Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211 to 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 413 Nominal Index Pascal Sasil R v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211 M Mohammed Abbas v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 Erode Mavatta Valamana Thodakka Versus .The Managing Director / Additional Registrar Erode District Central Cooperative Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 213 Aashik Ali v State, 2023 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211 to 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
Nominal Index
Pascal Sasil R v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
M Mohammed Abbas v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
Erode Mavatta Valamana Thodakka Versus .The Managing Director / Additional Registrar Erode District Central Cooperative Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
Aashik Ali v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
Murugan v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
P Gnana Pragasam v Pradeep Yadav IAS and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
Habeeb Mohamed v. The Home Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
Thangamani v The Collector, Erode District, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
Muthupalanichamy and another v Gnana Pragasam and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
P Elangovan and others v R Prema Latha and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
Senthilkumar D v Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others (and connected cases), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
K Indulekha v. The Chairman, TNPSC and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
A Anand v. The Superintendent of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
Arunkanth v Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
A Lakshminarayanan v The Assistant General Manager, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
Jothi v The State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
Manoj Immanuel v Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
Lois Sophia @ Layis Shobia v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
Dr. Gurubaran and others v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
Kajendran v Superintendent of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
P Vigneshwaran @ Viduthalai Sigappi v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
Abdul Rahman v The Passport Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
Er.A.Kanagasabapathy vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
B. Saravanan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Ramki vs. State [Crl.A.No.72 of 2022], 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Gnanasekaran Thiyagaraj v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
S Jarin Singh v Union Of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
Athipathi v. The Principal Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The President v The District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
Vellingiri Hill Tribal Protection Society v Union of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
PhonePe Private Limited v Digipe Fintech Private Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
ML Ravi v Chairman and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
O Paneerselvam v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
Prasanna Chakravarthy v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
V Perumal v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
H Raja v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
N Mahendran v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
Murugan N v Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
Tmt M Nithya v The Head Master and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
Zee Media Corporation Limited v Mahendra Singh Dhoni, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
Mohammed Hasan Kuthous v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
S Ramachandran v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
Dr. L Murugan v Murasoli Trust rep by its Trustee R.S. Bharathi, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
M Jeya v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
A Chinnaponnu v Union of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
Senthil Mallar v The Commissioner of Police and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
R Girija v S Ramalingam and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
Malaravan v Praveen Travels Private Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
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
EDAC Engineering v. Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd, Application Nos 2080 and 4609 of 2021, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
Dr. V. Kalanidhi v State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
SV v. MR, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Selvam v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
Mariappan v Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
Ramya S Moorthy v Registrar of Trade Marks, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
Davidraj v Palanivel, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
S Zahir Hussain v The State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
C Raja v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education v The Appeal Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
H Kalyan Singh vs. Dr Nirmalkathri and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
M/s. Hotel Saravana Bhavan v. The Additional Chief Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
SA Syed Shaik Alaudeen v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
Mr Badhrisheshathiri v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
Kalyani v The Additional Director and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
Saibunisha (Died) and Another v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Mrs. Pista Kanwar v The Inspector of Police and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
Vinothini v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
Swamiji v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
Sri Kamatchi Amman Devasthanam v Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Wakf, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
Punjab National Bank v. R Lalitha and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
Dr. Krithika B v. Additional Chief Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
P Arunachalam(Died) and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
BSF Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v M/s. Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
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
Ilampiraiyan v Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
IDFC Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Chennai District Collector and Others v T.V.S.Jaya Perumal (Died), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
N Ponnupillai v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
G Venkatesh v Bridge Federation of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
Arjunan Sampath @ Arjun Sampath v The Sub-Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
R Kumaraguru, Ex MLA v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
Praveen Kumar v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Shreya Bhattacharya v Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Dr.J.Kaja Moinudeen v The Authorization Committee (Transplantation), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
Tamil Nadu Football Association and Others v Pennar Junior FC and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
Dr Vinith v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
Mr K Ramachandran v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Tamil Nadu All Village Panchayat President Welfare Association v State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
Raja Desingu v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
Sutherson v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
V Senthil Balaji v The Deputy Director, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
B Mubeena v The State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
N.Uganchand Kumawat v The Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
M/s Jayapradha Cine Theatre v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
G.K.Reddy Versus DCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
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
Dr.Pradeep Vasudevan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
Enforcement Directorate v TTV Dinakaran, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Additional Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s.N.C.Alexander, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
ML Ravi v The Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
Capt.Dr.VRC.Pandiyan v The Chairman and Managing Director, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
BR Aravindakshan v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
Ramar v State (and connected cases), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
Venu Srinivasan v Rangarajan Narasimhan, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
The Secretary v Elephant G Rajendran and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
M.Kalpana v The Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
Mrs Nirosha v Principal Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
All India Gaming Federation v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
S Amar Prasad @ Amar Prasad Reddy v Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Limited v Income Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
Tribhuwan Kumar Tiwari v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
KR Jayagopi v The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu Lokayukta and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
R.Revathy Versus ACIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
ITC Limited v Britannia Industries Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
Ringfeder Power Transmission India Private Ltd v Rajesh Mootha, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
M/s.Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
M/s.Shewil Trading Company Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
Mohamed Irfan v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
Dr. D.Hariharan and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
Sushma v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
R.P. Darrmalingam Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Versus PCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
G.Mayakannan v. The District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd v Dr Dheeraj Saurabh, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
AM Paramasivan and another v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
State v XXX, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus JCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills Versus Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
Manav Menon Versus DCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Federation v Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
Gunasekaran v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
State of Tamil Nadu v Enforcement Directorate, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
T M Selvaganapathy and Others v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
Yohann J.Setna v State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
J Jayaraj and Others v The Chief Educational Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
Lakshmichandra Harishchandra Sharma v Union of India and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
Mangalam v. The State Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
K Gopinath v District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
G.Selvamoorthy v The Chief Engineer (Personnel), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
K Annamalai v V Piyush, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
T Ganesan v Government of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
State of Tamil Nadu v K Parvathy, 2023 LiveLaw (mad) 378
S.Uttam Chand Versus ACIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
S Muthu Kumar v The Cabinet Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
M Palani v The State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Another v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
S Jagathrakshakan and Others v The Special Director, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
K Krishna and Another v The Managing Director and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
P.Maheswari v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
S. Panneerselvam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
State v RS Rajesh, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
Thol Thirumaavalan v The Principal Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
C Mani v Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
Sri Subramaniyaswami, Thirukovil Sundhanthirai Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha v. The Commissioner, HR&CE, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
Asif Musthaheen v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. G Sampath Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
R Sumathi v Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
J Vivek v Principal Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
CSI College of Dental Sciences and Research v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
State v K Ponmudi and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
C Alagappan v The State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
Ankit Tiwari v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
Eicher Motors Ltd v Nitin Service Point and Automobiles, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
P Mohanraj v The District Collector and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
VBR Menon v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
Mansoor Ali Khan v Trisha Krishnan and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
C.Chellamuthu Versus The Principal Commissioner, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
The Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan Primary Handloom Weaver's Cooperative Society Ltd v Income Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
Pandiarajan C v The District Collector and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
University of Madras v Dr. UT Manisundar (Died) and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
M/s.Cognizant Technology Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
PK Mukmuthu Sha v PS Mohammed Afrin Banu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
R Suresh Kumar v The Principal Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
A Vasanthi v S Jayakumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
M/s.Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Versus DCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
Reports
Case Title: Pascal Sasil R v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court on Monday said that if a litigant harasses a lawyer over certain queries raised by the court, the lawyer can initiate action against such party.
The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu made the remark while hearing a public interest litigation filed by a final year law student seeking to establish government run old age homes in every district of Tamil Nadu in accordance with Section 19(1) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.
When the case was taken up on Monday, the counsel for the petitioner submitted a memo to the bench informing the court that after the previous hearing, the petitioner had been harassing him. The lawyer sought to withdraw from the case.
The court, while allowing the counsel to withdraw from the case, said:
"The petitioner is also present here and seeks time to engage another lawyer. While we grant him time, this Court feels it necessary to reiterate that any queries posed by us are for the benefit of the litigants and queries do not indicate our order. Also, any advocate, who is harassed by a litigant following the court's queries, or even otherwise, is entitled to take appropriate action against the litigant".
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Lawyer Arrested Under UAPA By NIA For Alleged Links With PFI
Case Title: M Mohammed Abbas v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court has granted bail to Mohammad Abbas, a Madurai based lawyer who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for his alleged links with the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) organization.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel allowed the appeal preferred by the lawyer against the order of the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Case) Poonamallee denying him bail. The court however dismissed another quash petition filed by the lawyer and said that arguments regarding malicious initiation of proceedings could be raised during the trial.
The court also rejected an oral request made by the Special Public Prosecutor seeking certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134-A of the Constitution saying that Section 43D of UAPA requires to be interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Erode Mavatta Valamana Thodakka Versus .The Managing Director / Additional Registrar Erode District Central Cooperative Bank
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras High Court has directed the Finance Ministry and Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to take action on exempting primary agricultural cooperative credit societies from TDS deduction on cash withdrawals received from the Central Cooperative Bank for distribution to the beneficiaries.
The bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar has disposed of the writ petitions with a direction that a further time of six weeks be granted within which the Ministry of Finance, the Government of India, and the CBDT would decide the request made by the Government of Tamil Nadu for exemption of cooperative societies from Section 194N.
