A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 130 NOMINAL INDEX Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple v Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116 Mohammed Ashik v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
NOMINAL INDEX
Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple v Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Mohammed Ashik v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan verses ACIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
Vijaykumar Versus The State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
M/s.LKS Gold House Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
A Rajasekaran v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Salem Urban Co-operative Bank limited Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS Ward), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
Gandhiyawati T Ramesh v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
Raji v Executive Magistrate and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
K Mariappan v The Government of Tamil Nadi and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
S Menaka v KSK Nepolian Socraties (batch case), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
K Nagomi v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
B Ramkumar Adityan v Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
M Kesavan v The Principal and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Government of Tamil Nadu v Dr.S.Vijay Vikraman, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
REPORT
Case Title: Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple v Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
The Madras High Court has recently observed that no person can alienate or create encumbrance for land belonging to an idol or deity without following the due process of law. The court thus highlighted that the law of limitation or adverse possession does not apply to a land belonging to a deity, idol or temple.
Justice P Velmurugan made the observations in a plea filed by the Fit Person of Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal temple seeking directions to the concerned authorities to restore the patta of the temple land.
Case Title: K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
The Madras High Court has held that a tax recovery officer cannot declare a sale made by the assessee in favour of a third party void if he finds that the property of the assessee was transferred by the assessee to a third party with an intention to defraud the revenue.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the Income Tax Department will have to file a suit in terms of Rule 11 (6) of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, though under Rule 11 (6) of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the party against whom an order of attachment is made has to institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right which he claims over the property in dispute, and subject to the result of such suit (if any), the order of the Tax Recovery Officer shall be conclusive.
Case Title: Mohammed Ashik v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
The Madras High Court recently observed that while dealing with rash and negligent driving among youngsters, the aim of criminal jurisprudence must be towards reforming them and not branding the teenagers as criminals.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that instead of dumping the teenagers as criminals, they must be made to understand the consequences of reckless driving. The court thus suggested a conveyor belt-like system where the teenager indulging in reckless driving would get into the system and come out as a reformed person who no longer got involved in such reckless driving.
Case Title: Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan verses ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that provision of Section 278E of the Income tax Act brings in a statutory presumption regarding the existence of a culpable mental state.
Accordingly, the High Court refused to interfere in the criminal proceedings and relegated the petitioner/ taxpayer to the trial, while stating that the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the contrary and that can be done only at the time of the trial.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that “the only criterion for initiation of prosecution is that there must be a wilful failure to furnish returns as required under Section 139(1) of the Act and once that requisite is fulfilled, the statutory presumption under Section 278E starts operating and this provision brings in a statutory presumption with regard to the existence of a culpable mental state”. (Para 11)
Case Title: Vijaykumar Versus The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment order and held that the petitioner availed of a lower amount as ITC than the amount reflected in the auto-populated GSTR 2A return. The petitioner wrongly availed of ITC, which indicates non-application of mind.
The court quashed the assessment order, and the matter was remanded to the assessing officer for reconsideration. The petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the assessing officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.
Case Title: M/s.LKS Gold House Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
The Madras High Court has held that assessing officers are not governed by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, before an assessee officer are not judicial proceedings. It is a quasi-judicial proceeding before a quasi-judicial officer. The provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872, particularly the special provisions relating to evidence relating to Sections 65A, 65B, and 66, are not relevant.
The court held that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including court-martial. It does not apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not apply to a quasi-judicial proceeding before a quasi-judicial officer, such as an assessee officer under various tax laws or the appellate authority and tribunal under them.
Case Title: A Rajasekaran v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the removal of service of an Additional District Judge who was accused of engaging in a conference call with the accused in the Sankararaman murder case.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that a Judicial Officer was expected to maintain a high level of integrity and in the present case, the charges against the Judicial officer were proved. The court added that the charges were grave and touched upon the integrity and honesty of a Judicial officer. Thus, the court held that the punishment of removal from service was not disproportionate.
Case Title: The Salem Urban Co-operative Bank limited Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS Ward)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
The Madras High Court has waived the condition of payment of a 10% pre-deposit as the 10% demand was already paid by the assessee.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq have observed that the single judge, while taking note of the financial hardship expressed by the assessee, modified CIT (TDS)'s order and permitted the assessee to deposit the amount in three instalments. The aggrieved assessee filed writ appeals, whereby the Division Bench waived the payment of the balance 10% of the pre-deposit and directed the disposal of the appeals on merits within eight weeks after hearing the assessee.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Allotment Of Lotus Symbol To Bharatiya Janata Party
Case Title: Gandhiyawati T Ramesh v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by founder of Ahimsa Socialist Party, T Ramesh seeking to cancel the allotment of Lotus symbol to the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the plea and directed Ramesh to deposit Rs. 10,000, out of the 20,000 he had deposited as a pre-condition for proving bonafide, to the Tamil Nadu Legal Service Authority.
Ramesh submitted that the lotus being the national flower represented the entire Nation and thus allotting the lotus symbol to a political party was unjust. He also submitted that allotting a lotus symbol to a particular party was a disgrace to the national integrity. Ramesh had also argued that lotus was considered auspicious and sacred and played a central role in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.
Case Title: Raji v Executive Magistrate and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
The Madras High Court has paved way for performing daily Pooja at the Villupuram Draupathiamman temple which was sealed in June last year following caste related conflicts.
