The Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy recently observed that the employer shall follow the procedures in departmental proceedings including framing of charge, giving an opportunity to the employee, conducting a disciplinary enquiry and thereafter deciding the issue even with respect to temporary employees.
The court also found merit in the submission of the petitioner that even termination of a temporary employee must be by following due procedure of law. The court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Special Officer and the order passed by the Registrar. The court also directed that the Special Officer was entitled to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of issuing a charge and take a decision in accordance with law by either permitting the petitioner to rejoin duty or by placing him under suspension. The court also directed that the entire enquiry should be carried out within a period of three months from the receipt of the order copy.
Considering the nature of allegations that were levelled against the petitioner, the court chose not to award back wages and held that the same could be decided only after the outcome of the enquiry conducted by the Special Officer.
17. Transition Of ITC cannot Be Denied Merely For Technical Difficulties: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Vetrivel Explosives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Madras High Court held that in case the department is unable to permit the filing of TRAN-1 belatedly, they have to credit the corresponding amount in the electronic cash register provided that the credit remained unutilized on the cut-off date.
The single judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that since the input tax credit is equivalent to cash meant to be used for discharging the tax liability, the transition of the input tax credit cannot be restricted or denied merely because there were technical difficulties.
The court disposed of the writ petition, by directing the respondents to verify whether the petitioner had any input tax credit on the date of the accident. The monthly returns, which would have been filed for the months of October and November 2016, would show the quantum of unutilized input tax credit on input service tax and capital goods credit.
"If it existed on that day, I see no reason why such credit should not be allowed to the petitioner either by way of suitable credit entry in the electronic cash register of the petitioner or by way of a cash refund to the petitioner. I therefore direct the respondents to verify the same and allow such credit which remained unutilized on the date of accident in the regular returns filed by the petitioner," the court said.
Case Title: N. Sarojini v. The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
The Madras High Court has reiterated that a convicted prisoner has no fundamental or statutory right to be released prematurely. The court was considering a petition filed by the mother of a life convict Hariharan challenging the Government order rejecting his premature release.
The bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice A. A Nakkiran observed that once material is shown to exist, the Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of facts and such sufficiency of facts is beyond the ken of judicial review under Article 226.
The court also opined that while exercising the power under Article 161, the interest of the society at large and the family of the victims should also be considered.
Case Title: S. Mohankumar v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras High Court recently directed a lawyer, appearing for the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000 as exemplary costs in favour of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry finding that the petitioner had come to the court with unclean hands merely to abuse the judicial process of law.
Justice P. Velmurugan made the above orders after observing that the petitioner had submitted the representation to the authorities on 22.04.2022 and had approached the court on the same day without giving the authorities sufficient time and opportunity to consider his application.
Case Title: R Barathbaran (died) and others v. R. Nallathambi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Teeka Raman has held that it is not mandatory under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 to obtain both signature and thumb impression for a pro-note to be valid.
The court also opined that when the defendant had not denied the execution of the pro-note, the lower appellate court could not raise suspicion with regard to the execution of the note merely on the ground that the thumb impression of the defendant was not obtained.
The court also stated that when there is a statutory presumption is favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden is on the defendant to prove otherwise. The defendant cannot merely rebut the presumption by a bare explanation but only by proof. The court was of the opinion that the evidence of the defendant was not sufficient to discharge this onus of proof and that the approach of the lower appellate court in condemnable.
21. Consider Forming "TN Administrative Service": Madras High Court Tells State
Case Title: P. Anandhraj, Joint Director and Others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court has directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider forming of "Tamil Nadu Administrative Service" including all the Departments connected to the Revenue and General Administration, Implementation of State policies for development in General as has been done by the Kerala Government.
The bench of Justice M. Govindaraj further directed the Government to consider taking steps to treat all State Level Officers alike and provide equal opportunity to them by making an appropriate recommendation to the Central Government to bring them into Administrative Service. The state was further directed to constitute a Committee for the purpose of identifying the posts, which can be brought under the definition of Deputy Collector. The government is expected to initiate all these processes within a period of six months.
The bench made the above directions in a plea challenging the rejection of a request to include posts of Joint Director and Additional Director of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, in the "State Civil Service" by the Government of Tamil Nadu. All the writ petitioners belonged to the Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department.