Case Title: Aashik Ali v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court has granted bail to an advocate who was arrested in a drugs case for the offences of Section 8(c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (A), 22(c), 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
Finding that the advocate Aashhik Ali satisfies the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira granted him bail.
The court also noted that except for the alleged money transactions which were done between Aashik and the accused, there was no material nor recovery.
Case Title: Murugan v State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
The Madras High Court on Wednesday said that it would fix responsibility equally on the farmers for trespassing into the property already acquired by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) and upon NLC for not taking adequate care to prevent farmers from cultivating in the land.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that once land was acquired following the procedures as contemplated under the Act, the landowners could not claim any right over the property nor enter it and cultivate the same.
The court however noted that in the present case, NLC had not effectively prevented the farmers from cultivating in the land which had been going on for the past many years and the farmers were also made to believe that it will take a long time for NLC to utilise the acquired lands.
Case Title: P Gnana Pragasam v Pradeep Yadav IAS and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court has sentenced IAS officer Pradeep Yadav and two others to two weeks imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each in a contempt case for failure to implement earlier orders of the court. The court observed that the officer had failed to implement the order of the court while he was holding the post of Principal Secretary to School Education Department.
Justice Battu Devanand refused to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the officers.
Case Title: Habeeb Mohamed v. The Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
In a notable judgment, the Madras High Court observed that while right to vote is only a statutory right, the right to seek vote is a fundamental right as democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. The court thus observed that any person who was causing disturbance to the conduct of rallies, meetings etc for seeking votes, was committing an electoral offence.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that the right to campaign was directly traceable to Article 19(1) (a), (b) and (d) of the Constitution and is derivable from the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to assemble peacefully and to move freely throughout the country.
Case Title: Thangamani v The Collector, Erode District
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras High Court has strongly criticized the practice of stopping a widow from entering temples and said it can never continue in a civilized society governed by rule of law.
“It is quite unfortunate that the archaic beliefs that if a widow enters a temple it will cause impurity continues to prevail in this State. Even though the reformers are attempting to break all these senseless beliefs, it continues to be practiced in some villages. These are the dogmas and the rules framed by man to suit his convenience and it actually demeans a woman just because she has lost her husband,” the court said.
Justice Anand Venkatesh further observed that a woman, by herself, has a status and an identity that "that cannot in any way come down or be taken away depending upon her marital status."
Madras High Court Suspends Sentence Of IAS Officer, Others In Contempt Case
Case Title: Muthupalanichamy and another v Gnana Pragasam and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court has suspended the order of imprisonment against IAS officer Pradeep Yadav and two others in the contempt case for failure to implement court orders while he was holding the post of the Principal Secretary to the School Education Department.
The division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madurai bench suspended the sentence while hearing an appeal preferred against the order of the single judge.
Case Title; P Elangovan and others v R Prema Latha and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court has constituted a 2-member committee to make a detailed report on the appointments of 254 candidates to the post of Assistant Professors in the institutions of the Pachaiyappa's Trust pursuant to the recruitment notifications dated 12.12.2013 and 18.02.2014.
Former Madras High Court Judge Justice B Gokuldas will be the Chairman of the committee and Dr. Freeda Gnana Rani, Ex-Principal of Quaid-e-Millath Government College for Women will be the other member of the committee.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq directed the committee to look into the requisite qualifications and eligibility criteria as prescribed under the recruitment notifications under which the appointments were made and to look into the qualification and other eligibility criteria of all the appointees to see if they are eligible or not.
Case Title: Senthilkumar D v Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court has ordered a status quo ante in the Arulmighu Palani Dhandayuthapani Swamy temple by directing the respondent authorities to restore the display board stating that non-Hindus are not allowed in the temple.
Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench made the direction in a plea by D Senthilkumar, organizer of Palani Hill Temple Devotees Organization. who moved the court after noting that recently non-Hindus had purchased tickets to reach the Hilltop temple and when they were not allowed to the temple, had argued saying that the hilltop was a tourist place and could be visited by outsiders. Senthilkumar sought a direction to permit only Hindus to the Hill temple premises and its sub-temples and to ensure display boards in the temple.
Case Title: Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others (and connected cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court has dismissed a majority of pleas filed by Indian startups against Google's new user choice billing system. A total of 14 out of 16 petitions have been dismissed. The two remaining petitions filed by Disney+Hotstar and Testbook are pending.
Dismissing the petitions, Justice S Sounthar on August 3 said that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India and that the remedy available under the Competition Act is much more comprehensive than that available before a civil court. The court added that the pleas are barred by Section 61 of the Competition Act which expressly forbids civil courts from hearing any lawsuit or action that the Commission is authorised to decide.
Case Title: K Indulekha v. The Chairman, TNPSC and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court has suggested that judicial examinations should be conducted every year to reduce the pendency of cases in the courts.
A division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice K Rajasekar was hearing petitions against the Advertisement and Notification relating to the selection process of Civil Judge issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
The court noted that the principles governing a recruitment process with regard to determination of a cut-off are well settled and it is for the Authority to fix the cut-off date or age limit in accordance with the rules. The court, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rachna and others vs. Union of India and another held that unless the public policy is capricious and totally arbitrary, the Court cannot blindly stall the selection process.
Case Title: A Anand v. The Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has asked the CBI to register a case based on a private complaint alleging misappropriation of funds by a former officiating Director of Human Resources Development Center at Pondicherry University.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that though the CBI had sought prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Under Secretary to the Government had not responded to the request and later, after filing of the writ, had informed the CBI that the Executive Council of the University had decided not to grant sanction.
Case Title: Arunkanth v Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
Observing that the right to protest for a common cause is a fundamental right of each and every citizen of the country, the Madras High Court directed the authorities to give an appointment order to a man whose application to the post of Grade-II Police Constable was rejected on the ground that he had participated in protests against the NEET examination during his college days.
Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench said:
“The respondent authorities failed to consider the fact that there are no other criminal antecedents as against the petitioner and this particular crime has nothing to do with any criminal implication as far as the petitioner is concerned and he had only exercised his fundamental right to protest by participating in the protest organized by his fellow students and definitely, it will not have any implication as to the nature of the job for which he has applied to as Grade-II Police Constable,” the court said.
Case Title: A Lakshminarayanan v The Assistant General Manager
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
While setting aside a charge memo issued against an employee of the Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, the Madras High Court noted that every employee has a "right to vent" and the management could not take action against the employees for messages that were posted in a WhatsApp group chat expressing critical views against the management so long as such messages were otherwise within the legal bounds.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench held that though an employee was to show courtesy to a superior officer while gossiping privately, the superior officer may come in for all kinds of criticism. The judge added that when the management cannot interfere with gossip that takes place over a cup of tea, it could also not interfere just because the same exchange took place on a virtual platform.
Withholding Patient's Medical Information Will Amount To Professional Misconduct: Madras High Court
Case Title: Jothi v The State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court has recently noted that a hospital's failure to provide information pertaining to the treatment given to a patient would amount to professional misconduct and would result in tortious liability as it infringes the patient's right.
Calling for digital maintenance of records, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench also noted that a patient's right to get all relevant records pertaining to his or her treatment can be effectuated only if the medical records are maintained digitally.
Case Title: Manoj Immanuel v Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
Noting the need to protect the rich flora and fauna, the Madras High Court has directed the Central Government to take steps to relocate the 495 families, including 20 tribal families, residing in the Mudumalai Tiger Reserve.
The bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy refused to accept the contention that there was a paucity of funds and noted that when there was a primordial statutory duty, the funds available with the National Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) could itself be used for giving adequate compensation to the families.
Case Title: Lois Sophia @ Layis Shobia v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against Lois Sofia, arrested for raising slogans against the BJP government on board a flight in the presence of former Tamil Nadu BJP president and current Governor of Telangana and Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry Tamilisai Soundararajan.
Justice P Dhanapal of the Madurai bench has ordered quashing the proceedings against the research scholar.
In September 2018, Sofia, a research scholar from Canada was arrested after she shouted “fascist BJP government down, down” on board a flight in the presence of Tamil Nadu BJP president Tamilisai Soundararajan who filed a complaint.
Case Title: Dr. Gurubaran and others v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court has held that the Tamil Nadu government's decision to provide incentive marks to in-service candidates and allowing them to apply in the open category during PG admissions is not barred by any statute and that the same did not require any interference of the court.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that unless policy decision was shown to be manifestly arbitrary, the courts would be extremely slow in interfering especially when the matter was concerning the academic and educational field.
The court was hearing challenge to Regulation 9(4) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 insofar as it permits the State Governments to provide incentives to in-service candidates participating in the open category of Postgraduate Medical Admission Counselling.
Case Title: Kajendran v Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Madras High Court has observed that when a minor seeks to terminate a pregnancy arising out of a consensual sexual relationship, the registered medical practitioner may not insist on disclosure of the name of the minor for preparing a report under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act as sometimes the minor and their guardian may not be interested in proceeding further with the case.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan thus directed the Principal Chief Secretary (6th respondent in the case) to address the issue and evolve a procedure to strictly comply with the judgment of the Apex Court in Xvs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department wherein the Apex court had also ruled against the insistence of name.
Case Title: P Vigneshwaran @ Viduthalai Sigappi v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The Madras High Court recently stayed the criminal proceedings against Poet and Assistant Director P Vigneshwaran @ Viduthalai Sigappi for reciting a poem depicting Lord Ram, Lord Hanuman, and Lord Lakshman as manual scavengers.