Noting that the temple has existed since centuries and not performing poojas will have an impact on the sentiments of the local villagers, Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE, Villupuram District to perform poojas in the temple. The court, however, directed that the temple will be opened only to allow the Poojari (priest) to enter the temple to perform pooja and no one else will be allowed inside the temple until further orders.
Case Title: K Mariappan v The Government of Tamil Nadi and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking reservation to a differently abled person for promotion to the post of District Judge per Section 34 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the present service rules only provided for providing 4% reservation in direct recruitments and not while considering promotions. Thus, in the absence of service rules, the court was not inclined to grant the relief prayed for.
The court also noted that the petitioner, K Mariappan, had already availed the benefit of the reservation during direct recruitment. The court thus noted that claiming the inadequate presence of Persons with Disabilities in the cadre of District Judges was unfounded and would only result in unjust acceleration of seniority.
Case Title: S Menaka v KSK Nepolian Socraties (batch case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court on Thursday ruled that orders of interim maintenance passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are only interlocutory orders and thus, an appeal against such orders will not lie either under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi however added that a revision against the order of interim maintenance is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution irrespective of whether it was made by a regular civil court or a Family Court.
Case Title: K Nagomi v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
While setting aside the detention of a man under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act 14 of 1982, the Madras High Court expressed its discontentment with the manner in which the State was callously misusing detention orders.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan however refrained from passing deterrent orders against the State and hoped that the State would mend its approach and refrain from carelessly passing detention orders in the future.
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking to make proof of voting mandatory for availing paid leave on polling days in the upcoming elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that though every person had a duty to cast a vote, no one could compel a person to vote if he chose not to exercise his right.
The court was hearing a plea by Advocate Ramkumar Adityan. Adityan had sought directions to the Ministry of Personnel and Training, Labour Welfare & Skill Development Department, and the Chief Election Commissioner to make it mandatory to submit necessary proof of voting to avail of paid holiday on the poll day if the employee was a voter in the constituency where a general or bye-election was to be held.
Case Title: M Kesavan v The Principal and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that educational institutions cannot withhold the educational certificates of students with respect to pending dues. The court underlined that educational institutions cannot claim lien over the student's certificates.
Justice Anita Sumanth directed the Principal of Cheran College of Pharmacy to return the original Transfer Certificate, mark sheet of X and XII to a former student. The court also gave liberty to the college to take appropriate measures to recover the monetary outstanding in the manner known to law.
The court was hearing a plea filed by one M Kesavan, a former student of Cheran College seeking directions to the college to return his original transfer certificate and mark sheets of X and XII standards to enable him to secure admission to the School of Agriculture and Animal Science.
Case Title: The Government of Tamil Nadu v Dr.S.Vijay Vikraman
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
The Madras High Court recently stressed the need to have clinical trials in Indian Medicine enabling it to get the required audience at international levels. The court added that the development of Indian Medicine like Siddha will not only benefit mankind but also take the pride of the country to the entire world.
The remarks were made by a bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice B Pugalendhi while hearing a plea by the Government of Tamil Nadu to lift a prohibition order and to allow the demolition of the old Government Siddha Medical College at Palayamkottai. The State had proposed to establish a University for Indian Medicine at Chennai in 30 acres of land.
While the bench lauded the State's efforts to bring in a legislature viz, Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical University Act 2022, it suggested that the State should reconsider its decision to establish the new University in Chennai. The court added that the State should consider setting up the University in the Western Ghats where the Siddha system of medicine originated and where the system could reach its glory.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed Youtube LLC to deposit the revenue made by Youtuber and public commentator A Shankar alias Savukku Shankar through a video allegedly making defamatory statements against Lyca Productions.
Noting that YouTubers did not have a license to tarnish the reputation of others, Justice N Satish Kumar also restrained Shankar from making further allegations against the media house.
Lyca Productions had moved the court seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 1 crore and a permanent injunction restraining Shankar from making any derogatory or defamatory statements against the media house.
The Madras High Court recently criticized the practice of taking “rubber stamp cognizance” by the District Judiciary.
Asking District Judges to refrain from such practices, Justice Anand Venkatesh said that the practice had been deprecated by the Supreme Court and the high court in its previous judgments. The court also said that if the judges continued to make rubber stamp cognisance order, an explanation would be called for.
Case Title: K Elangoo v the Secretary and Others
Case NO: WP 11806 of 2017
The Madras High Court has urged the State government to find a suitable location within the Chennai city limits for the functioning of the Madras Law College. The Madras Law College (presently known as Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College) was established in 1891 and had been functioning from the heritage building near the Madras High Court in Chennai before being shifted to Tiruvallur and Chengalpettu District.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that legal education had undergone a paradigm shift and law education today was not just about classes but also about practical experience and interactions. The court was thus of the opinion that the law students would benefit from having a campus in Chennai itself where the High Court was situated.
Six People Have Gone Missing From Isha Yoga Centre Since 2016: TN Police Informs Madras High Court
Caste Title: Thirumalai v The Superintendent of Police
Case No: HCP 529 of 2024
The Tamil Nadu police on Thursday informed the Madras High Court that 6 people have gone missing from the Isha Foundation in Coimbatore since 2016. The police also informed the court that an investigation into the missing cases was underway.
The submissions were made before the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan. The bench was hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by Thirumalai of Tirunelveli District to produce the body of his brother Ganesan.