A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 396 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 NOMINAL INDEX CSI College of Dental Sciences and Research v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 396 Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 397 State v K Ponmudi and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 398 C Alagappan...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 396 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
NOMINAL INDEX
CSI College of Dental Sciences and Research v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
State v K Ponmudi and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
C Alagappan v The State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
Ankit Tiwari v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
Eicher Motors Ltd v Nitin Service Point and Automobiles, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
P Mohanraj v The District Collector and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
VBR Menon v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
Mansoor Ali Khan v Trisha Krishnan and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
C.Chellamuthu Versus The Principal Commissioner, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
The Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan Primary Handloom Weaver's Cooperative Society Ltd v Income Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
REPORT
Case Title: CSI College of Dental Sciences and Research v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
The Madras High Court has referred to the full bench the issue of whether the Government Order insisting on Minority Self Financing Education Institutions to fill up 50% of the seats based on the merit list prepared by the competent authority in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation case.
Justice Anand Venkatesh opined that the recent judgment of a division bench of the Madras High Court which had upheld the seat-sharing power of the State had not fully considered the judgment in PA Inamdhar's case, which, taking into consideration the judgment in TMA Pai, the Apex court had taken away the power of the State to fix quota for seat sharing.
Case Title: Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
The Madras High Court recently observed that in extraordinary circumstances, the High Courts had discretion to grant bail even to a person who is not an Indian Citizen.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan was hearing appeals preferred by persons whose bail was canceled by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act 2008. The court noted that bail was canceled for one of the appellants, Mohamed Rifas, alleging that he had suppressed his nationality and had obtained bail.
The court noted that even assuming Rifas was a Sri Lankan national, his liberty could not have been curtailed after 4 years merely because of an FIR. The court also noted the prosecution had not filed a petition for cancelling the bail immediately after the registration of FIR but had filed the application after 3 years without explaining the reasons for the delay.
Case Title: State v K Ponmudi and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
The Madras High Court has sentenced Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi and his wife Visalakshi to three year simple imprisonment and 50 lakh fine each in a disproportionate asset case.
Justice G Jayachandran gave 30 days to the parties to surrender and added that the parties could work out their remedies before the Supreme Court during this time. The court also said that any decision on an extension of the time would be considered later if the couple could not work out their remedies before the Apex Court. The court also remarked that if it was any other ministry the matter would have been different but the Minister had committed the offence being in charge of the Ministry of Higher Education which affected the future generation also.
On Tuesday, the court had set aside the acquittal of the Minister and his wife finding them guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. With this order convicting the Minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ponmudi will be disqualified as a legislator under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act 1951.
Case Title: C Alagappan v The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to producer Alagappan and his family in a cheating case registered by Actress Gauthami.
Noting that there was prima facie material, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the facts not only revealed cheating but also misappropriation and siphoning of funds for personal gains. The court also remarked that Alagappan and his family intended to cheat a damsel, already in distress who was trying to provide security for her daughter.
High Court Denies Bail To ED Officer Arrested By Tamil Nadu DVAC For Allegedly Taking ₹20 Lakh Bribe
Case Title: Ankit Tiwari v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected bail to 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.
Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench dismissed the bail plea moved by the officer.
Case Title: Eicher Motors Ltd v Nitin Service Point and Automobiles
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
The Madras High Court recently restrained a service centre from using the trademark “Royal Enfield” for selling or advertising its products or from replicating the look and feel of the exterior and interior of the authorized outlets of Royal Enfield.
Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that “Royal Enfield” was a well-known trademark as per the provisions of Section 2(1)(zg) read with Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act 1999. The court also directed the Registrar of Trademarks to notify “Royal Enfield” in the register of well-known marks.
Case Title: P Mohanraj v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
The Madras High Court recently directed the Madurai District Administration and the Municipal corporation to jointly conduct the Jallikettu festival in Avaniyapuram.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the festival should be conducted peacefully without bringing in religion and caste.
The court was hearing a plea moved by Mohanraj, a resident of Avaniyapuram area. Mohanraj had approached the court seeking directions to the authorities to conduct the festival. He claimed that several petitions had been filed before the district administration seeking permission to conduct the Jallikattu festival, which, if allowed, would create a law and order problem and hamper the smooth conduct of the festival.
Case Title: VBR Menon v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
The Madras High Court recently set aside a Government Order appointing the Transport Commissioner as the Appellate Authority under the Petroleum Rules.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that as per the new Petroleum Rules 2002, the Appellate Authority ought to have been the immediate superior authority to any District Authorities as defined under the Rules. Since the Transport Commissioner was not a superior authority, the court noted that the appointment would be against the rules. The court thus directed the State to appoint an appellate authority as per rules within a period of 12 weeks.
Case Title: Mansoor Ali Khan v Trisha Krishnan and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
The Madras High Court on Friday refused to grant leave to Actor Mansoor Ali Khan to file a defamation suit against actors Trisha Krishnan, Khushboo Sundar, and Chiranjeevi for their social media comments about the former.
Justice N Satish Kumar remarked that the actor had approached the court for publicity and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh to be paid to Adyar Cancer Institute. The court also remarked that it was normal for humans to react in the manner in which the actors had reacted when such derogatory comments were made against women and the same did not call for filing of a defamation suit.
Khan had made misogynistic and disrespectful remarks against his co-actor Trisha in a press meeting following the success of the Tamil movie “Leo”. The remarks were widely criticized with Trisha, Khushboo, and Chiranjeevi commenting on social media expressing their displeasure and condemning the statements.
Case Title: C.Chellamuthu Versus The Principal Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment order passed without considering the assessee's request for a personal hearing through video conference.
The bench of Justice S.Srimathy has observed that since it was a high-pitched assessment, the petitioner has sought a video conference hearing. Therefore, the non-granting of opportunity was clearly a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: The Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan Primary Handloom Weaver's Cooperative Society Ltd v Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
The Madras High Court recently suggested that benefits like flood relief, Pongal gifts etc could be directly paid to the bank accounts of the beneficiaries without making cash payments. The court remarked that rooting the payments through the bank accounts would minimize the chances of swindling of funds by those in charge.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy also observed that such acts would save valuable time of members of the Co-Operative Societies as they would not have to go through the process of approaching the society or ration shop to register and collect the money which would have caused them unnecessary hardship. The court added that when a way was available to minimize the mishandling of money, the Government and societies must follow the same.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court on Monday remarked that there was no point in going on fasts to make Tamil the official language of the court and what was necessary was to make efforts to translate law books and judgments into Tamil.
Justice G Jayachandran remarked that people who were demanding to make Tamil the official language for communication and pleading in the court should start by helping to translate the court's judgments and orders into Tamil.
The court was hearing a plea by lawyers seeking permission to go on an indefinite fast demanding to make Tamil the official language of the court. The protest, according to the petitioners was to impress upon the Centre to forward Tamil Nadu government's proposal for use of Tamil in the High Court to the President directly without referring it to the Chief Justice of India.