Staying the proceedings in the FIR registered by Abhiramapuram police station, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that a prima facie case was made out.
The case against Vigneshwaran was that while participating in a function on April 30, 2023, he recited a poem where Lord Ram, Hanuman, and Lakshman were depicted as manual scavengers and Goddess Sita closes the manhole when the other three were working inside, thereafter fleeing to Srilanka leaving behind a note requesting the readers not to open the manhole.
Claiming that the poem had the potential to inflict mental agony upon a majority of Hindus and was an insult to Hinduism, a case was registered based on a complaint by Suresh Parthasarathy, leader of Bharath Hindu Munnani for offences under Sections 153, 153(1)(a), 295A, 505(1) and 505(2) of the IPC.
When Birth Certificate Is Produced, Passport Entry Must Conform To It: Madras High Court
Case Title: Abdul Rahman v The Passport Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has observed that though a passport is a solemn document, errors may happen and that when the birth certificate has been produced, the passport entry must conform to the birth certificate.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench observed as under:
“It is true that the passport is a solemn document and the applicant must offer correct particulars at the time of application. But some times, errors do happen. The petitioner has enclosed his certificate of birth issued by the competent authority and it is seen therefrom that the petitioner was born on 18.09.1960. When the birth certificate has been produced, the passport entry must conform to the brith certificate.”
Case title - Er.A.Kanagasabapathy vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court last week dismissed a PIL plea to regulate the entry of Kerala Politicians near the Mullaperiyar Dam (in Kerala's Idukki) and to assure the safety of the Dam.
"Apprehensions of threat to dam are unfounded": a bench comprising Justice SS Sundar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy said as it noted that the safety of the dam has been ensured by the Supreme Court of India.
Case title - B. Saravanan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Granting relief to a State Police officer against whom a 'desertion' order was passed by his department on account of his absence from service (as he had to take care of his wife who was expecting a child), the Madras High Court has emphasised the need for paternity leave legislation in India.
Highlighting the importance of the role of both, a father and a mother during the prenatal care and post-natal care days of a child, the Court observed that because of the challenges of nuclear families, it is high time for the policymakers to "recognise the right to paternity leave/parental leave" to the biological/adoptive parents as the basic human right of the respective prenatal/post natal child.
A bench comprising Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed thus while holding that the right to protection of life guaranteed to every child by Articles 21 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India "culminates" in the fundamental human right of the biological parents/adopting parents seeking maternity/paternity/parental leave.
Case title - Ramki vs. State [Crl.A.No.72 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Upholding the conviction of a man who sexually assaulted a 4.5-year-old girl, the Madras High Court recently said that "in an era when our President is a woman, we need to hang our heads in shame for such crimes being perpetrated on a daily basis".
"Every girl child is considered as a reincarnation of Goddess and unless this evil of sexual assault is eradicated with strict laws and effective implementation, our society could never grow into a safe and secure society," the bench of Justice R. Hemalatha observed.
In its order, the bench also noted that in a developing country, which is riddled with taboos and biases, when women are emerging out of the shell of ignorance and illiteracy, such incidents only make us feel that "the future of young girls is unsafe".
Case Title: Gnanasekaran Thiyagaraj v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person arrested in the process of further investigation after the court has already taken cognizance of the offence can file an application for statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC if he has been in custody for more than 90 days and the supplementary charge sheet has not been filed.
The court added that the term “accused if in custody” found under Section 309(2) of CrPC includes only persons who were before the court when it took cognisance of the case and not those accused who were arrested during further investigation.
Case Title: S Jarin Singh v Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court recently observed that a member of the armed forces is expected to have utmost principles of discipline and is expected to follow every command of his superiors without resistance.
“Any member of armed forces is expected to uphold principles of discipline to the utmost. There can never be any resistance shown to the superior or higher officer. The command is a command and should be followed even at the cause of personal suffering,” Justice CV Karthikeyan said.
The court also emphasised that a punishment of compulsory retirement did not attach any stigma and should not prevent a person from applying from a job elsewhere.
Case Title: Athipathi v. The Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
A refugee has to be housed in reasonably decent accommodation. The basic infrastructural facilities must be available. He or she must also have access to the fundamental amenities such as sanitation, health care, clean drinking water etc., the Madras High Court has held.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that,
"When the right to shelter and housing has been recognised internationally as a human right, it cannot be denied to the refugees living in a camp. A camp houses a few hundred families. There are women and young girls. Their privacy has to be ensured. Otherwise, there is no meaning in declaring privacy as a fundamental right," the court said.
The court added that though the refugees living in camps are allowed to pursue their avocations and earn a living, a lot of restrictions are put in place which hinders their right to work. Thus, the court said that it is time to recognise a refugee's right to work without restriction.
Case Title: The President v The District Collector
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court has directed the Cuddalore District Collector to remove the Panchayat President and other members of the Nainarkuppam Village for their transphobic letter and resolution against grant of patta land to Transgender persons in the village.
Justice SM Subramaniam also highlighted that the transgender persons have a right to reservation and it is time for the Tamil Nadu government to initiate steps to provide reservation to Transgender persons in the local body to ensure their inclusion in the mainstream society and for their democratic participation. As an initial measure, the court directed the Cuddalore District Collector to ensure that reservation is granted to Transgender persons in the local body.
Case Title: Vellingiri Hill Tribal Protection Society v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Joint Director of District Town and Country Planning to look into the documents relating to the purchase of land by Sadhguru's Isha Yoga Foundation in Coimbatore and verify whether necessary permissions were obtained for the construction of the Adiyogi Statue. The court also directed the authorities to take action if the permissions were not in order.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu took note of the status report filed by the Special Government Pleader informing the court that neither no-objection certificates nor permissions were obtained by the Isha Foundation.
Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v Digipe Fintech Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
In a setback to payments platform PhonePe, the Madras High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the company against a single judge order refusing to grant an interim injunction against alleged infringement of its trademark by DigiPe.
The single judge had said that PhonePe had failed to make out a prima facie case and that it had failed to disclose material facts concerning the dismissal of similar applications before other High Courts.
Dismissing the appeals, the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the appellant PhonePe had taken different stands before different courts on similar issues. The court noted that PhonePe was not the innovator of the” Pe” mark, and though it had claimed to have coined the distinctive “PhonePe” mark, the stand taken before the Delhi High Court was that the mark was coined by “CardPe”.
Case Title: ML Ravi v Chairman and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court on Friday orally remarked that the plea seeking to revoke the U/A Certificate issued for the Rajnikanth-starrer film "Jailer" was misplaced and bereft of public interest. The court also remarked that the plea appeared to be publicity interest litigation.
Division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu dismissed the plea as withdrawn.
The Petitioner, ML Ravi, an advocate by profession had approached the court claiming that the movie, which had been given a “UA Certificate” by the Central Board of Film Certificate, thus allowing children below 12 years of age to watch the movie with their parent's guidance, is in fact vulnerable to the youth and children, given the violent actions depicted in the film.
Case Titile: O Paneerselvam v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by expelled AIADMK leaders seeking a stay on the operation of the General Council resolutions by which they were dismissed from the party.
The appeals were preferred by O. Panneerselvam, P.H. Manoj Pandian, R. Vaithilingam, and J.C.D. Prabhakhar against a single judge order rejecting their application against the party resolution dated July 11 2022 by which they were removed.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that after going through the impugned resolutions, it did not find any prima facie case for a grant of relief as claimed. The court noted that it did not find any reason to interfere with the convening of the General Council or the resolutions by which the appellants were expelled from the party and the ones through which the post of General Secretary was revived.
Formulate Rules To Govern Matrimonial Websites: Madras High Court To Centre, State
Case Title: Prasanna Chakravarthy v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Noting that there are no rules, regulations or even Standard Operating Procedures for online matrimonial websites, the Madras High Court has directed the Central and the State governments to take initiation for formulating rules to govern such website and to provide penal provisions for suppressing material facts.
Justice RMT Teeka Raman also noted that since e-medium is different from a magazine, the particulars given by a prospective person in the matrimonial advertisement need to be verified before registration of the profile. The bench also directed that documents of proof be made compulsory for registration of the profile. It thus directed the State Government to formulate a regulation to ensure that specific information is provided on the websites.
Case Title: V Perumal v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
The Madras High Court recently lamented that though the framers of the Constitution dreamt of an egalitarian society where people irrespective of their religion, caste, or sex, would be treated equally, some people even today indulge in producing false caste certificates for seeking employment and education, thus depriving opportunity to the deserving.
Justice N Mala noted that it was because of people like this, that Dr. Ambedkar's dream of achieving a casteless society was still a dream.
Justice Nisha Banu also lamented such fraudulent certificates for public administrations and said that delayed verification and complexity of the best known methods added to the challenge.
Case Title: H Raja v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
While refusing to quash the proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party's National Secretary H Raja for his derogatory remarks against EV Ramasamy, K Karunanidhi, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, officers of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and their wives, the Madras High Court observed that Raja had a habit of making such irresponsible and damaging comments.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that when a person in power expresses anguish, he must be careful of every word uttered and must refrain from making reprehensible or scandalous remarks.
