A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 261 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 270 NOMINAL INDEX Lyca Productions v. Vishal Krishna Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 261 Mohamed Dayan v The District Collector and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 262 VP Sarathi v Kiruthigha, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 Lyca Productions v Vishal Krishna Reddy,...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 261 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
NOMINAL INDEX
Lyca Productions v. Vishal Krishna Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
Mohamed Dayan v The District Collector and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
VP Sarathi v Kiruthigha, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
Lyca Productions v Vishal Krishna Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
M Rajendran v The Superintendant of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
M Arasupandi v The District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Vasanthi v Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
Elangovan v The Secretary, Home Department, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Prakash v District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
District Collector, Tirunelveli v Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
REPORT
Madras High Court Restrains Release Of Vishal-Starrer “Mark Antony” For Deflecting Judicial Orders
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
Case Title: Lyca Productions v. Vishal Krishna Reddy
The Madras High Court on Friday restrained the release of actor Vishal-starrer “Mark Antony” which is slated to release on September 15th.
Vishal was previously directed by a division bench of the court to deposit a sum of Rs 15 crore to the credit of a suit filed by entertainment company Lyca Productions. The court had also restrained Vishal from releasing any movie in Theatres or in the OTT platform which he has produced or financed, until then.
Calling his behaviour “unacceptable and aimed at deflecting court orders”, Justice PT Asha restrained the release of his upcoming movie and also directed Vishal to appear in court on the next hearing.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
Case Title: Mohamed Dayan v The District Collector and Others
The Madras High Court has observed that the phrase “subject to condition” employed in Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has to be understood holistically to mean an implied condition to maintain the senior citizen.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the phrase subject to condition should not be understood to mean that the Gift or Settlement Deed should contain an express condition but an implied condition, and any violation of the condition would be sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act.
The court added that “Love and Affection” was an implied condition and had to be construed as the consideration for executing the Gift or Settlement Deed. The court also observed that the provisions of the Act could not be mis-utilised for rejecting a compliant by a senior citizen merely on the ground that there was no express condition.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
Case Title: VP Sarathi v Kiruthigha
The Madras High Court has observed that expressing adverse views on platforms like Google Review for the services received by a person would not amount to defamation of the service provider, as it is covered under the freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Justice V Sivagnanam noted that the internet is a free platform and an important means of expression and communication. He added that though posting or canvassing false statements/remarks that are derogatory in nature would amount to defamation, mere expression of views in Google reviews would not amount to defamation.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
Case Title: Lyca Productions v Vishal Krishna Reddy
The Madras High Court on Tuesday vacated an injunction order that the court had earlier issued against the release of the "Mark Antony" movie starring Vishal Krishna, which is slated to release on September 15.
Justice PT Asha, who had made the order in a loan default suit concerning the actor, noted that the producer of "Mark Antony" was not a party to the suit and that he had already made payments to the Actor. The court thus deemed it fit to discharge the earlier injunction order.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
Case Title: M Rajendran v The Superintendant of Police
The Madras High Court on Wednesday strongly criticised a political party’s plea seeking protection and permission to celebrate Vinayaka Chathurthi by installing Vinayagar idol and carrying out processions.
Justice Anand Venkatesh criticized the political parties seeking police permission to carry out such processions without actually doing anything for the public. The court added that such issues are causing more public nuisance and also added that the police had much more productive work to do than provide protection for such political interests.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Case Title: M Arasupandi v The District Collector
The Madras High Court has directed the District Collector, District Environmental Officer, Commissioner of Madurai Corporation and Chief Engineer of Water Resource Organization of Madurai to ensure that the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board regarding immersion of idols during Vinayagar Chathurthi are properly adhered to and implemented.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice C Kumarappan also noted that it was for the authorities concerned to ensure that the processions are carried out in an orderly manner.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
Case Title: Vasanthi v Secretary to Government
The Madras High Court has made it clear that the five-day period for communicating the grounds of arrest to a detenu under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (TN act 14 of 1982) should be strictly adhered to as the right to make an effective representation against detention is sacrosanct under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Section 8(1) of the Act states that when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel noted that since detention curtails the liberty of a person without trial, it was important that the detenu be given the earliest opportunity to make an effective representation against such detention. The court also noted that the period of five days provided in the Statute must not be used as a leeway but was only the outer limit.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Case Title: Elangovan v The Secretary, Home Department
The Madras High Court on Friday observed that “Sanadhana Dharma” is a set of eternal duties including duty to the nation, duty to the King, Duty to parents and Gurus, etc. and in that context, opposition to Sanadhana Dharma would have to mean that all these duties were liable to be destroyed.
