A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 NOMINAL INDEX M/s.Saravana Selvarathnam Retails Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101 The State v Muneeswaran and Others, 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 102 R Manibhyarathi v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s.Saravana Selvarathnam Retails Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The State v Muneeswaran and Others, 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 102
R Manibhyarathi v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
The Director General and Others v Narender Chauhan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
Suganya Jebi Sarojini v The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
Taeyang Metal India Private Limited vs DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
The Ramco Cements Limited vs ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
A Aashifa Begum v Khader Beevi and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
M/s.Sabari Alloys & Metals India Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
R Rajamani v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Seva Bharathi TamilNadu v Surendar @ Naathikan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
J Ramesh Kumar v Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
Ankit Tiwari v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
REPORT
CBDT's Digital Evidence Investigation Manual Is Mandatory For Income Tax Dept. While Conducting Searches, Seizing Electronic Evidence: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Saravana Selvarathnam Retails Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Madras High Court has held that it is mandatory for the income tax department to follow the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) while conducting searches and seizing electronic evidence.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the electronic data has been collected in.txt files in violation of the provisions of the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual. Though the procedures have not been followed while collecting the electronic data in.txt files, the data collected by the respondents can be relied upon only if the said data are supported by the corroborative evidence.
Case Title: The State v Muneeswaran and Others
Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 102
The Madras High Court has directed the Judicial Magistrates to not accept the voluntary surrender petitions of accused persons when the Magistrate court does not have jurisdiction to try the case. The court made it clear that as per Section 167 of CrPC an accused had to be “forwarded” to the Magistrate by the police and only then the court could entertain a surrender petition filed by the accused.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that remand report and case diary are jurisdictional conditions for authorising detention under Section 167(2) as it allows the Magistrate to apply his mind anad effectively determine whether a case for remand is made out. Thus, in the court's opinion, when an accused voluntarily surrenders, the remand, based on only the FIR copy is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction.
Case Title: R Manibhyarathi v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
While emphasizing the need to protect the fast-disappearing water bodies in the state of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court has directed the State government to open a dedicated website containing the details of all water bodies across the state, including their survey number, physical location, details of village, taluk, etc.
The Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi observed that water bodies belonged to the society and though their ownership technically existed with the government, it also belonged to other living beings and thus it was the duty of the officials to ensure that the quality of water was not affected in any manner. The court also made it clear that water bodies could not be obliterated in the name of public interest.
Case Title: The Director General and Others v Narender Chauhan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of a single judge reinstating a police constable into the service who was dismissed from service for reacting with a “thumbs up” emoji to a message about the brutal murder of a superior officer.
The Madurai bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the thumbs-up signal was also an alternative for the word “OK” and sharing the same could not be considered as celebrating the brutal murder. The court also noted that the employee, who was not so conversant with WhatsApp had only meant to acknowledge that he had seen the message. Thus, noting that the employee did not have any antecedents, the court held his explanation to be believable.
Case Title: Suganya Jebi Sarojini v The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
The Madras High Court has read down Regulation 3.1 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Ph.D. Regulations 2020, which prescribed the possession of a 2-year Master's Degree in law as the eligibility criteria for admission to the University's Full-Time Ph.D. program.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the University was bound by the University Grants Regulation (UGC) which had recognized the 1 year LLM program and the University could not knock off any qualification from eligibility. The court added that prescribing higher standards should only be in addition to the existing qualification and not in derogation of it.
Senthil Balaji Case: Madras High Court Refuses To Stay PMLA Trial In Cash For Jobs Scam
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Madras High Court has refused to stay the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against MLA and former Minister of Tamil Nadu Senthil Balaji in a case of cash-for-job scam.
Noting that it was too early to stay the trial, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan refused to grant any interim reliefs on the plea filed by the MLA and directed the Enforcement Directorate to file a counter to the plea by April 25th.
When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Balaji contended that the trial in the money laundering case had to follow the trial in the predicate offence. He added that of Balaji was convicted in the ED trial and subsequently acquitted in the IPC offence, it would lead to manifest injustice. He also argued that deciding the money laundering case before the predicate offence would be like putting the cart before the horse.
Case Title: Taeyang Metal India Private Limited vs DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
Finding that the period of one month expired on July 31, 2022, whereas the assessment order came to be issued on Mar 25, 2023, the Madras High Court Held the assessment order issued beyond time-limit specified in Sec.144C(13) as unsustainable.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that “the directions of the DRP were forwarded to the assessing officer, i.e. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi by uploading the same on 17.06.2022. Although learned senior standing counsel contends that the jurisdictional assessing officer received the directions only on 17.03.2023, for purposes of sub-section (13) of Section 144C, the date of receipt should be reckoned as the date of receipt by the National Faceless Assessment Centre on 17.06.2022”. (Para 7)
Case Title: The Ramco Cements Limited vs ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
While dismissing assessee's petition, the Madras High Court held that the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent/ AO is only a draft assessment order in which case, the petitioner/ assessee should approach the appropriate forum and address their grievance in terms of Section 144 (C) of the Income Tax Act.