Case Title: N Mahendran v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the removal from service of a man who had obtained a compassionate appointment through suppression of facts, observing that he did not deserve any sympathy.
Justice CV Karthikeyan criticised the manner in which the man had obtained a certificate claiming that his family was indigent by suppressing material facts and went on to get employment based on the certificate.
Case Title: Murugan N v Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court on Thursday disposed of a plea seeking to confer Bharat Ratna posthumously on the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late M Karunanidhi.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice C Kumarappan of the Madurai bench observed that the court could not consider the request as it could not issue a direction to the executive to confer an award to a person.
“Such a direction would be beyond the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution”, the court said.
Case Title: Tmt M Nithya v The Head Master and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
In a pertinent judgment, the Madras High Court has ruled that government servants working in the State are governed by the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules and not the Maternity Benefits Act 1961. The court thus observed that such employees could not seek maternity leave for a third child as a matter of right when the State policy restricts the same.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed as under,
“...the facts of the present case that the Petitioner is having three biological children. When the state policy and fundamental rules restrict the maternity leave for 3rd child, this Court is of the view, as the matter of right the Petitioner cannot seek maternity leave on the basis of the Maternity Benefit Act. In view of the same, the impugned order has to be sustained.”
The court, looking into the laws and rules, held that the petitioner was governed only by the Fundamental Rules since the Maternity Benefit Act was not applicable to Government servants.
Case Title: Zee Media Corporation Limited v Mahendra Singh Dhoni
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by Zee Media against a single judge's order rejecting its challenge to the interrogatories raised by cricketer MS Dhoni in an ongoing defamation suit between them.
Interrogatories are covered under Section 30 and Order XI, Rules 1 to 11, 21, and 22 of the CPC. They are formal written questions that are administered by the parties to the opposite party with the leave of the Court. The objective is that parties disclose their case and ascertain the truth in a fair manner.
A bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that interrogatories should not be narrowed down to technical limits but should be used liberally, to serve the ends of justice. It remarked.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Principle Sessions Court in Chennai to hear the bail plea moved by Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that since the offence alleged to have been committed by Balaji was one punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, only a Special Court designated under Section 43(1) of the Act by the Central Government could try the same.
Case Title: Mohammed Hasan Kuthous v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court has held that an order of trial court allowing an application filed by the prosecution seeking extension of remand of accused is not an interlocutory order but a final order and the same is amenable to appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel rejected the prosecutor's argument that an order acceding to prayer for extension of remand is an interlocutory order. Prosecutor argued that while an order rejecting the extension of remand is appealable, an order allowing the same is not appealable. However, the court did not accept this view and referred to the age old adage “Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander too”.
Case Title: S Ramachandran v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court on Tuesday left it to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu MK Stalin to take a call on the continuation of Minister Senthil Balaji - who is now under custody in a money laundering case - in the cabinet as a Minister without portfolio. The court added that Balaji's continuation in the cabinet without a portfolio did not serve any purpose and did not auger well with the purity of administration.
Calling it a “constitutional travesty” the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that the founding fathers of the constitution may not have comprehended corrosion of governance to such an extent that a elected member in custody was rewarded with the status of Minister.
Case Title: Dr. L Murugan v Murasoli Trust rep by its Trustee R.S. Bharathi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Madras High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a defamation case filed against Union Minister Dr. L Murugan by DMK mouthpiece Murasoli Trust. The court also directed the Special Court to complete the trial within a period of three months.
The trust had filed a private complaint against the Minister under Section 499 and Section 500 of the IPC, for the remarks made by him in a press meet. It was alleged that the Minister's statements gave an impression that the Trust was being run on Panchami land (land that is distributed for Dalits in Tamil Nadu).
While refusing to quash the proceedings pending before the Special Court, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that in cases of defamation, the statements had to be tested only from the point of view of common prudent man and that the statements put forward by the Minister would be understood as questioning the right and title of the property.
Case Title: M Jeya v The Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court recently directed the State government to pay a sum of Rs 25 Lakh to the parents of a 17-year-old boy who passed away as a result of alleged custodial torture by the Police.
Justice P Dhanabal added that since the trial against the erring officials was pending, the question of recovery from the erring officials could be decided by the Government.
The court noted that since it was prima facie established that the deceased died only while he was in custody of the police, it could invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to award compensation.
Case Title: A Chinnaponnu v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
The Madras High Court has made it clear that even though married daughters are equally eligible to be considered for compassionate employment, their appointment has to be considered on touchstone of criteria like dependency, financial status of the bereaved family, etc.
Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji observed as under,
“Undoubtedly, the principle of gender equality and non-discrimination is of paramount importance. We accept that no contrary view can be taken in considering compassionate appointment for married daughters of the family unless they satisfy other criteria viz., dependency, financial status, etc., as laid down in the relevant Rules or Act,”
Case Title: Senthil Mallar v The Commissioner of Police and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
The Madras High Court recently remarked that every person in a democratic person is entitled to his reservations and opinions about a particular ideology and no one can be compelled to follow the same ideology. The court also added that only dialogue could ensure scope for evolution in the Society.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution also included freedom to hold opinions and it could not be prevented on the mere apprehension that there may be law and order problem.
Using Political Power To Grab Land From Common Man Is Daylight Robbery: Madras High Court
Case Title: R Girija v S Ramalingam and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
“Using political power and influence to grab land from a powerless common man is nothing short of day-light robbery" the Madras High Court recently observed.
Justice SM Subramaniam added that large-scale exploitation of political power especially in land-grabbing matters would pave the way for unhealthy democracy and that this political power must be used for socially beneficial issues instead of personal gains.
The court also noted that politicians play an influential role in the lives of the common man and it was imperative that this power not be misused. The court noted that instead of having a positive and healthy impact on the lives of the people, the politicians these days were using their political connections to create nuisance to the public.
Case Title: Malaravan v Praveen Travels Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
The Madras High Court has recently observed that under the Motor Vehicle Act, the limitation period will not be applicable to claims made when the police have already filed a report under Section 159 of Motor Vehicle Act.
The provision stipulates that during investigation police officer shall prepare an accident information report to facilitate the settlement of claim and submit the same to the Claims Tribunal.
Justice V Lakshminarayan observed that when an FIR has already been registered in connection with a motor accident and details of the same is sent to the jurisdictional Tribunal, a claim petition has to be treated only as a reminder to the court to call for the FIR and register the same as Claim Petition.
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
Case Title: EDAC Engineering v. Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd, Application Nos 2080 and 4609 of 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
The High Court of Madras has held that once a party has unconditionally accepted the fees fixed by the arbitral tribunal during the arbitral proceeding cannot later challenge the fees of the arbitral tribunal by filing petition under Section 39(2) of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose clarified that as per Section 39(1) of the Act, the arbitral tribunal possesses a lien on the award to cover any outstanding arbitration costs, and it has the authority to withhold the award's delivery until these costs are settled. Additionally, the Court emphasized that once a party unconditionally accepts the fees set by the tribunal during arbitration, they cannot later challenge the fees as unreasonable and request the release of the lien under Section 39(2).
Case Title: Dr. V. Kalanidhi v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
The Madras High Court recently directed DMK MP Dr. V Kalanidhi to vacate the Government Land, where he was running a private hospital, within one month and directed the government authorities to initiate actions to recover all; lawful dues from him as per law.
Justice SM Subramaniam rejected Kalanidhi's submission that the land was “Grama Natham” which he had acquired from Vendors who were the owners of the property and hence the Government did not have any right over the land. The court noted that the land had been classified as “Government Puramboke” land and thus, the MP was encroaching on the land.
The court added that even assuming the land was not reclassified as Government Puramboke land, the Grama Natham lands were meant for housing the poor and could not be used for commercial purposes. Thus, the court noted that the Government was duty-bound to regulate the Grama Natham lands for the benefit of homeless poor people without any discrimination.
Case Title: SV v. MR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
While refusing to interfere with an order of maintenance made by the Family Court, the Madras High Court has observed that a husband is liable to pay maintenance to his wife and child even if he is on an academic break to pursue a Ph.D.
“The amount awarded in our opinion would be just about sufficient for sustainance of one human being at the cost of living today. Merely because the petitioner has taken a study holiday or an Academic break, his duty to maintain his wife and child cannot take the back seat,” the court observed.
Case Title: Selvam v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
While allowing the plea of a life convict prisoner to go on ordinary leave for 40 days, the Madras High Court emphasized that the fundamental rights of a prisoner do not end at the prison gates. The court noted that the prisoner had sought leave to make arrangements for the admission of his children and to repair his homestead both of which were covered by the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Shakthivel also emphasized that the rules governing leave were subordinate legislation that could not interfere with the constitutional powers of the court especially when it pertained to Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Mariappan v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court has recently observed that though there is a statutory presumption with respect to the guilt of an accused under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), this presumption will not operate when the prosecution has failed to prove some foundational facts with respect to the case.
Justice K Murali Shankar thus acquitted a man, Mariappan, convicted under the Act after noting that the prosecution had failed to prima facie prove that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl.
The court also lamented that the police had failed to identify the real culprit even after knowing that the accused was not the biological father of the child born to the victim. The court added that it was painful that the police had stopped their investigation with the accused, because of which the real culprit was roaming in the society.