Case Title: P.R Srinivasan v. The Commissioner, HR&CE and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the State has an obligation to provide basic amenities to the pilgrims whenever there is a large gathering of persons during festival times.
Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarika v. Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee (2018) the court held that it is the bounded duty of the government to make proper arrangements and to sanction amounts without fear of violation of the concept of secularism.
Justice GR Swaminathan held an emergent sitting and heard the case on Sunday, over a Whatsapp Video call from Nagercoil while the lawyers joined the call from Neelankarai and Anna Nagar. It was upon the plea moved by the Hereditary Trustee of the Arulmighu Abheeshta Varadarajaswamy Temple, Papparapatti Agraharam, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District urging that their village will face "divine wrath" if the proposed Rath festival is not held on the given date, i.e., May 16.
Case Title: G. Sendrayan v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court has held that if a decision taken by an erstwhile Government is good to the public and the society at large, the successive Government can very well continue the project, if it is yet to be completed or half way through, for which further financial support is required.
Justice R Suresh Kumar said,
"If the erstwhile or the previous Government has taken a decision for any project to be undertaken for the welfare of the people, for which heavy amount of Government exchequer has been already spent, while taking a review in respect of those decision, the successive Government must borne in mind that, such kind of huge spending from exchequer shall not be allowed to go a waste."
The Court stated if an elected Government has taken a policy decision, under which, a project is conceived and put into action, when a subsequent Government is elected by a democratic exercise, it is for the successive Government to review such policy decision, based on the policy under which they have given the election manifesto to the people who vote them to power and accordingly, the earlier decision taken by the erstwhile Government can very well be reviewed by the subsequent Government, ofcourse within the parameters or four corners of the Constitution.
Case Title: Nandha Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital represented by Chairman v. The Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy and Others & other connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
The Madras High Court recently upheld the right of the college management to fill up the vacant seats in the respective courses. Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation in a plea challenging the impugned orders of Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University against admissions made by the management of the colleges.
The court relied on Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, where the Apex Court upheld the right of management to admit students. The court had observed that the seats remaining vacant would amount to a "national waste of resources".
Case Title: Pranav Srinivasan v. The Government of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a foetus or embryo acquires the status of a 'minor child' for the purposes of Section 8 of the Indian Citizenship Act and hence, such an embryo acquires the citizenship of its parents.
It added that if the parents of such 'minor' renounce their citizenship while the child is in his mother's womb, the child will be entitled to seek resumption of his Indian citizenship in terms of Section 8(2) of the Act, upon attaining majority.
Justice Anita Sumanth made the observations in a plea challenging an order of the Government of India wherein an application for Resumption of Citizenship under Section 8 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was rejected and the petitioner was asked to apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f) (g) of the Act if he so desires.
Case Title: Ramasamy Gounder @ Senban (died) v. Chinnapillai @ Nallammal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that merely because a son has been added as a co-vendor in a sale deed would not give rise to the presumption that the property being dealt with is a family property.
The court further held that the burden of proof to prove that the property was a joint family property or was purchased from the surplus income from the ancestral properties was upon the person claiming so. The same shall not be assumed per se and has to be pleaded and proved through evidence.
The court opined merely because a property is described as an ancestral property in the recitals of the document, that by itself is not a conclusive proof as to what is stated therein, more particularly when there are other materials to show that properties concerned are not ancestral properties.
Case Title: Prakash A v. The State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras High Court on Thursday denied bail to an office assistant who was accused of stabbing a Judicial Officer. Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the issue had to be dealt with utmost seriousness as it had an impact on the institution at large.
The court opined that while granting bail, it was necessary to consider the seriousness of the allegations. Thus, the court was not inclined to grant bail.
However, the court directed the Committal court to commit the matter to the concerned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court was directed to conduct the proceedings on day to day basis and complete the case within a period of six weeks. The court further directed the Sessions Court to decide the case purely on merit and in accordance with law and that the present order should not have any bearing on the outcome of the case.
Case Title: Periammal v. Kamalam and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court has held that there is no bar under the Limitation Act on a plaintiff taking the plea of adverse possession in a suit for declaration of title and for the recovery of possession. Justice Teekaa Raman held that the age-old axiomatic of law that the plaintiff cannot raise the plea of adverse possession and that it can only be a defence of the defendant no longer holds the field.
