A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
NOMINAL INDEX
The Official Assignee v S Arjunlal Sunderdas (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
Kannan Swaminathan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
T Balaji v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
D Kumaresh v The Chief Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
C. Ve Shanmugam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
A Krishna Prasath v The Director General of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
C Ve Shanmugam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
M/s.Jindal Pipes Limited Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer (Int), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
V Senthil v The Secretary, Bar Council of TN & Puducherry, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
K Amrithalal v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
M Selva Kumar v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
REPORT
Case Title: The Official Assignee v S Arjunlal Sunderdas (Died) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court had directed the production company Studio Green to deposit one crore each before releasing the movies Thangalaan starring Chiyan Vikram and Kanguva starring Suriya.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice CV Karthikeyan made the orders on an execution petition filed by an Official Assignee appointed by the High Court to deal with the estate of realtor and financier Arjunlal Sunderdas after he was declared insolvent. In 2019, the division bench had allowed a petition filed by the Official Assignee directing Studio Green to pay a sum of Rs. 10,35,00,000/- with an interest of 18% p.a.
Madras High Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Litigant For "Disruptive Attitude" During PIL Hearing
Case Title: Kannan Swaminathan v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a litigant for filing a public interest litigation without any public element.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji noted that the litigant had displayed a disruptive attitude during court proceedings and had no regard for the court's decorum. Even after engaging a counsel, the court observed that the litigant kept arguing parallelly and disrupted the court proceedings. The court thus directed him to deposit Rs. 50K to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
Case Title: T Balaji v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Madras High Court has issued a set of guidelines to all stakeholders for dealing with cases and counter cases.
A full bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice M Nirmal Kumar, and Justice N Anand Venkatesh were answering a reference made to it relating to case and counter case and how the courts and investigation agencies were required to handle them.
The question that was referred to the full bench was whether the police were required to mandatorily follow the procedure prescribed in the Police Standing Order 566 while investigating a case and counter case and what was the effect of its non-compliance.
The court observed that there was no legal bar in registering two FIRs in a case and a counter-case arising out of rival versions of the same incident. In such cases, the court added that the investigation officer was required to thoroughly investigate both rival versions keeping in mind the PSO.
Case Title: D Kumaresh v The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the payment of Rs 10 Lakh as ex gratia payment to the families of Kallakurichi Hooch tragedy victims.
Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar dismissed the plea after noting that the ex gratia payments were made on humanitarian grounds. The court noted that the relief was to reward the victims but to help the dependents of the victims who had lost their breadwinners and were struggling economically.
The court further held that the petition was filed without collecting much information challenging a relief package that was paid to ensure the survival of the victim's family with dignity. The court was thus not inclined to entertain the plea, which was challenging the policy decision of the government.
Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
The Madras High Court has quashed a case registered against AIADMK MP C.Ve Shanmugam for his comments against CM MK Stalin and other leaders while participating in a hunger strike.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the alleged comments made by Shanmugam did not cause any disturbance to the harmony nor affected the public tranquillity. The court also noted that the complaints were filed 40 days after the alleged speeches were made which itself would show that no untoward incident was reported due to the alleged speech. The court observed that though the utterances were unparliamentary, it would not attract the offences alleged against Shanmugam.
Case Title: A Krishna Prasath v The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court on Wednesday allowed the Bharatiya Janata Party to conduct a bike rally in Coimbatore carrying the National Flag, as part of the Independence Day Celebrations.
Justice G Jayachandran allowed the petition filed by A Krishna Prasath, District Secretary of the BJP- Yuva Morcha, Coimbatore District.
The court did not find "merit" in the apprehensions raised by the State while denying permission for the rally. It also directed the Director General of Police not to prohibit rallies where the participants carried national flags with dignity and were not causing any hindrance to the traffic.
Case Title: C Ve Shanmugam v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
While quashing cases registered against AIADMK MP C VE Shanmugam for his remarks against Chief Minister MK Stalin during a hunger strike condemning the arrest of former Minister Jayakumar, the Madras High Court observed that making remarks about the government and pointing out the failure to fulfil poll promises would not amount to causing enmity between groups.
Justice G Jayachandran held that per the records, it was clear that the state machinery had been misused as a tool by the ruling party to crush the voice of the opposition and thus the cases deserved to be quashed.
Case Title: M/s.Jindal Pipes Limited Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer (Int)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has held that the taxpayer cannot be mulcted with an unjust penalty due to a minor discrepancy in the PIN code in the GST registration, and the tax invoices are to be construed as a minor violation of the provisions of the respective GST enactments.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the imposition of a penalty for technical venial breach of the provisions or the minor discrepancy in the variance in the address in the tax invoices and the e-way bill would not justify the penalty under Section 129(5) of the GST enactments.
Case Title: V Senthil v The Secretary, Bar Council of TN & Puducherry
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court recently observed that a bar association was not empowered to restrict a lawyer from appearing in court. The court observed that the right to practice law was a fundamental right and such a right could not be taken away by the Bar Association by suspending lawyers.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan further added that an advocate was expected to maintain a cordial relationship with the members of the Bar Association to ensure that the court proceedings are not obstructed.
The court noted that even the Apex Court had observed that boycotts should be used as a last resort by the Bar Association and there could not be continuous boycotts by lawyers affecting the rights of litigants and the justice delivery system.
Case Title: K Amrithalal v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court has recently observed that persons who practice the Allopathy system of medicine after getting a diploma certificate in other Indian systems of medicine were playing with the lives of innocent people who came to them believing them to be genuine doctors.
Justice Murali Shankar noted that fake doctors were a menace to society and the government was expected to deal with them with iron hands. The court however lamented that instead of taking action, the police remained mute spectators and got themselves satisfied with the imposition of fine.
Don't Want To Open Pandoras Box: Madras High Court Junks Plea To DeclareThirukkural As National Book
Case Title: M Selva Kumar v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking to declare Thiru Kural as a “National Book with high values and virtues of India” or the “National Literature of virtue with Ethics of India”.
Thirukural, written by Saint Thiruvalluvar, is a Tamil language text containing short couplets that deal with teachings on virtue, wealth, and love among other social and political issues.
Dismissing a petition filed by one Selva Kumar, the Madurai bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice Victoria Gowri said that the declaration was a policy decision, to be taken by the concerned government and was not within the domain of the court. The bench also said that it did not want to open a pandoras box as allowing the prayer would result in a situation where every high court would end up passing orders for declaring a particular text as national book.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Shobha Karandlaje v State
Case No: Crl OP (MD) 9875 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Friday orally said that BJP Minister Shobha Karandlaje, who's facing prosecution for making derogatory comments against the people of TN, should make a sincere apology.
Justice G Jayachandran was hearing a petition filed by the Minister to quash the proceedings initiated against her.
When the matter was taken up today, Karandlaje's counsel informed the court that she had some reservations about the draft apology shared by the State. When the AG read out the text of the draft apology to the court, Karandlaje's counsel said that she had posted a similar apology much before the FIR was registered.
The court went through this “four line apology” and expressed it's inclination to dismiss Karandlaje's petition. At this point, Karandlaje's counsel requested the court to not dismiss the petition and instead adjourn it as they had engaged a senior counsel.