Noting that no child should be allowed to be bastardized, the court directed the police to proceed with further investigation to find out the real culprit within a period of four months. To negate the possibility of implicating other innocent persons by the police agency, the court also directed the police to conduct DNA test on the suspected accused without arresting them, and proceed with law only if the test proves positive.
Case Title: Ramya S Moorthy v Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court recently observed that the time limit of two months prescribed under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 for filing a counter-statement to a notice of opposition would run from the date of receipt of the E-mail and not from the date of sending the E-mail.
While Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act says that the applicant should send the counter-statement of the grounds for application within two months of “receipt of notice”, Rule 18(2) of the Trade Mark Rules 2017 says that the document would be deemed to be served at the time of sending the e-mail.
Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy said Rule 18 created a legal fiction with regard to service of notice and was not in consonance with Section 21(2) of the Act. Considering that the substantive right of an applicant was at stake, the court concluded that the time limit would run from the date of receipt of the email.
Case Title: Davidraj v Palanivel
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a client who had been proceeded against the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a complaint by a lawyer for dishonor of cheque by observing that a fee, which is per se illegal as per the Legal Practitioners Rules, will not be a legal claim and a legal liability could not be fastened upon the client to pay the same.
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai Bench thus quashed the proceedings before the Fast Track Court in Madurai after observing that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the client would be an abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: S Zahir Hussain v The State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
While setting aside a preventive detention order made by the State for detention of a lawyer in connection with smuggling under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, the Madras High Court noted that the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention had snapped.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel noted that while the proposal was made by the Sponsoring Authority on November 6, 2010, the detention order was made by the Detaining Authority only on December 30, 2010, after nearly eight weeks. Thus, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others, the court observed that the live and proximate link had snapped.
Case Title: C Raja v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
While quashing an FIR filed against an advocate for obstructing revenue officials from carrying out a survey, the Madras High Court noted that though the advocate had acted strongly, his intention was not to prevent the Government Officials from performing their duties but to protect and safeguard the rights of his client.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that since the legal profession involves fighting for client's rights, Advocates usually tend to act more aggressively even outside courts. He added that the demeanour of an advocate was always different from that of a layman due to the nature of his work which requires him to react to situations boisteriously.
Case Title: Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education v The Appeal Committee
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University to conduct special exams for the students of Arulmighu Kalasalingam College of Education who were admitted in the academic year 2021-2022, while the college did not have recognition.
Considering the plight of the students, the bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the university to conduct the examinations as soon as possible within a period of three months and to declare the results within a further period of two months. The court also directed the college to bear the expenses. The court thus set aside an order of the single judge imposing cost of five lakh on the college saying that the college should suffer the consequences of its actions.
Case title: H Kalyan Singh vs. Dr Nirmalkathri and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a Revision plea filed against a December 2016 order of the Magistrate Court in Chennai dismissing a complaint filed against former Congress MP Nirmal Khatri and ABP News for posting an alleged defamatory post against an RSS worker.
“In the considered view of this Court, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from apparent illegality or infirmity and it does not require the interference of this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction,” the bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed as it underscored that reviving the complaint at this stage would be like 'whipping a dead horse'.
Case Title: M/s. Hotel Saravana Bhavan v. The Additional Chief Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
While lamenting that lang grabbing by the powerful is an offence against the State and in turn an offence against the people of the State, the Madras High Court stressed on the need to bring in a legislation against land grabbing to ensure criminal prosecution against land grabbers.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that lands under Government custody had to be used for public welfare but some land grabbers were using the lands for commercial exploitation and personal gains using backhand techniques. This, according to the court is nothing short of “thieving” and such land grabbers should not be permitted to go scot-free.
The court also directed the State Government to appoint a High-Level Committee to identify grabbing of government lands, illegalities and irregularities in dealing with the Government property, recovery of arrears of lease rent, unlawful occupation of Government properties etc., and initiate all appropriate actions including Criminal prosecutions, to protect the financial interest of the State and to safeguard the poor and voiceless people of the State.
Case Title: SA Syed Shaik Alaudeen v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
While refusing relief to a lawyer seeking compensation for the injuries he sustained at the hands of the police in connection with a PFI march, the Madras High Court emphasised that law applies not only to the State machinery but also to individuals.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench was constrained to make the statement after noting that the petitioner and other members of the organisation had conducted march from a different site than which was allowed by the police and when the police rushed to the spot, instead of responding in a peaceful manner, the members had exhibited defiance. Thus, the court opined that the assembly was unlawful and the conduct of the organisers was illegal.
Case Title: Mr Badhrisheshathiri v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
The Madras High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against political commentator Badri Seshadri for making adverse comments about the Chief Justice of India for taking up suo moto cognisance of the violence in Manipur. Seshadri was arrested on July 29, 2023 and later granted bail on August 1, 2023 by the District Munisff-cum-Judicial Magistrate court in Kunnam.
Justice Anand Venkatesh, who was hearing a plea by Seshadri for quashing the criminal proceedings, observed that the judiciary has very broad shoulders to take on criticism unless they directly interfered with the administration of justice.
The court also said that Seshadri's comments had to be looked at from the context in which it was made and though he used some expressions which seemed like a verbal attack on the CJI, he had later filed an affidavit in court expressing regret for such statement.
Case Title: Kalyani v The Additional Director and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
Coming to the aid of a mother seeking a share of the terminal and pensionary benefits of her deceased son, the Madras High court observed that the mother, being a senior citizen and one of the legal heirs was entitled to a share in the terminal and pensionary benefits.
Though the Director of Ex-Service Men Welfare submitted that the deceased had nominated his wife to receive the death-cum-retirement benefits and gratuity under Rule Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules making the mother disentitled to claim any share, the court found the argument to be non-sustainable.
Justice Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench thus observed,
“The submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader is not sustainable, since the mother/petitioner, being a senior citizen and one of the four legal heirs of the deceased Subramanian, she is entitled to ¼ th share in the all the terminal and pensionary benefits of her son.”
Case Title: Saibunisha (Died) and Another v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Complying with an earlier order of the Supreme Court and in the interest of criminal justice system, the Madras High court has directed the Principal Secretary, Home Department and the Director General of Police to record statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC using audio-visual electronic means, at least in matters involving serious offences.
The court noted that in order to facilitate recording true version of witness' statement and to prevent growing tendencies of witnesses being threatened, induced, influenced etc, Section 161 CrPC was amended to record statements using electronic means. However, noting that the same was not being implemented the court made the direction.
Case Title: Mrs. Pista Kanwar v The Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
While setting aside the acquittal of a man in a case involving death of his wife by self-immolation, the Madras High Court has observed that the husband's illicit relation with his elder brother's wife would amount to cruelty on the wife within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC.
The High Court disagreed with the view taken by the trial court that such relation was only immoral and did not amount to cruelty. The court added that when such illicit relationship was happening inside the house under the pretext of “motherly affection” and which was witnessed by the victim herself, the trial court had erred in rendering such a find.
Case Title: Vinothini v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
The Madras High Court has made it clear that the habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of a person who is accused of committing offences under the Schedules Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not a 'connected proceeding' for the purposes of Section 15-A(3) and (5) of the Act.
The Sections make provision of notice and opportunity of hearing to the victim for any Court proceeding connected to his/her case, including bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused.
Court held that habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy available under Article 226(1) of the Constitution and thus, would not be covered under “proceedings” under the SC/ST Act.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel also observed that though sub-section 5 of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act talks about connected proceedings, such proceedings would mean conviction, acquittal or sentence and will not cover “connected proceedings”.
Case Title: Swamiji v The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
Granting compensation to man whose son died due to electrocution while on a temple pilgrimage, the Madras High Court emphasised that as per the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, the local body was obligated to make arrangements for the well-being of the devotees.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench noted that the municipality could not remain content with the collection of license fee and tolls and that it is duty bound to make arrangements for the pilgrims without fear of violation of secularism.
Case Title: Sri Kamatchi Amman Devasthanam v Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Wakf
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court has directed two BJP MLAs from Puducherry and their family members to return vacant possession of a temple land allegedly grabbed by them illegally, to Sri Kamatchi Amman Devasthanam.
Justice SM Subramaniam also asked the father-son duo, A John Kumar and Vivilian Richards John Kumar, to subject themselves to probe being conducted by the Crime-Branch of Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) to initiate action under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. This was after Court formed a prima facie view that the preliminary investigation conducted by the agency reveals involvement of criminality.
Case Title: Punjab National Bank v. R Lalitha and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
While dismissing an application filed under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act to reject a plaint on the ground that the court's jurisdiction was ousted, the Madras High Court observed that the civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted when the remedy sought cannot be effectively addressed by the Tribunal.
Justice RN Manjula noted that the case, which involved rights relating to property could be proved only through an exhaustive trial which was possible only before the Civil court and not the tribunal.
Case Title: Dr. Krithika B v. Additional Chief Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
The Madras High Court recently observed that the state authorities including the Home department, transport department and police are bound to ensure that stickers and artifacts having “Emblem”, “G”, “Govt of India”, “Government of Tamil Nadu”, “High Court”, “Police” are not used on private vehicles.
Calling such monitoring a continuous process, Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed as under,
“Monitoring and survey of such vehicles is a continuous process. The respondent authorities are bound to ensure that the stickers and artifacts containing “Emblem”, “G”, “Govt of India”, “Government of Tamil Nadu”, “High Court” and “Police” and such other institutions, are not being misused and upon detection of the same, action is required to be taken by the authorities.”