The court also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others v. Manjit Kaur and others (2019) where the Supreme Court observed as below:
"Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by Plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in the case of infringement of any rights of a Plaintiff."
Case Title: Sanjay Simon and another v. KG Hospital and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court on Thursday granted relief to a 27 years old kidney patient, who claimed that he is in great pain and the Authorization Committee (Transplantation) has been sitting on his request to permit surgical transplant.
Justice SM Subramaniam directed the Authorisation Committee (Transplantation) to scrutinise the documents of the petitioner and take appropropriate decisions on merits in accordance with law. The Committee was directed to communicate the decision on the same day at about 7:00 pm
Case Title: Union of India versus J. Auuamar and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award rendered by the District Collector awarding a lower value to the land owners with respect to the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 without following the mandate of Section 3G (7) of the National Highways Act, is rendered mechanically.
The Bench, consisting of Justices R. Subramanian and N. Sathish Kumar, remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator for fixing the value of the land acquired under the National Highways Act afresh in terms of Section 3G (7) of the National Highways Act.
The Court held that the District Collectors who are nominated as Arbitrators by the Central Government are expected to follow the decisions of the higher Courts while deciding the compensation payable in lieu of the land acquired under the National Highways Act. The Court added that the District Collectors often do not devote the required attention and the arbitral awards are passed by them mechanically without adverting to the relevant provisions of the law.
Case Title: S.S.S Prahalathan v. The Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court bench of Justice SM Subramaniam has held that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted with proper permission to take up another Government appointment, where service qualifies. In such circumstances, the period of service in the previous employment shall be taken into consideration for calculating the pension benefits under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
The court agreed with the submission of the petitioner and was satisfied that the petitioner had obtained proper permission as contemplated under the Rules. The Board was aware that the petitioner had obtained permission and participated in the process of selection. Therefore, the resignation cannot be considered as an independent resignation and it is to be considered as consequential to the permission granted by the TWAD Board. Thus, it would not attract forfeiture of services under Rule 23, but falls under proviso to Rule 23(1) of the Rules.
Case Title: The Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co Ltd v. Kathamuthu and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court has held that the compensation for medical expenses is a matter of reimbursement and hence once the insurance company has chosen to compensate the victim of road accident for medical expenses, the same cannot be once again claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The bench of Justice Teeka Raman thus held that the amount paid to the hospital directly by the insurance company under a medical policy coverage shall be deducted by the Motor Accident Tribunal while calculating the compensation to the injured.
The court observed that what has not been paid by the original petitioner to the hospital cannot be granted as compensation in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the court deducted the amount already paid by the insurance company and directed the appellant company to pay the remaining along with compensation for disability, pain and suffering, permanent disability loss of income etc together with an interest of 7.5% per annum
Case Title: Amutha v. The Additional Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has expressed concern over the growing "trend" of filing writ petitions in High Court against the public officials, more specifically, Police officials, whenever a criminal case is registered against some persons.
A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed that this trend should not be encouraged and whenever any litigant faces ill-treatment in a Police Station, a representation should first be made to the Higher Officials. The Higher Officials shall accept the representation if there are grounds and shall conduct an enquiry.
Case Title: Ganapathy and others v. State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
Condemning the act of the Karaikudi Bar Association in passing a resolution stating that no one shall represent certain accused in a case, Justice K Murali Shankar of the Madras High Court held that such a resolution is illegal; and null and void and the same shall have no force of law. Even in instances where there has been an attack on advocates, the same should be condemned sternly and the attackers should be dealt with with iron hands. But even so, the bar association is not expected to pass such resolutions, violating the constitution and the law of the and declared by the Supreme Court.
The court observed that such resolutions are against professional ethics. Whenever a client was ready to pay the fee, if the lawyer was not engaged otherwise, it was his professional duty to not refuse a brief. It is against the great traditions of the Bar which has always stood up for defending persons accused of a crime. Such a resolution is, in fact, a disgrace to the legal community.
35. Delay In Deciding Custody Cases May Prolong Harassment Of Minor Children: Madras High Court
Case Title: C Shamilakumari v P Chandrasekar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court has observed that while dealing with matters relating to custody of minor children under the Guardians and Wards Act, the Courts have a duty to ensure that minor children are protected and their interests, vision and wishes are preserved to the maximum possible extent, giving them a better life.
