A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 511 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 518 NOMINAL INDEX Arvind Gupta v Punjab National Bank and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 511 M Hemalatha v The National Medical Commission and others and Minor K Megatharani v The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad)...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 511 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 518
NOMINAL INDEX
Arvind Gupta v Punjab National Bank and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 511
M Hemalatha v The National Medical Commission and others and Minor K Megatharani v The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 512
V Anand v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 513
Thulasidass Adikesavan v. Inspector of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 514
ML Ravi v. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 515
R.Chandrasekar v. The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 516
Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Ltd., v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 517
Viacom18 Media Private Limited v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 518
REPORT
Case Title: Arvind Gupta v Punjab National Bank and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 511
The Madras High Court has held that circumstances to seek "urgent interim relief" under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation must exist at the time of institution of the suit.
While dismissing an application seeking an injunction against the invocation of a bank guarantee, Justice M Sundar observed,
As Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that Section 12A is mandatory, it is in the nature of a jurisdictional fact. A jurisdictional fact should precede the suit and there can be no ex post facto jurisdictional fact. The plaintiff cannot be heard to contend that this Commercial Division should look at the matter as it stands today. The test is as it stood on the date of institution of suit i.e., 17.10.2022 in this case.
Case Title: M Hemalatha v The National Medical Commission and others and Minor K Megatharani v The Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 512
Granting relief to two students belonging to the Backward Tribe category seeking to be considered for reservation in the NEET UG medical admissions, the Madras High Court directed the Union Territory of Puducherry to allow them to fill up the vacant seats in the Scheduled Tribe category.
Justice CV Karthikeyan noted that it was the duty of the Government of Puducherry to ensure reservation to the Backward Tribe community which had been specifically created by the government. The judge also noted that the government could not merely state that the reservation was made according to the Medical Counselling Committee guidelines and thus the Backward Tribes could not be included as in reality the Medical Counselling Committee had no idea about the existence of the Backward Tribes in the Union Territory of Puducherry.
Case Title: V Anand v State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 513
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking to prohibit Tamil Nadu government and Greater Chennai Corporation from operating garbage trucks at peak office or school hours.
While dismissing the petition, Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said that the court cannot not fix the operating hours of the garbage trucks.
The petitioner, V Anand, submitted that the garbage trucks operating in peak times - 8:30 am to 10:00 am, cause great disturbance and nuisance to the general public and also create traffic snarls.
Case Title: Thulasidass Adikesavan v. Inspector of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 514
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay Rs one lakh compensation to the family of a 74-year-old man who has not been found since being taken to a government hospital in June 2020 for COVID-19 treatment.
The division bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the police to take effective steps to find the whereabouts of the missing person and continue with its investigation in the matter.
The court said Tamil Nadu government and Greater Chennai Corporation had done their best to fight the COVID war and no single officer could be blamed for the lapse
At the same time, the court agreed with the submission of the family that had the police registered the FIR in the first instance itself, police would have been able to trace Adikesavan.
Case Title: ML Ravi v. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 515
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging a Government Order issued by the Energy Department permitting Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Tangedco) to insist on linkage of Aadhaar number with electricity consumption consumer billing number for availing certain services.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the petition observing that the same was devoid of merits.
The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in KS Puttaswamy wherein it was held that Adhaar authentication can be insisted upon for welfare schemes under which the benefits, subsidies, or services are provided to intended recipients.
Case Title: R.Chandrasekar v. The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 516
The Madurai bench of Madras High court recently noted that use of stickers bearing official name, designation or political marks in vehicles is a tactic employed by violators to avoid being questioned by the police.
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad also opined that such stickers would in effect defeat the purpose of legislations standardising the marks and size of the number plate.
The court thus directed the Regional Transport authorities to conduct daily inspections and seize such vehicles if their number plates are not in accordance with the standards prescribed. The court also directed the authorities to impose fine and initiate appropriate action against the violators.
Case Title: Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Ltd., v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 517
While dismissing a plea by a company challenging the proceedings initiated by Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Madras High Court observed that the two requirements to start an investigation by the ED are (i) commission of a predicate offence (which was a schedule offence) and (ii) prima facie material to show that such schedule offence has generated proceeds of crime.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that once these conditions are satisfied and the court is convinced that the investigation is conducted by the Directorate within their power, then the court could not act as a "stumbling block" in the progress of the investigation.
Case Title: Viacom18 Media Private Limited v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 518
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Viacom 18 thus restraining 26 Internet Service Providers from unauthorizedly broadcasting auctions and other events related to Indian Premier League 2023.
Viacom 18 submitted that it has been given the broadcasting rights by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) with respect to all the events to be conducted between the period of 2023 and 2027. Fearing that certain ISPs were likely to illegally broadcast the events, Viacom18 had approached the court seeking injunction against such ISPs.
Justice C Saravan, after hearing the applicant observed that it had made out a case for granting interim relief and that the balance of convenience was in their favour.
OTHER DEVELOPMENT
1. Madras High Court Extends Interim Stay On ED Probe Against Tamil Nadu Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan
Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The Directorate of Enforcement and another
Case No: WP No. 16467 of 2022
Observing that substantial legal issues have been raised in the matter, the Madras High Court recently extended the interim stay on the Enforcement Directorate probe against Tamil Nadu Fisheries Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan till further orders.
The division bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that one of the judges (J. Prakash) is retiring shortly and it will not be able to take up the case for final disposal as Additional Solicitor General has to be heard in detail on all the legal issues raised by the petitioner's counsel in the plea seeking quashing of the ED proceedings.
2. Plea In Madras High Court Challenges Provisions Of Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act
Case Title: S Shanmugalatha and others v Union of India and others
Case No: WP 33666 of 2022
A group of women has approached the Madras High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 27(2) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2022. They also seek reading down of Section 21(b) of the Act so as to allow oocyte donors to make at least 6 oocyte donations in their lifetime as per the guidelines of Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) Guidelines.
On Friday, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy adjourned the matter and directed the petitioners to submit additional documents in the nature of scientific evidence to support their claims.
Justice SM Subramaniam of the Madras High Court has registered a complaint with the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department take appropriate action against five temple staffs who were engaged in financial irregularities and subsequent misbehavior in Vadapalani Murugan Temple.
The court has directed the Commissioner to take all appropriate action against the staff members and conduct an enquiry about the supervisory lapses against the Executive Officer and in case of any lapses, initiate action against the Executive Officer and report the same to the court.
Case Title: N Mohan and another v. Additional Chief Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department and another
Case No: WP 34228 of 2022
Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court has ordered notice to the Additional Chief Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department and the Managing Director, TASMAC on a plea for framing guidelines, rules and regulations with regard to the place for consuming alcohol by purchasers after closing time of TASMAC shops and bars attached thereto.
The petitioner, N Mohan and Gopinath hailing from Thiruvallur district submitted that as per a Government Order issued by the Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, the TASMAC shops and bars attached thereto are allowed to function between 12pm to night 10pm. This has led to a situation where the last minute purshasers consume alcohol in the streets causing nuisance to women, children and neighbours.
Case Title: G Subramanian v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS (batch cases)
Case No: LPA 6 of 2022
Public opinion cannot take the face of evidence, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) argued before the Madras High Court while challenging a single bench's order imposing certain conditions on its route march.
"The court had looked at the intelligence report and observed that there was nothing in it. Yet, it went on to impose conditions. Public Opinion and Press Reports cannot take the face of evidence," the party's counsel argued.
The submissions were made before a bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad. The court adjourned the matter to January 5 after the State submitted that it was yet to receive all the documents in the letter patent appeal.