Case Title: P Arunachalam(Died) and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court on Friday (September 29) dismissed the appeals preferred by 126 forest officials, 84 police personnel and 5 revenue officials against their convictions and sentence for various crimes that took place in Vachathi, in Dharmapuri District of Tamil Nadu. Coincidentally, the Sessions Court judgment finding the accused guilty was also passed on September 29 in the year 2011.
Justice P Velmurugan called for stringent action against the then District Collector, District Forest Officer, and the Superintendent of Police.
The bench also directed the state to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakh each to the rape victims, of which 50% was to be recovered from the accused who were convicted for the offence of rape. The court also directed the state to give suitable employment to the victims whose houses were destroyed by the officials.
Case Title: BSF Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court recently observed that it could not treat retired personnel from the Border Security Force (BSF) as Ex-Servicemen for extending the benefits of exemption and concession granted to Ex-Servicemen as per the The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, for the benefits of purchase and consumption of liquor in the State.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that as per the existing Act and Rules, the term “Ex-Servicemen” did not include personnel who retired from the para-military force and it was for the Government to make such amendments.
Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v M/s. Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court has recently granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Sangeetha Hotel chain, thus restraining its former franchisee from using marks like 'GEETHAM', 'GEETHAM VEG' , 'SANGEETHAM', or any GEETHAM or SANGEETHA formative marks or such similar marks.
Allowing an application filed by Sangeetha, Justice PT Asha observed that a prima facie case was made out and the balance of convenience was in favour of Sangeetha. The court was also satisfied that there was some suppression on the part of the respondents and some of their actions had created confusion in the mind of the public.
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.
Case Title: Ilampiraiyan v Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court recently observed that while taking cognisance of a complaint under Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate could not look into the veracity of the witnesses. The court added that at the cognisance stage, the Magistrate could only check whether prima facie materials were available to constitute an offence or not.
Justice P Dhanabal of the Madurai bench relied on an earlier decision of the High Court in Mukesh Jain S/o.Prem Chand vs. Balachander and observed that at the cognisance stage, the Magistrate had to look into the complaint and other documents along with the sworn statement to see if a prima facie case was made out.
Case Title: IDFC Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings against the IDFC as the department failed to produce any new or tangible information to justify the reopening of the assessment.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has observed that the information already on file that was examined in the first instance cannot satisfy the legislative requirement under Section 148 Explanation 1, which calls for the department to have such evidence that implies the income has escaped assessment.
Case Title: The Chennai District Collector and Others v T.V.S.Jaya Perumal (Died)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a family struggling to secure family pension for the past 36 years. The court also observed that the authorities' conduct in making the family run from pillar to post for the past 36 years during which time the wife of the deceased employee had also died was not merely unlawful, arbitrary but “inhuman”.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice C Kumarappan also directed the State to make amendments to existing laws or bring in effective mechanisms to the existing laws to see that the retirement cum death benefits are paid to the families within a period of six months.
The court thus opined that the authorities could take the present case as a model case to streamline the issues pertaining to settling family pensions and to bring in a mechanism in tune with the existing laws.
Case Title: N Ponnupillai v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Noting that due respect must be shown to the departed souls who worked as frontline workers during COVID-19, the Madras High Court recently directed the State to pay just and adequate compensation to the family of the deceased family.
Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench observed that the compensation of Rs. 50,000 which was already paid to the family of the man, who was serving as a Scavenger in the Municipality during COVID-19 was not sufficient. The court thus directed the authorities that the issue shall be considered in light of any existing scheme and an enhanced compensation may be given respecting the departed soul.
Case Title: G Venkatesh v Bridge Federation of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
While refusing to interfere with an order denying permission to an Overseas Citizen of India to participate in International Bridge tournaments on behalf of the Bridge Federation of India, the Madras High Court observed that the policy framed by the Central Government clearly stated that only Indians could participate in such tournaments and in such cases, the courts could not be called upon to interfere.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji thus refused to interfere with an order of the single judge dismissing the writ filed by the overseas Indian citizen seeking to be treated on par with NRIs.
The court also observed that as per the notification, the overseas Indian citizens were given the same privileges of a foreigner only for specific clause and in the present case, the petitioner Vignesh did not fall in any of the clauses and thus he was not entitled to any other right or privilege that an Indian citizen or a Non-resident Indian enjoyed.
Case Title: Arjunan Sampath @ Arjun Sampath v The Sub-Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court has quashed the proceedings against the President of the Hindu Makkal Katchi party Arjun Sampath pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam for violating the Code of Conduct during the 2019 Parliamentary Elections.
It was alleged that on April 5, 2019, Arjun along with his driver were canvassing votes for their political party without seeking any prior permission and had thus violated the Code of Conduct and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. As per Section 4AA (1-a) of the Act, no person shall affix to inscribe or exhibit any motor vehicle, any poster or any effigy, or any bill, notice, document, paper or other thing containing any words, signs, or visible representation. Thus, the vehicle was seized and handed over to the police and a case was registered against the duo.
Justice D Nagarjun of the Madurai bench, however, observed that the offences under the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 will not be attracted in the present case as the police had failed to produce any poster, banner or bill which was allegedly affixed on Sampath's motor vehicle.
Case Title: R Kumaraguru, Ex MLA v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
The Madras High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to AIADMK MLA Kumaraguru after noting that the MLA had tendered a public apology on October 9th to Chief Minister Stalin and State Minister Udayanidhi Stalin, for making derogatory remarks against them.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that considering the public apology and the fact that Kumaraguru had immediately shown regret for his speeches, anticipatory bail could be granted.
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.
Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Expert Committee For Monitoring Rogue Elephant Arikomban
Case Title: Praveen Kumar v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking monitoring of the rogue elephant Arikomban and to forbear the authorities from using tranquilizers on the elephant.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan took note of the submission made by the authorities that all necessary steps were being taken to monitor the movements and health of the elephant at Periyar Tiger Reserve and dismissed the petition.
The petitioner, Praveen Kumar from Kerala had filed the plea to forbear the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Chief Conservator of Forest and Field Director from using tranquilizers to prevent Arikomban from entering into agricultural lands and to monitor his activities with the help of a satellite radio collar. The petition also called for the appointment of an expert team including Adivasis to monitor his movements and to pave pathways into deep forests
Case Title: Shreya Bhattacharya v Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Coming to the aid of a class 8 student, the Madras High Court recently directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to relax the age-criteria and to give admission to the petitioner student.
Justice N Seshasayee observed that an admission guideline regarding age restriction was only a guideline of the school and did not have the force of a statute. The court further held that the could not be seen as "commandments of solomon" and must be construed reasonably especially when its strict compliance brought hardship.
The court also observed that Kendriya Vidyalaya's policy putting age-bar for young children in Classes 1-11 and lifting the age-bar for students in Class 12 who were nearing adulthood was both baffling and disturbed the conscience of the court.
Case Title: Dr.J.Kaja Moinudeen v The Authorization Committee (Transplantation)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that as per Section 9(3) of the Transplantation Of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Rules 14 and 19 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, transplantation has been permitted from non-relative donors and hospitals denying such transplants is plainly illegal.
Justice N Seshasayee also commented that the apprehensions of the hospitals is mostly due to inadequate awareness of the law on the subject. The court was thus of the opinion that proper legal education on the subject was necessary for physicians and hospitals and the government had to ensure the same.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Football Association and Others v Pennar Junior FC and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
The Madras High Court recently appointed an administrative committee headed by Justice AK Rajan (Retd) and consisting four other members to look into the affairs of the Tamil Nadu Football Association till a new administrative committee was appointed.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq was hearing an appeal preferred by the association again the order of a single judge finding it guilty of wilfully disobeying an earlier court order with respect to the management of the association and conduct of election to the association. Noting that disputes between the associations were depriving opportunities for young players, the court stressed that sports symbolises the spirit of brotherhood, tolerance, mutual respect, leadership quality, command and communication, fostering the spirit of accepting victory and defeat as one and the same.
Case Title: Dr Vinith v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a Doctor allegedly for causing the death of a patient due to a hair transplant.
Justice Sivagnanam said the matter needs to be adjudicated on the facts of the case which the High Court could not do under Section 482 CrPC. The court added that questions such as fitness of the centre to do hair transplants and competency of the doctor to perform the surgery had to be looked into, which required enquiry. Thus, finding that the plea did not meet the parameters for quashing the proceedings as laid down by the Supreme court, the court dismissed the petitions.
Case Title: Mr K Ramachandran v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to consider permitting the screening of the upcoming Vijay starrer 'Leo' movie from 7 a.m. instead of 9 a.m.
Justice Anita Sumanth made the directions on a plea filed by K Ramachandran, producer of the film seeking permission for screening of a special show from 7 a.m. and to permit an additional special show on the date of release at 4 am.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu All Village Panchayat President Welfare Association v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
While hearing a plea seeking to give powers to the Panchayat Presidents to invite and accept tenders in the Jal Jeevan Mission scheme, the Madras High Court commented that work in such schemes falls within the domain of the local bodies and the panchayat presidents should not be bypassed and reduced to the level of a rubber stamp.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus took a different view than the one already taken by a single judge pertaining to the same facts. The judge, however suggested that since a single judge had already rejected a plea in this regard, it was not appropriate for him to allow the petition and thus directed the registry to place the papers before the Chief Justice to take a call on the matter.
