A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 433 NOMINAL INDEX Mr N Nagarajan v. Mr. Schekar Raj, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425 T.Keeniston Fernando v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 426 Azizul Karim v. PS Kirubakaran and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 427 Murali v. The...
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
NOMINAL INDEX
Mr N Nagarajan v. Mr. Schekar Raj, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
T.Keeniston Fernando v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 426
Azizul Karim v. PS Kirubakaran and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 427
Murali v. The Inspector of Police ,2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
A. Irudayaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Adjudication Cell, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
Tamilselvi v. The Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 430
Asia (Chennai) Engineering Company Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 431
Abirami S v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, O.P. No. 298 of 2019, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
REPORT
Case Title: Mr N Nagarajan v. Mr. Schekar Raj
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
Moved by the plight of an old couple, the Madras High Court recently upheld the judgement and decree of the trial court and cancelled a settlement deed executed in favour of their son, after the court was convinced that the son failed to look after the aged parents.
Even if the deed is considered as a settlement deed by virtue of Section 23 of the Maintenance Act the same has to be declared void in as much as the plaintiff has failed to comply with the obligations imposed upon him under the deed by ignoring the medical needs of the parents.
Case Title: T.Keeniston Fernando v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 426
The Madras High Court recently denied bail to two Srilankan nationals, who are accused of attempting to siphon off funds from the bank account of a deceased woman in Mumbai to fund LTTE.
The bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Teeka Raman denied bail after observing that the indefeasible right for default bail stood extinguished as the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had already submitted the final report.
Case Title: Azizul Karim v. PS Kirubakaran and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 427
The Madras High Court recently requested the Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram to consider passing appropriate orders under the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act 1949 against a Chennai resident who is prima facie in the habit of filing vexatious litigations in different courts throughout the state.
The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy gave liberty to the Advocate General to consider the materials on record and pass appropriate orders as he deems fit.
Case Title: Murali v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
The Madras High Court recently quashed FIR against a man booked under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 for possessing ganja after observing that there were serious lapses on the part of the investigating officer.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the seized contraband had not been tested for its content even after 5 years. Further, in spite of directions by the court, the Investigating Officer had not taken steps to number the final report.
Case Title: A. Irudayaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Adjudication Cell
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
The Madras High Court has ordered the release of the vehicle as the department has failed to pass the detention order within the period as provided for under Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) and no show cause notice has been issued within the period of 7 days as set out under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that since the statutory show cause notice is to be issued within a period of 7 days from the date of interception, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to pass an order of detention prior thereto.
6. Third Gender Candidates Entitled To Special Reservation: Madras High Court
Case Title: Tamilselvi v. The Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 430
The Madras High Court has directed the state Health and Family Welfare Department and Directorate of Medical Education to provide special reservation to the third gender/ transgender in the admissions for Post Basic (Nursing) Course.
The direction was passed after a transgender woman approached the court with a plea seeking quashing of the Prospectus issued for the Post Basic (Nursing) Course and Post Basic Diploma in Psychiatry Nursing Course for the academic year 2022-2023 after she was considered only a woman in the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee.
Justice R Suresh Kumar observed that the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the special category was not just a mere omission but against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
7. GST Dept. To Consider Reply to SCN Sent By Assessee Through post and Not Portal: Madras High Court
Case Title: Asia (Chennai) Engineering Company Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 431
The Madras High Court has held that the GST Department should consider a reply to a show cause notice even if it is sent by the assessee through the post and not the portal.
While rejecting the objection of the department that the postal/physical reply to them shall not be considered, the single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has directed the department to give an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner, hear the objections, peruse the documents submitted and the explanations.
Case title - Abirami S v. The Union of India and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
In a significant observation, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has said that the principles of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 can very well be made applicable to the Hindu Tamils who were the primary victims of the racial strife in Srilanka.
The bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan observed thus as it took into account the fact that Srilanka does not fall within the ambit of CAA 2019, a parliamentary law that permits the persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh to get Indian Citizenship.
9. Limitation Qua Counter-Claim Stops On The Date Of Notice Of Arbitration: Madras High Court
Case Title: Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, O.P. No. 298 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
The High Court of Madras has held that the limitation period qua Counter-Claims would be arrested on the date on which the respondent issues the notice of arbitration and the date of filing of counter-claims would be irrelevant.
The bench of Justice M. Sundar further held that limitation is a facet of 'public policy' and an error in limitation clearly leaves an award hit by Section 34(2)(b)(ii) read with Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 thereat.
The Court further held that if the agreement includes pre-arbitration reference to Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) or Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the period of limitation for initiating arbitration commences only after dispute resolution fails before these panels.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
1. Tamil Nadu Advocates' Association Condemns Malicious Campaign Against Justice DY Chandrachud
The Tamilnadu Advocates' Association on Monday issued a statement condemning the recent malicious campaigns led against Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud.
The association stated that the recent allegations levelled by one RK Pathan were completely erroneous and based completely on assumptions with a malicious intent.
"There seems to be a hidden motive and agenda behind these letters which are only addressed to derail the majesty of Indian Judiciary" the association stated.
2. Madras High Court Seeks State's Response To Plea For Dedicated Anti-Terrorism Squad
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the state government to file its response to a plea seeking to set up a dedicated Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in the state. The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar adjourned the case by four weeks for the state's counter.
The petitioner, B Jagannath, submitted that for maintaining law and order it is necessary to have foolproof technological and counter-terrorism support. Thus, it is necessary to set up an ATS. He contended that Tamilnadu is a very vulnerable geo-political geographic area and that it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens against any threats of LTTE, Radical Islamic Terrorist acts.
The Madurai bench of the Madras High recently took suo moto cognizance of increased addiction of online gaming among teenagers. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition relating to a missing girl, who was later found to be addicted to playing an online game called "free fire".
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad wondered how these online games were permitted despite being banned by the Government of India.
The Madras High Court has directed the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct a field inquiry and determine the community status of Velmurugan, the man who set himself ablaze inside the court premises earlier this week over denial of community certificate to his son.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar was hearing the suo moto case registered after Justice SM Subramaniam, before whom the matter was first mentioned, was of the prima facie view that deceased's son was deprived of his Community Certificate even after repeatedly making submissions before the Revenue Authorities.
The Madras High Court on Friday directed the State government to file a report on the reasons behind the frequent 'spread' of viral diseases in Tamil Nadu.
Justice SM Subramaniam passed the order while hearing a plea of a Medical Store officer who was accused of procuring excess medicine beyond permissible limit, which expired and caused great financial loss to the State Exchequer.
The court at the outset noted that there are "wider allegations in the public domain" that expired medicines are supplied to the poor patients in government hospitals. Justice Subramaniam also said that the public has doubts whether any miscreants are committing some illegalities "in the matter of spreading such diseases" for personal gain "in an organised manner.