A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 306 NOMINAL INDEX The Director General of Police v D Jayakumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296 The Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for Women (Autonomous) v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 297 Major General AK Gupta v State, 2023 LiveLaw...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
NOMINAL INDEX
The Director General of Police v D Jayakumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for Women (Autonomous) v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
Major General AK Gupta v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
Selva Muthukumar and Others v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
AS Shanmugha Rajan v Tamil Nadu Cricket Association and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
S Gurumurthy v S Doraisamy, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
Feeback Infra Pvt Ltd v. MSEF Council, Chennai – W.P. No. 25062 of 2023, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
TTF Vasan @ Vauikunthavasan v Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
M/s.Kaleeshwari Refinery Private Limited v Akshay A, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
G Moorthi v The Recovery Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
REPORT
Case Title: The Director General of Police v D Jayakumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Madras High Court has recently observed that in cases where employees were suspended from service in connection with a crime, the suspension cannot continue endlessly without initiating disciplinary proceedings merely due to pendency of criminal case.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the employers could not continuously take a stand that it is not conducive to revoke the suspension of the employee while pendency of the criminal case. The court added that in every quarter of the year, the employer is to review the necessity for extending the suspension.
Case Title: The Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for Women (Autonomous) v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
The Madras High Court recently observed that the policy of reservation for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes cannot be implemented in Minority educational institutions.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu relied on the precedents laid down by the Supreme Court and reiterated that the exclusion of Minority Institutions from the ambit of Article 15(5), which empowers the state to make provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward communities, is not violative of Article 14 as minority institutions are a separate class.
Case Title: Major General AK Gupta v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of Major General AK Gupta for allegedly procuring supply/ration items during “Operation Pawan” of Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) troops in Srilanka in 1987, in violation of the prescribed procedures, rules, and regulations and thus causing heavy loss to the State.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the Investigating officer had filed the final report with truncated material and without scrutinising the materials in its entirety. The court also observed that the officer escaping from custody while being sent to face General court martial and thus getting the court martial proceeding time-barred had also weighed in the mind of the trial court. Thus, the court opined that benefit of doubt had to be extended to the officer.
Case Title: Selva Muthukumar and Others v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
While granting anticipatory bail to a group of students, the Madras High Court directed them to clean the classrooms for a week and to prepare handwritten notes on non-violence from the excerpts of Mahatma Gandhi, educational schemes promoted by former Chief Minister K Kamraj and dream and vision of Dr. Abdul Kalam.
Justice RMT Teeka Raman specifically directed the students to not prepare the articles using copy-paste from Google and asked the articles to be handed over to the School Principal of Montfort Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Yercaud who shall then host the articles on the school website for one year.
Case Title: AS Shanmugha Rajan v Tamil Nadu Cricket Association and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
The Madras High Court recently disposed of a Public Interest Litigation alleging that the authorities of the MA Chidambaram Stadium, commonly known as the Chepauk Stadium, overcharged people during the India-Australia One Day International Match on March 22.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that though the petitioner had claimed that food items were sold at a high price than the actual fixed market price, the details of the items were not submitted and thus the court could not arrive at a conclusion. The court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach any other authority for remedy.
Case Title: S Gurumurthy v S Doraisamy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
The Madras High Court has observed that in a democracy driven by free speech, the courts cannot insulate themselves from criticism and cannot use their contempt power as a "shield to choke the voice of citizens".
“In a democracy driven by free speech, the Court cannot seek the comfort of the cocoon or aim to insulate itself from criticisms, just or otherwise. Contempt power is not a shield to choke the voice of the citizen in a free country,” the court said.
Justice N Seshasayee added that the basis for contempt jurisdiction is to preserve public confidence in the judiciary but it is important to ensure that the power is not used as a privilege by the court to roam free. He added that the judiciary should speak through its performance and pass the scrutiny of the citizens with the quality of its performance. Thus, he added that the courts should not be hyper-sensitive to every statement made against the institution and waste time on it.
MSEF Council’s Order Without Following Due Procedure Can’t Be Termed As Award: Madras High Court
Case Title: Feeback Infra Pvt Ltd v. MSEF Council, Chennai – W.P. No. 25062 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
The High Court of Madras has held that an order passed by the MSEF Council without issuing notice of arbitration, opportunity to parties file their pleadings and recording evidence as per the provisions of A&C Act cannot be termed as award.
The bench of Justice S. Sounthar held that since such an order is not an award, it need not be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act r/w Section 19 of the MSMED Act as otherwise, the party aggrieved by such an order would have to deposit 75% of the awarded amount which would imbalance the equities.
The Court held that the aggrieved party can directly invoke the writ remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High court recently allowed a company to file a Statutory Appeal against the Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) even though the limitation period to file an appeal had expired after noting that the company failed to access the notice in the GST portal.