A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and Sathya Narayana Prasad observed that matters of custody of minor children have to be decided expeditiously by the courts. If the decision of the court is delayed, it may lead to prolonged harassment of the minor children.
The court also observed that today's younger generation is wise and intelligent and can assess human behaviors. Hence, when the children are left in a lurch by the father and mother, the minor children have to be enquired and the veracity of the statement made by them has to be assessed in a proper manner to arrive at a conclusion in the interest of children.
36. Madras High Court Upholds Validity Of Section 6 Of The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006
Case Title: M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another with connected cases.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 227
The Madras High Court recently upheld the validity of amendments made to Section 6 of The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The court observed that in matters relating to tax, the interest of the State must be considered as against the interest of certain individuals. The court also discussed the power of the legislature in taking decisions with respect to tax
"The hardship that is caused to individuals seldom matters as validity of any fiscal enactment ought to be tested on the basis of generality of its operation and not on the basis of few individual cases"
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq also held that the assessment orders made under the Act could not be challenged in the writ petitions and should be challenged through the remedy of appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax act 2006.
Case Title: Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court recently observed that in matters of public employments, equal opportunities should be granted. Whenever a decision is taken with respect to recruitment, the competent authorities are bound to follow the recruitment rules in force by providing equal opportunities to all candidate. However, the court also observed that appointments can never be claimed as a matter of absolute right.
Justice SM Subramaniam was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by persons who took part in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Field Assistant (Trainee) in 2016.
Case Title: Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court recently observed that even though the courts had a duty to protect the rights of whistleblowers, the whistleblowers are expected to exercise their rights in the manner known to law and excess exercise or high handednedd can never be allowed.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad were considering a plea to enquire into the enhancement of the financial and social status of a whistleblower. The petitioner alleged that the whistleblower was filing petitions for initiation of action against officials of the Hindu Religioud and Charitable Endowments [HR&CE] Department and the temple authorities and in the process was acting excessively inside the temple premises and threatening officials and staff of the temple.
The court observed that rights of both the petitioner and the whistleblower is to be protected. While exercising the rights, If any excessiveness has been committed by any person, the authorities or the persons concerned are empowered to lodge a complaint before higher authorities and before the police authorities for taking appropriate actions in manner known to law. In the event of any such complaint the authorities are expected to act immediately by conducting an enquiry and by following the procedures.
Case Title: Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court rejected a writ petition seeking directions to the State Government not to demolish any temple which existed as on 15 August 1947. The petitioner had relied on the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 to state that the temples existing as on 15 August 1947 should not be demolished. However, the Court observed that the writ petition was filed with vague statements, without particulars about the temples.
"The vague statement of facts cannot be taken to be the basis for filing the writ petition or for its acceptance. Rather, it should be after proper research of the facts so as to bring the material on record to prove the statement of facts given in the writ petition. The petitioner has utterly failed to do so and filed the writ petition seeking directions without showing the name of the temples said to have been constructed on or before 15 August 1947 and suffered from the action of the nature indicated by the petitioner, without causing a notice or following the provisions the provisions of law", the Court observed.
Case Title: TR Ramanathan v. Tamil Nadu State Mental Health Authority and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
In a verdict emphasizing the right to dignity of mentally disabled persons, the Madras High Court held that they are entitled to have the assessment done at their residences for the purposes of getting disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.
A single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan issued the direction after taking note of the hardships underwent by a medically disabled person at a mental hospital when he was brought there for the purposes of medical assessment.
The bench observed as follows:
"The assessment process must be as simple as possible. It must not cause any difficulty or trauma or even the least burden to the individual concerned. I take judicial notice of the fact that bringing such persons to a congested place like the Government Hospital would trigger considerable stress and anxiety to them. One does not know what can trigger panic and anxiety. There are children who seeing an ordinary balloon will go berserk".
Case Title: NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd and Anr. v. TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Arb. O.P. (Comm. Div) Nos. 410 and 412 of 2021.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The High Court of Madras has held that more than one High Court can exercise jurisdiction for the recognition and enforcement of a part of arbitral award if the claims are decided for and against the parties thereto.
The Single Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the Court for the purpose of the enforcement of a foreign award would be the one within whose jurisdiction either the award debtor carries his business or its assets are located within its jurisdiction.