Justice N Seshasayee was hearing a challenge against a Circular issued by the Principal of Thiru Vi. Ka. Government Arts College requesting the girl students in the college to share their views on the topic “Opposition to Sanadhana” on the occasion of commemorating birth anniversary of former Tamil Nadu CM Annadurai.
The court also noted that presently the idea that had been appearing was that Sanadhana Dharma is all about promoting casteism and untouchability. The court emphasised that untouchability, which has been abolished under Article 15 of the Constitution should not be tolerated even within or outside Sanadhana Dharma.
Ganesh Idols Containing Plaster Of Paris Can't Be Immersed, But Can Be Sold : Madras High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
Case Title: Prakash v District Collector
While trying to strike a balance between the right to carry on trade and the need to protect the environment, the Madras High Court has observed that while the sale of Vinayaka idols made of plaster of Paris cannot be restricted, their immersion in water bodies can be restricted.
Justice GR Swaminathan of Madurai bench on Saturday thus came to the relief of an artisan from Rajasthan who was engaged in making Vinayaka idols. The artisan had approached the court after the District Collector and the Commissioner of Police of Tirunelveli prevented him for selling Vinayaka idols.
The court thus directed the artisan to furnish details of purchasers by keeping an account of every sale and keeping a register containing particulars of buyers. The court added that the authorities could inspect this register.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
Case Title: District Collector, Tirunelveli v Prakash
In a special Sunday sitting, a division bench of the Madras High Court has stayed an order of a single judge allowing the sale of Ganesh idols made using Plaster of Paris.
However, a division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy has now stayed the order.
The bench relied upon orders of the National Green Tribunal and a division bench order upholding the guidelines of the Pollution Control Board and noted that these guidelines were applicable in the State even in the absence of specific rules by the State Government.
The bench also opined that the order of the Single Judge could not be sustained as every Vinayaka idol that was worshipped had to be immersed. The bench emphasized that idols were traditionally made using clay and added that the prohibition was only with respect to the use of Plaster of Paris.
Though it was argued that such prohibition would cause financial hardship to the artisans, the court rejected this argument and opined that the loss would be less since there was only a day left for the festival
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Five Additional Judges Of Madras High Court Made Permanent
The Central Government has issued a notification appointing the following 5 additional judges of the Madras High Court as permanent judges:
1. Justice A A Nakkiran,
2 Justice Nidumolu Mala,
3. Justice S Sounthar,
4. Justice Sunder Mohan, and
5. Justice Kabali Kumaresh Babu.
In its resolution dated 31st August, the Collegium recommended the names of the above five judges which was concurred by the Chief Minister and the Governor.
The Madras High Court on Thursday asked the Kalakshetra Foundation to ensure that the faculty member who has been alleged of sexually harassing students in the foundation not be permitted inside the campus.
Justice N Seshasayee was hearing the pleas filed by a group of students from Rukmini Devi College of Fine Arts, functioning under Kalakshetra Foundation, seeking to formulate proper safety policies and redressal mechanisms in the college. The students also prayed for reconstituting the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) with student and parent representatives.
While rejecting a request for recusal made by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the TN Minister K Ponmudi, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that as per settled law, a plea of bias could not be raised by a party that would be a beneficiary of such bias.
In the previous hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the DVAC had submitted that Justice Venkatesh had predetermined certain issues thereby revealing an element of bias, and had thus requested the Judge to recuse himself from hearing the matter in the fitness of things.
Finding this to be a ‘strange plea’ on the part of the State, the Judge noted that the State, being the aggrieved person against the order of acquittal of the Minister would be a direct beneficiary following the apprehension that the order of acquittal would be set aside. Thus, the court noted that the plea of bias could only be raised at the instance of the person who was likely to suffer an adverse adjudication and thus, the State could not raise such a plea for seeking recusal.