Justice C Saravanan observed that though the Supreme Court has held that orders could not be challenged under Article 226, the court was inclined to consider the company’s case and condone the delay of 58 days. The court thus directed the company to file the Statutory Appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of the order which shall then be considered by the Appellate Commissioner on merits.
Case Title: TTF Vasan @ Vauikunthavasan v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court has denied bail to YouTuber and biker TTF Vasan who was arrested in September this year for rash driving after he was injured while performing a "wheelie" in the Chennai-Bengaluru highway.
Justice CV Karthikeyan noted that the youtuber, who has around 4.5 million followers should learn a lesson. The court took note of the Additional Public Prosecutor's submission that the youtuber had a large influence on youngsters, who ended up asking their parents to buy expensive bikes, and ended riding them in a rash manner on public roads.
Case Title: M/s.Kaleeshwari Refinery Private Limited v Akshay A
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
The Madras High Court has directed YouTuber Akshay A, who own the channel “DiCapScoop”, to pay Rs. 7 Lakh as damages to Kaleeshwari Refinery Private Limited, makers of “Gold Winner” oil.
Justice RN Manjula made the order in a plea moved by the company saying that Akshay had misled his viewers in a recent video where he claimed that one litre 'Gold Winner' oil is selling 300 ml less and the consumers got only 700 ml of oil.
Noting that Akshay’s actions were with an intention to defame the product, the court observed,
“The damaging statements made by the defendant in the audio and visual mode has been transmitted in a social media like YouTube, which has large viewers base. So the defendant has not only made statements which are defamatory in nature but also transmitted it to be received and viewed by others. So the plaintiff has proved all the essential elements that should be proved in a case for defamation,” the court said.
Case Title: G Moorthi v The Recovery Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court recently observed that PAN particulars are only one of the modes to identify an individual and merely because a wrong PAN number was given in the order by the Adjudicating officer of SEBI, a person could not escape payment of interest.
Justice N Seshasayee observed that when the penalty itself was paid, the petitioner could not escape payment of interest which was merely incidental to the penalty, by claiming that the order had wrong PAN particulars.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The National Convenor of Bharathiya Janata Party’s IT Cell, Amit Malviya has approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him for allegedly distorting the remarks made by Tamil Nadu Youth Welfare and Sports Development Minister Udayanidhi Stalin in the Sanatana Dharma row.
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench has issued a notice to the police and directed them to respond to the plea.
Malviya has been charged with offences under Section 153, 153A, 504, and 505(1)(b) of the IPC for promoting entimy between groups and causing public mischief based on a complaint filed by KAV Thinakaran, District Organiser of the DMK-Advocate Wing. It was alleged that Malviya had posted the video of Udayanidhi’s speech with the aim of provoking violence between two factions through the dissemination of false information.
Three petitions have been filed in the Madras High Court in the nature of Quo Warranto seeking to show under what authority Sports Minister Udayanidhi Stalin, HRCW Minister Sekar Babu and MP A. Raja are continuing to hold public office in light of their recent remarks on 'Sanatana Dharma'.
Justice Anita Sumanth has directed the petitioners to submit proof of their claims by October 11.
The petitions have been filed by office bearers of Hindu Munnani Organisation - T Manohar, Kishore Kumar and VP Jayakumar in their personal capacity.
The petitioners have contended that the Ministers/MP who have taken an oath to function for the welfare of the citizen without favour and away from personal likes and dislikes, have acted against their oath and the principles of the Constitution by participating in the meeting to eradicate Sanatana Dharma and speaking against Sanatana Dharma.
The Madras High Court has asked former AIADMK MLA R Kumaraguru whether he is willing to convene a public meeting and apologize to Chief Minister Stalin and Minister Udayanidhi Stalin.
Kumaraguru had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail after a case was registered against him for allegedly making defamatory and derogatory statements against the Chief Minister and the Youth Welfare Minister in a public meeting held on September 19, 2023.
When the matter came up before the court, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that Kumaraguru had realized that he had used unparliamentary expression and had conveyed his regret through Twitter and WhatsApp.
Justice G Jayachandran however observed that after having made objectionable utterances in public, it was not proportionate to secretly communicate regret through Twitter and WhatsApp. The court was thus of the opinion that Kumaraguru should convene a public meeting in the same place where he had made objectionable utterances and tender apology.
The State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammad Jinnah, on Friday, informed the Madras High Court that the police had nothing to do with the cancellation of the audio launch of the upcoming Vijay starrer movie Leo. He added that malicious propaganda was being spread as if the state was against the fans of the star.
The submissions were made before Justice G Jayachandran in response to the remarks made by the judge saying that the recent vandalism in theatre and the mayhem during AR Rahman's concert in the theatre could have been avoided if the police had given proper permission and ensured law and order.
The prosecutor also informed the court that there was a false narrative being spread in social media and that the police were willing to provide protection if the makers of the movie wanted to conduct the audio launch. With respect to the recent mishaps at the AR Rahman concert, the prosecutor informed the court that it was mainly due to the large distribution of fake tickets.