The Court held that as a corollary at least two High Courts can have jurisdiction if the arbitrator has allowed the claims of both the parties and each party would file an application for the enforcement of the award in the High Court where the assets of the other party are located.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: M. Saravanan Malaichamy v. The Principal Secretary and Others
Case No: WMP (MD) No. 5461 of 2022 in WP(MD) No. 3633 of 2014
The Madras High Court directed the Union Government and the Tamil Nadu State Government to use the funds under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) for the removal of invasive species by engaging the Tribal and local community people who are living co-existence with the wild life and living in and around the Forests, Sanctuaries, and National Parks.
The bench of Justice V. Bharatidasan and Justice N. Sathish Kumar made the order in a petition highlighting the struggle of the Forest Department of State of Tamil Nadu for the removal of invasive species from the forest areas all over Tamil Nadu due to the lack of funds and lack of human resources.
The court also observed that these invasive species are a threat to the entire ecosystem and if they are not controlled, the whole forest may die in a few years. The invasive species also suppressed the secondary growth in the forest which made the fodder scarcity which ultimately leads to the animals like elephants staying outside the forests and coming into conflict with the human population. The court observed how the services of the tribals have already been engaged in many ways in protecting the forest in the form of Anti Poaching Watchers. Thus, the services of these real foot soldiers of the forest can also be used in the removal of the weeds under the MGNREGA to provide livelihood security.
Case Title: B. Jagannath v. The Chief Secretary and others
Case No: W.P 11086 of 2022
The Madras High Court asked the State Government what was the difficulty in framing guidelines against alleged forced religious conversions in government schools. It observed that though the Constitution gives a right to profess a religion of one's choice, it does not give any right to forcibly convert.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice S. Ananthi was hearing a petition filed by Advocate B Jagannath, seeking directions to the Educational Department to frame effective guidelines and take all necessary steps including corrective measures to prohibit/ prevent and ban proselytization and forced religious conversion in Government-run schools and educational institutions, both primary and Higher Secondary including aided schools coming under the direct control of the State Government, within a reasonable time frame.
3. Madras High Court Exempts Lawyer From Wearing Black Gowns During Summer Vacation
Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari of Madras High Court has dispensed with wearing black gown by lawyers while appearing in court during the Summer Vacation 2022. However, all the advocates were requested to wear collar bands and black coats. The Chief Justice made the above order on 5th May 2022 considering the request of the members of the bar. The Chief Justice had previously dispensed the lawyers of Madras High Court from wearing the black gown.
4. 'Do Not Notify Puducherry Local Body Elections': Madras High Court Directs Election Commission
Case Title: R. Siva v. Union Territory of Puducherry and others
Case No: WP No. 12115 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Friday ordered status quo in Puducherry and directed the Election Commission to not proceed with notifying the Local Body elections.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice S. Ananthi was hearing a writ petition filed by R. Siva, Leader of Opposition in the Puducherry Legislative Assembly to quash the Government Orders wherein earlier notifications providing for reservation of seats for Backward Class (33.5%) and Scheduled Tribes (0.5%) were rescinded.
The Bar Council Of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, on 09.05.2022 has passed a prohibitory order against 19 lawyers from practicing as advocates in all Courts, Tribunals and other authorities in India either in their name or under any assumed name.
The notification, issued by the Secretary of the Bar Council, was in light of the Disciplinary Proceedings pending against these advocates. These advocates have been charged with various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, SC/ST Act 2015, Prevention Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 among others. The bar council has also barred lawyers involved in a large scale scam involving the filing of vexatious motor accident claim petitions before the courts in the State.
Case Title: A Jaisankar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others
Case No: W.P No 12680 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to stay the Government's decision for procuring 40,000 tonnes of rice to be supplied to Srilankan nationals in view of the current economic crisis prevalent in the country.
The bench of Justice G.R Swaminathan and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy was hearing a PIL filed by one A. Jaisankar seeking to quash the present government order for procuring the rice at an exorbitant amount and further to direct the respondent to procure the rice from the fifth and sixth respondents (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and Food Corporation of India respectively). The petitioner also sought a vigilance enquiry into the current decision of the government to acquire rice at an exorbitant price. The petitioner had also sought an interim stay on the operation of the government decision pending disposal of the writ petition.