The Single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “Though the word “draft assessment” is missing, the provision under Section 144 (C) of the Income Tax Act is very much available and any order whatsoever in the form, in the event of the provisions by referring Section 144(C)(1) of the Act, it should be construed only as a draft assessment order. No deficiency or discrepancy could be found in the order for not mentioning the word “draft assessment order” and by virtue of which, it would not get abated”. (Para 12)
Case Title: A Aashifa Begum v Khader Beevi and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court has recently emphasized that an affectionate relationship with grandparents is beneficial for a child's development.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that in custody and guardianship matters, the child's welfare had to be given paramount consideration. The court further noted that there was a need to safeguard the fast-eroding family system in the country and to ensure that the child's overall development is taken care of in the right environment. The court was thus of the opinion that the courts should not deny reasonable access/ visitation rights to the grandparents.
Case Title: M/s.Sabari Alloys & Metals India Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
The Madras High Court has held that the Assessing Officer is not incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if such officer had committed a glaring mistake of fact or law while passing the assessment order.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the meaning of the expression “error apparent on the face of record” is wider than the expression “mistake apparent from the record.”.
The court has held that if an AO has failed to do what is required under the law at the time of passing an assessment order and has passed an assessment order with such defects, such assessment orders can be rectified by the officer by exercising power under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is the effort of the assessing officer while exercising the power under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: R Rajamani v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea to include the Gudugudupukarar Caste in the Scheduled Tribe list under Article 342 of the Constitution.
Observing that the presidential order of the Scheduled Tribes list cannot be tinkered with by the court, the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy added that granting such relief will be beyond the purview of the court. The court further said that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes had the authority to see whether a particular tribe was under the parameters of Scheduled Tribe.
Case Title: Seva Bharathi TamilNadu v Surendar @ Naathikan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the court cannot shut its eyes to false statements circulated on social media to target and blackmail innocent persons.
The court observed that the law did not give any license to YouTubers and people on social media to spoil the reputation of others. The court thus directed a Youtuber to pay Rs. 50 Lakh as damages to Seva Bharathi for allegedly making derogatory statements linking the trust with the custodial death of Jayaraj and Bennix in 2020.
Justice N Satish Kumar further observed that no one could conduct interviews intruding on the privacy of others on the pretext of freedom of speech and expression. The court added that if such behaviors were condoned, every blackmailer would end up using social media to blackmail others by spreading false and unnecessary news.
Case Title: J Ramesh Kumar v Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court has directed the Coimbatore police to grant permission for conducting a 4 km road show in Coimbatore in connection with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the city on March 18, 2024. The court has however imposed some restrictions on the conduct of the roadshow. The district police authorities had denied permission for the road show earlier today.
Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the Assistant Commissioner to grant necessary permission and police protection upon reasonable condition. One such condition was to ensure that no flex boards were erected by the organizers during the roadshow. The court also directed the authorities to make sure that the roadshow is conducted in a smooth manner without giving rise to any law and order problems or cause security concerns for the Prime Minister.
While rejecting the State's objection to the conduct of a roadshow, the court pointed out that some hindrance to the free movement of people was unavoidable in such cases where a Political leader wished to interact with the people. The court added that this could not be a ground to deny permission and it was upon the police to find an alternative. The court highlighted that the leaders were elected by the people and thus should not be stopped from meeting them.
Case Title: Ankit Tiwari v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court has dismissed the second bail petition filed by arrested Enforcement Directorate officer Ankit Tiwari. Ankit was arrested in December 2023 by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The DVAC had alleged that Ankit had demanded money from one Dr. Suresh Babu as a bribe to close the pending case against him.
Justice Dhandapani, while dismissing Tiwari's revision petition, observed that the court was bound to follow the ratio laid down by the Apex court and that its hands were tied from deciding the case on merits due to the reason that there was an interim stay by the Apex Court.
The court further observed that though the Supreme Court had permitted the High Court to consider the matter on merits, Tiwari would have been eligible for statutory bail only if the investigating agency had not filed the chargesheet within the stipulated time frame. In the present case, the court noted that the investigating agency was ready with the chargesheet on the 55th day itself but its hands were tied due to the order of the Supreme Court. Thus, the court granted liberty to the parties to approach the Apex Court to clarify the order.