Case Title: Raja Desingu v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
While directing the police authorities in the State to grant permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to carry out route marches, the Madras High Court observed that the State's decision to deny permission in the first instance was against the secular and constitutional principles in the State.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the state had denied permission to RSS by merely stating that there were other structures and places of worship in the intended route which was against the constitutional principle of Secularism.
Case Title: Sutherson v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High Court recently directed the trial of a murder case to be conducted inside the prison premises keeping in mind the life threat to the accused and the victims in the case. Noting that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary remedies, the court added that its powers were not fettered and could be used in extraordinary situations.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan was hearing an appeal by one Sutherson against the rejection of bail by the Special Court in Thoothukudi. The allegation against Sutherson was that he was involved in the murder of one Muthukumar, a practicing advocate in the Thoothukudi and the Tirunelveli Bar Association.
Madras High Court Refuses Bail To Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji On Medical Grounds
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
The Madras High Court on Thursday rejected the bail plea by Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June this year in connection with a cash-for-job money laundering case.
Justice G Jayachandran dismissed the application made by the Minister seeking bail on Medical grounds. The court observed that Balaji's medical condition was not one that could be taken care of only if he was released on bail.
The court also added that Balaji's present position as a Minister without portfolio, abscondance, and non-cooperation by his brother and co-accused Ashok Kumar and the attacks on the income tax officials during the time of the raid would all lead to a conclusion that he could directly or indirectly influence the witnesses.
Case Title: B Mubeena v The State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court has granted interim bail to SA Basha, founder of the banned terrorist organization Al-Ummah and one of the convicts in the 1998 Coimbatore Blasts case.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan decided to grant him interim bail for a period of 3 months after noting that he is bedridden and undergoing treatment in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. The court thus granted bail on the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Considering that Basha was taking treatment for his illness, the court also deemed it fit to dispense his reporting before the local police station. The court however directed the State authorities to submit a report regarding his conduct before the expiry of the three-month period and asked Basha not to leave the State of Tamil Nadu without informing the local police station in writing.
Case Title: N.Uganchand Kumawat v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
The Madras High Court recently emphasised that as per Section 52(A) of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, the samples have to be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate and merely producing the samples before the court after seizing it is not sufficient to fulfil such condition.
Justice P Dhanabal thus set aside the conviction of a man under the Act as the prosecution agency had failed to follow the procedures laid down under the Act and by the Apex Court.
Case Title: M/s Jayapradha Cine Theatre v. Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
The Madras High Court has refused to suspend the sentence against actress and former Member of Parliament Jayaprada and others in a case pertaining to non-payment of dues under the Employee State Insurance Act.
Jayapradha and other partners of the Jayaprada Cine Theatre were sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000 in April this year by a Metropolitan Magistrate Court. Though they had sought for suspension of sentence, the Principal District and Sessions Judge had dismissed the applications.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the appellate court was right in refusing to suspend the sentence when the accused had not surrendered or appeared before the trial court on the date of judgment. Looking into the history of the case and the conduct of the case, the court observed that the track record of the case justified the order.
Case Title: G.K.Reddy Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Madras High Court has directed the income tax department to lift the attachment of the pension account of the assessee considering his age and ailment.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq passed this order noting that the entire pension amount, with arrears, is lying in the bank account of the appellant or assessee. It is also seen that only a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 lying in that account relates to other amounts.
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.
Case Title: Dr.Pradeep Vasudevan v The State of Tamil nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
The Madras High Court recently observed that the period of quarantine during the covid duty rendered by post graduate medical students will be considered to be a part of the bond period.
Justice Anita Sumanth observed that the quarantine period was nothing but an extension of the covid duty itself and thus gave relief to a student who wanted his quarantine period of 150 days during the covid duty to be included in the mandatory bond period.
Case Title: Enforcement Directorate v TTV Dinakaran
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Madras High Court recently observed that the term 'decree' or 'order' used in the Presidency Town Insolvency Act 1909, is not limited to a decree of the civil court but would include an order passed by an empowered authority under a statute after following the adjudicatory process.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Kalaimathi were hearing an appeal preferred by the Enforcement Directorate against an order of a single judge setting aside an insolvency notice issued to former Tamil Nadu MLA TTV Dinakaran. The court also observed that the order passed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was one passed after proper adjudication and thus, the same would be an order/decree under the Insolvency Act giving rise to an enforceable debt.
Case Title: The Additional Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s.N.C.Alexander
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court has directed the customs department to release fresh apples imported from New Zealand on the furnishing of bank guarantees towards differential duty. The Madras High Court has directed the customs department to release fresh apples imported from New Zealand on the furnishing of bank guarantees towards differential duty.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that the nature of the subject goods, viz., fresh apples, which are perishable in nature and are meant for human consumption, made the court find it appropriate to order the release of the goods, however, subject to the condition that the assessee or respondent shall furnish a bank guarantee to the value of differential duty to be determined by the authority in order to safeguard the interests of the department.
Case Title: ML Ravi v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
While hearing a public interest litigation filed against the signature campaign launched by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against the NEET exam, the Madras High Court remarked that every political party has a right to agitate against something and the same could be interfered with only if it was against the public policy.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Advocate ML Ravi.
"A person may launch a campaign against anything. How can you oppose that. If a particular party wants to agitate against something, they have the right to do that. You can't have a problem with that. But if a decision is taken, which according to you is against the public policy then you can challenge that. There should be a limit to filing these petitions," the court orally remarked.
The court questioned Ravi on how he was affected with a political party carrying out a campaign. The court then directed Ravi to deposit one lakh rupees after which Ravi informed the court that he'll withdraw the plea.
Case Title: Capt.Dr.VRC.Pandiyan v The Chairman and Managing Director
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
The Madras High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Madurai to conduct an investigation into a notification produced by a litigant before it claiming he is an Additional Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench directed the Superintendent to verify the genuineness of a notification dated 19.09.2021, which the litigant, Captain Dr VRC Pandiyan presented before the court saying that he had been appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The court asked the Superintendent to take appropriate action against those responsible for fabrication of notification and to verify whether Pandiyan had availed any benefits out of the notification.
Case Title: BR Aravindakshan v The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to remove all unauthorized flag-poles erected on public roads and other public places and to prevent the erection of unauthorized flag-poles by political parties and other organizations in Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the petitioner, BR Aravindakshan had not given any details of alleged unauthorized erection of flag poles and had filed the plea only to ensure that flag poles are not erected in the future. The court thus observed that it could not entertain any petitions anticipating future contingencies.
The court also noted that the court had already passed orders with respect to erection of hoardings and flag-poles in 2019. The court added that if people continued to erect hoardings despite orders of the court, the same would be a contempt of court for which a contempt proceeding would be a better remedy.
Case Title: Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
While denying permission to conduct a meeting to eradicate “Dravidian Ideology”, the Madras High Court recently observed that no one had a right to propagate divise ideas and conduct meetings to abolish or eradicate any ideology. The court added that co-existence of multiple ideologies was the identity of the country.
Talking about the recent meetings held for eradicating “Sanatana Dharma”, Justice G Jayachandran added that the failure of police to take any action against Ministers and members of the ruling party who had made inflammatory speeches was a dereliction of duty.
The court also added that a person in power should be aware of the ability of speech to divide people and must behave responsibly and restrain themselves from propagating such views. The court instead suggested that such persons could concentrate on eradicating other social evils like intoxicating drinks, drugs etc.
Case Title: Ramar v State (and connected cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
The Madras High Court recently suggested that special courts be set up to deal with offenses relating to illegal mining and transportation under the Mines and Minerals Act.
The court noted that presently the Principal District and Sessions Court assumed jurisdiction under the Act which was already accumulated with a number of cases besides administrative work. The court thus opined that for better implementation of the provisions of the Act, special courts could be constituted and suggested the Government to look into the same.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench made these observations after it was informed by the Director General of Police that from 2015 to May 2023, a total of 59,105 cases were registered under the Act and 63,542 vehicles that were involved in the transportation of illegal minerals had been seized. However, the court was informed that the confiscation proceedings were initiated against only 2,218 vehicles and completed only 385 cases. The court thus remarked that there was a requirement to complete the trial and confiscation proceedings in a timely manner.
Case Title: Venu Srinivasan v Rangarajan Narasimhan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
The Madras High Court recommended a two-week social media detox to a temple activist asking him not to make any posts or comments on social media and imposed a fine of Rs 2000 on him for his distasteful tweets against an industrialist.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice N Mala was hearing a contempt petition filed by industrialist Venu Srinivasan who informed the court that the temple activist, Rangarajan Narasimhan, was continuing to make derogatory comments against him on social media platforms in spite of an earlier order restraining him from making such comments.
Case Title: The Secretary v Elephant G Rajendran and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
A division bench of the Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of a single judge criticizing the Madras Bar Association and its membership policy and imposing a fine of five lakh on the association for denying drinking water to a lawyer.
The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice K Rajasekar allowed the appeal preferred by the association against the single judge order.
The single judge had heavily criticized the bylaws of the association and observed that the bylaws were formulated in such a manner that ordinary Advocates found it difficult to get membership thus resulting in class discrimination. The judge had also noted that since the association was functioning inside the court premises and enjoying all the benefits including free electricity, such elitism could not be allowed in a public place using the money.