Case Title: G. Gouthaman and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Case No: W.P 12697 of 2022
The Madras High Court bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on Thursday issued notice to the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Chennai Metro Rail Limited in a plea against the implementation of the Corridor 4 of Phase II of the Chennai Metro Rail Project.
The petition has been filed by one G Gouthaman and two others seeking to declare eight structures - (i)Mylai Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple, (ii)Vadapalani Murugan Temple, (iii) Vadapalani Sri Vengeeswarar Temple, (iv) Vadapalani Sri Alagar Perumal Temple, (v) Virugambakkam Sri Sundaravardharaja Perumal Temple, (vi) Valasaravakkam Sri Velveeswarar Temple, (vii) Poonamallee Sri Thirukachi Nambigal and Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple, (viii) Poonamallee Sri Thirukachi Nambigal and Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple Tank as ancient monuments and Heritage Structures under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remain Act 1958 and to pass an ad-interim injunction restraining Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) from proceeding with the Corridor 4 of Phase II of the Chennai Metro Rail Project.
Case Title: T.R Ramesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: W.P No 12673 of 2022
In a plea seeking to quash an order issued by the Tamil Nadu government for constructing Senior Citizen Homes in Chennai, Pazhani, and Tirunelveli using excess temple funds, the Madras High Court has been assured that the scheme will not be implemented for six weeks.
Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram submitted, "no appropriation from any source pursuant to the impugned G.O. will be made for a period of six weeks"
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy was hearing public interest litigation filed by the President of Indic Collective Trust and the Temple Worshippers Society, Mr. T.R Ramesh challenging the GO issued by Tourism, Culture, and Religious Endowments Department on January 12, pursuant to the announcements made by the Minister for HR&CE Department during the Budget Session of the Tamil Nadu Assembly in 2021-2022.
The Chief Justice of Madras High Court Munishwar Nath Bhandari has constituted a full bench comprising five judges of the Madras High Court to hear the question pertaining to the High Court's jurisdiction on the original side to make decisions on child custody and guardianship cases, owing to the advent of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
The five judges who are part of the full bench are Justice P.N Prakash, Justice R Mahadevan, Justice M Sundar, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, and Justice AA Nakkiran.
Case Title: G.Karthick v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: W.M.P No. 12421 & 12422 of 2022 in WP No. 12929 of 2022
The Madras High Court has directed the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai to inspect specified areas around Vengikkal Village to ascertain the facts with respect to alleged encroachment of a water culvert connecting the town water channel with the "Nochi Eri" river.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad passed the interim order on a writ petition filed by one G. Karthick who contended that the respondents colluded with government authorities and encroached upon the said public land.
Considering the gravity of the allegation raised by the petitioner and that the fact that encroachment would cause inconvenience to the people at large and may even cause flooding during the monsoon season, the Court deemed it necessary to ascertain whether there was any encroachment. Hence, directions were issued to the District Collector.
The Madras High Court on Friday kept in abeyance the order of the Single judge allowing two sects- Thengalai sect and the Vadagalai Sect to chant the initial recital namely Srisaila Dayapathram. at the Devarajaswamy temple in Kancheepuram.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice G.K Ilanthiraiyan was informed that other cases with respect to disputes between the sects were pending before different benches of the High Court. The court therefore opined that all of these connected matters needed to be heard together and directed the registry to post all the matters after summer vacations.
Case Title: Raaj Kamal Films International v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and others
Case No: OA 295 of 2022 in CS (Comm Div) 100/2022
Justice C Saravanan of the Madras High Court on Thursday granted an interim injunction restraining a series of Internet Service Providers and over 1,300 websites from unauthorizedly displaying or exhibiting the upcoming cinematographic film "Vikram", directed by Lokesh Kanagaraj and starring Kamal Haasan, Vijay Sethupathi, and Fahadh Faasil among others.
The film is set to hit the theatres on June 3.
The petition was filed by Raaj Kamal Films International, who are the producers of the film, seeking an interim injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from infringing the copyrighted cinematographic work.
The Centre has notified the appointment nine additional judges as permanent Judges of the Madras High Court.
The centre also extended the appointment of Justice A.A. Nakkiran as Additional Judge Of The Madras High Court for another period of one year.
Also Read: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends To Make 9 Additional Judges Of Madras High Court Permanent