A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 389 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 395 NOMINAL INDEX C Mani v Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 389 Sri Subramaniyaswami, Thirukovil Sundhanthirai Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha v. The Commissioner, HR&CE, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 390 Asif Musthaheen v...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 389 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
NOMINAL INDEX
C Mani v Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
Sri Subramaniyaswami, Thirukovil Sundhanthirai Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha v. The Commissioner, HR&CE, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
Asif Musthaheen v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. G Sampath Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
R Sumathi v Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
J Vivek v Principal Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
REPORT
Case Title: C Mani v Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a medical claim could not be rejected merely on the ground that treatment was undertaken in a non-networking hospital.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that when there was no dispute with respect to treatment and the treatment was found to be genuine, there was no reason to reject the medical claim.
Case Title: Sri Subramaniyaswami, Thirukovil Sundhanthirai Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha v. The Commissioner, HR&CE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
The Madras High Court has restrained the state government from conducting practical training under a Chief Priest for candidates who have completed courses from Archakar Training Schools run by temples under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.
During the course of the proceedings, Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench remarked that temples are abodes of deities where devotees come to offer worship and should not be treated as training centers or laboratories.
Case Title: Asif Musthaheen v State, Criminal Appeal No.542 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
While dealing with a bail plea of a man arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Madras High Court noted that the question of whether killing a Hindu religious leader would itself constitute a terrorist act was debatable.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that as per Section 15 of the UAPA, the act must have been done with an intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with an intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country. In the present case, the court noted that there was no evidence to conclude that there was a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. G Sampath Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
The Madras High Court sentenced IPS officer Sampath Kumar to 15 days simple imprisonment in a contempt plea moved by cricketer MS Dhoni.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan however suspended the sentence for 30 days to allow Sampath Kumar to file an appeal.
Dhoni contended that the IPS officer made disparaging and derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court which is capable of shaking the faith of the common man in the judicial system and thus constitutes criminal contempt.
Case Title: R Sumathi v Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government and police authorities to give accelerated promotion to Sumathi, a Grade I Constable who was assigned to collect information about the notorious Forest Brigand Veerappan.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the authorities had already given accelerated promotion to another Sub-Inspector of the Special Branch assigned with a similar task. The court noted that Sumathi had taken a larger risk and performed a better duty and thus declining promotion to her would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: J Vivek v Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a PIL seeking CBI enquiry into the arrest of Ankit Tiwari, the Enforcement Directorate Officer arrested by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for allegedly collecting Rs 20 Lakh bribe from a government doctor threatening to reopen a case against him.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel dismissed the plea and remarked that the State investigating agency had the power to investigate when the officers in the central force were engaged in such wrongdoings.
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a plea moved by Kerala State Road Transport Corporation against the registration of the word mark “KSRTC” by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that as per Section 33 of the Trade Marks Act, Kerala SRTC had acquiesced in the use of the mark by the Karnataka SRTC. Similarly, relying on Sub Section (2) of Section 33, the court added that Karnataka SRTC was not entitled to oppose the use of the earlier mark by Kerala SRTC. Thus, the court asked both the Public Sector undertakings to co-exist peacefully and continue their businesses.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court criticized actor Mansoor Ali Khan's conduct in approaching the court after making derogatory statements.
Justice N Satish Kumar commented that it should have been Trisha approaching the court against Khan. The judge also said that Khan should know how to behave in public especially when a lot of young people were following actors as their role models in the present day.
The Judge also said that Khan was continuously involved in such controversial activities and should have been careful with his words while interacting with the media. The judge also wondered if Khan had filed the present suit just to escape arrest at the hands of the police.
The Madras High Court reserved orders on a plea filed by a Doctor challenging the Formula 4 Street Racing proposed to be conducted in Chennai. The race, which was originally planned to be conducted on the 9th and 10th of December was postponed amid flooding due to Cyclone Michaung.
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq reserved orders after hearing the petitioner, the State, and the organizers.
The petitioner had challenged the street racing alleging that it was legally unsustainable, illegal, and in contravention of the laws of the land. It was also submitted that conducting such an event at the expense of 242 crores was nothing but an attempt to gain publicity and only burdened the State exchequer.
The retired Principle District Judge, who had acquitted Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi and his family in a disproportionate assets case has responded to the adverse remarks made against her by the single judge in his suo motu revision order.
In August this year, while exercising suo motu revision powers, Justice Anand Venkatesh had strongly criticized how the trial against the Minister and his wife was transferred from Principal District Court, Villupuram to Principal District Court, Vellore calling it ex-facie illegal and non-est in the eye of law.
In her response submitted to the Registrar General of Madras High Court, the law officer submitted that the observations made by the single judge were a set of unwarranted derogatory and disparaging remarks.
Justice G Jayachandran of Madras High Court asked the Registrar General if the procedures were duly followed before numbering the suo moto revisions taken up against the acquittal/discharge of Ministers in various cases.
The judge remarked that in October 2019 the administrative committee consisting of the Chief Justice and six senior most judges had resolved to constitute a committee consisting of three judges to consider whether letters received by individual judges could be taken up as suo moto Public Interest Litigations. The judge asked Advocate Santhanaraman, appearing for the Registry, if such procedure was followed only for public interest litigations or for criminal revision, and if so, whether such procedure was followed in the present cases.
Enforcement Directorate Officer Ankit Tiwari who was arrested by the Tamil Nadu Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing for allegedly collecting a Rs 20 lakh bribe from a government doctor by threatening to reopen a case against him, has approached the Madras High Court seeking bail.
When the bail plea came up for hearing before Justice V Sivagnanam of Madurai bench, the prosecution sought time to respond to the plea and the matter has been now posted to December 19.