A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 328 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 331 NOMINAL INDEX Jemima Arumaithai and Another v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 328 Barakathullah and Others v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 P Prathap Kumar Nayak v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad)...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 328 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
NOMINAL INDEX
Jemima Arumaithai and Another v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
Barakathullah and Others v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
P Prathap Kumar Nayak v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
S.Rajasekaran @ Satta Rajasekar v The State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
REPORT
Case Title: Jemima Arumaithai and Another v The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of two Tamil women claiming compensation for the death of their husbands in Nigeria.
Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the court was not in a position to issue any positive direction as Nigeria was not included in the compendium issued by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs for getting reliefs for Indian Nationals who died abroad. However, considering that the petitioners were young poor widows who could not pursue litigations in Nigeria, the court directed the Centre and the respective embassies to pursue representation with the company where the husbands were employed as per the compensation rules in Nigeria.
Case Title: Barakathullah and Others v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to eight men, who were allegedly office bearers, members and cadres of the Popular Front Of India (PFI) and were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for conspiring to commit terrorist act in various part of India.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan opined that the documents collected by the prosecution did not link any of the appellants directly to the offences alleged and hence the special court had erred in denying them bail.
Case Title: P Prathap Kumar Nayak v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of an Army Jawan who was sentenced to ten years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 by a POCSO Court.
Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup observed that though the prosecution had claimed that there was insertion resulting in bleeding, there was no evidence to prove aggravated sexual assault and thus the allegations were without any medical evidence. The court further observed that when the charges were not proved by medical evidence, mechanical application of presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would result in the miscarriage of justice.
Case Title: S.Rajasekaran @ Satta Rajasekar v The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant bail to a man who had misrepresented himself as being a lawyer and cheated a client, the complainant.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan dismissed the appeal preferred by the man against conviction by a Special Court by observing that the special judge had rightly denied bail in the interest of society.
The court noted that Rajasekaran had committed serious offences by abusing the defacto complainant using a caste name in public places, receiving fees by claiming himself to be an Advocate and refusing to repay the fee already collected.
Relying upon the precedent laid down by the Apex court with respect to considering bail applications, the court opined that the special judge was right in dismissing the bail plea in the interest of society and thus dismissed the appeal.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court recently expressed its surprise that even when the country was in an era of Chandrayan, “Katta Panchayat” (kangaroo courts) was conducted to socially boycott a man and penalize him for using excess water in his shop.
Justice D Nagarjun of the Madurai bench thus directed the District Collector to constitute a committee consisting of the District Revenue Officer, Revue Divisional Officer, Additional Superintendent of Police, etc to enquire into the allegations of ex-communication of a man and submit a report.
The court was hearing the plea of one Muthupalam of Rajapalayam village seeking directions to the police to initiate appropriate action against certain villagers and prevent social boycott/ex-communication of him and his family.
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking to cancel the allotment of the Lotus symbol to the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The petitioner, T Ramesh, founder of the Ahimsa Socialist Party moved the court after his representations to the Election Commission were not acted upon.
In his petition, 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 lotus symbol to a particular party was a disgrace to the national integrity.