Case Title: M.Kalpana v The Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
Coming to the aid of a candidate whose answer paper was invalidated for writing “Jai Hind” at the end of an essay, the Madras High Court recently observed that writing Jai Hind did not invalidate the essay and it was in fact a patriotic slogan which summarised the essence of the topic.
Justice Battu Devanand of the Madurai bench observed that observed that Jai Hindi which meant victory to India was a commonly uttered slogan whenever patriotic fervour was invoked to the motherland. The court also noted that since the essay was to be on the importance and conservation of natural resources, writing Jai Hind was very relevant and appropriate to the question and it could not be treated as an impertinent remark.
Case Title: Mrs Nirosha v Principal Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the wife of Tamil Nadu BJP functionary Amar Prasad Reddy seeking to forbear the State from detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Detention Act.
Justice G Jayachandran found the plea to be premature after taking note of the Public Prosecutor's submission that the State police had no proposal, as of now, to detain Amar under any prevention laws.
Amar, who is handling the Sports and Skill Development Cell for the BJP Tamil Nadu, was arrested on October 21 this year in connection with the alleged attacking and damage of a JCB machine brought to remove the illegal and unauthorized flag poles outside the residence of TN BJP Chief K Annamalai.
Amar's wife Nirosha had approached the High Court with the present plea claiming that Amar was not present at the scene of occurrence and that he was arrested from his residence the following day without following any due process as stipulated under the DK Basu guidelines.
TN Law Regulating Online Games Won't Apply To Games Of Skill Like Poker & Rummy : Madras High Court
Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
The Madras High Court upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act 2022. The court, however, added that the Act would not be applicable to games like rummy and poker, which were games of skill and will be applicable only against games of chance.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu thus partly allowed an application filed by the online gaming companies challenging the Act. The online gaming companies had challenged the Act, which came into effect on April 21. Earlier, an attempt was made to challenge the ordinance, but the court allowed the parties to withdraw the same as the Act was yet to be notified.
The court said that while it could not allow the prayer to set aside the Act in its entirety, the provisions of the Act should be restricted to games of chance. The court added that games like rummy and poker were games of skill and thus, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to these games. The court also observed that while the government could regulate the games by restricting the time spent playing the game, setting age-limits etc on both games of skill and chance, it could not totally ban games of skill.
Flagpole Case: Madras High Court Grants Bail To BJP Functionary Amar Prasad Reddy
Case Title: S Amar Prasad @ Amar Prasad Reddy v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Madras High Court granted bail to BJP leader Amar Prasad Reddy arrested in connection with the alleged attacking and damage of a JCB machine brought to remove the illegal and unauthorized flag poles outside the residence of TN BJP Chief K Annamalai.
Justice CV Karthikeyan granted bail to Amar and other accused after recording their undertaking to pay an amount of Rs.12,000 towards the damage caused to the JCB. The court also asked all the accused to submit the undertaking within 3 days of being released on bail.
Interest Income From Co-Operative Bank Entitled To Income Tax Deduction: Madras High Court
Case Title: Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Limited v Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
The Madras High Court recently clarified that interest income received from a Cooperative bank is also entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that as per the Act, a Co-operative society is defined as a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act 1912. Thus, even a cooperative bank would come within the meaning of a Co-Operative society and be entitled to deduction.
Case Title: Tribhuwan Kumar Tiwari v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madras High Court quashed the detention order passed against Youtuber Manish Kashyap under the National Security Act for allegedl circulating fake videos of migrant workers from Bihar being attacked in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The Madurai bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel dropped the proceedings against Kashyap under the National Security Act but allowed the proceedings under the Information Technology Act to continue. While quashing the detention, the court observed that the authorities had not followed due procedure while detaining Kashyap under the NSA Act. The court thus directed Kashyap to be set at liberty if he was not needed in connection with any other case.
Case Title: KR Jayagopi v The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu Lokayukta and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta rejecting a complaint to enquire into alleged corruption in the procurement of gift hampers for Pongal in the year 2022. The Lokayukta had, while rejecting the complaint, observed that it could not entertain the complaint as it fell within Section 13(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act 2018 read with Rules 24(4) (a) to (d).
Justice N Seshasayee observed that the exception would be applicable only when the issue fell within a contract or working terms of a contract. The court added that the present complaint was one that alleged corruption in the procurement of the gift hampers which would come within the purview of the Lokayukta.
Case Title: R.Revathy Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court has held that income tax adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent of each other; the pendency of one does not affect the other.
The bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan has observed that the adjudication proceedings and the criminal prosecution are independent of each other, and the pendency of any adjudication proceeding is not a bar to proceeding with the prosecution.
Case Title: ITC Limited v Britannia Industries Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with an order of a single judge injuncting ITC Limited from selling their “Sunfeast Mom's Magic Butter Cookies” in a blue wrapper similar to that of Britannia Good day biscuits.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy however, allowed the company to sell its existing stock of products packed in the offending blue color wrap.
Brittania had approached the court claiming that ITC was selling its priducts under the brand name “Sunfeast” in an identical blue colour trade dress/wrapper as that of Britannia and was thus trying to cash in on Brittania's goodwill and reputation. Brittania claimed that the defendant was selling their product in red colour wrapper and only recently had started selling their butter cookies in blue color wrapper in South India with a dishonest intention to get unlawful gain.
Case Title: Ringfeder Power Transmission India Private Ltd v Rajesh Mootha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
The Madras High Court has observed that when a built suit agreement does not confer any vested right over the property or gives possession of the property, the document will be stamped under Article 5(j) of Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and not under Article 5(i) of the Act.
Justice Abdul Quddhose relied upon the Apex Court decision in Food Corporation of India and others vs. Babulal Agrawal and observed that when no possession, right or title had been passed at the time of execution of the contract, the contract was only an executory agreement and not an agreement creating rights in the immovable property.
Case Title: M/s.Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
The Madras High Court has allowed Parle Agro's petition challenging the classification of flavoured milk.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the GST Council cannot impose the wrong classification of “flavoured milk” as a “beverage containing milk” under the residuary item "non-alcoholic "beverages" under Subheading 2202 90 30 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The court held that the GST Council is merely recommendatory. It is for the government to fix appropriate rates on the goods that are classifiable under the Customs Tariff Act, of 1975. As long as the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is adopted for the purpose of interpreting Notification No.1/2017-CT(Rate) dated June 28, 2017, classification has to be strictly in accordance with the classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, irrespective of the fact that concessions were given under the earlier regime by the Central Government under Sections 5 and 11C and Section 4A of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Case Title: M/s.Shewil Trading Company Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
The Madras High Court has directed the state tax officer to investigate the misuse of login IDs by unknown persons facilitating tax evasion.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the petitioner alleged that the petitioner's login ID was misused by a third party, who filed returns and passed on a huge input tax credit to the third party.
The court held that the Commercial Tax Department shall coordinate with the rest of the respondents and investigate the complaint of the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 18 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till the investigation is completed, all revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. If the complaint of the petitioner turns out to be untrue or was intended to facilitate fraud being committed using the login ID of the petitioner, the assets of the petitioner shall be brought to sale.
Case Title: Mohamed Irfan v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
While granting bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Madras High Court recently observed that merely threatening a person by claiming to be associated with an ISIS terrorist will not be a ground to hold that the person was supporting the terrorist organization. The court added that though such threats would be an offense, it was not an offense under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan also observed that the materials produced by the prosecution did not show an intention to support the terrorist organization but only showed that the appellant had handled the funds for the prime accused which was different than supporting a terrorist organization. The court added that for bail while alleging conspiracy under the UAPA Act, it was necessary to show exactly what the terrorist act was agreed to be committed.
Case Title: Dr. D.Hariharan and Others v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
The Madras High Court recently ruled in favor of granting incentive marks for medical practitioners and PG doctors who were engaged in COVID-19 duty in Government hospitals. The court also observed that the normal rule of "not changing the rules of the game during the course of the game" required a different consideration in view of the COVID-19 scenario and could not come in the way of granting incentive marks to Medical Officers who put their life at risk.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing the pleas filed by applicants who had participated in the recruitment to the post of Assistant Surgeon (General). The challenge was against the GO issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu dated August 17, 2023 deciding to grant incentives to those Health Professionals who worked for COVID - 19 related duty in regular Government appointments.
Case Title: Sushma v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Madras High Court has suggested the state to consider coming up with a procedure for registering the Deed of Familial Association, recognizing the civil union entered into between LGBTQAI+ partners in order to protect the fundamental rights of persons forming part of this community.
Justice Anand Venkatesh gave the suggestion in a plea filed by one Prasanna intervening in the ongoing hearing wherein the court has been passing a series of directions in an attempt to remove the stigma associated with the community and to ensure the welfare of the members of the community. The purport of this Deed, as suggested by the petitioner, is to ensure that two persons will have the right to live in a relationship.
The court, after looking into the recent Supreme Court verdict in Supriyo's case, noted that the Apex Court had clearly recognised the right to choice of two persons to have and live in a relationship and their right to protection and also their right not to be harassed. The court further observed that the “Deed of Familial Association” would only safeguard the rights that were already guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution.
Assessee Willfully Concealed Income: Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Prosecution
Case Title: R.P. Darrmalingam Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
The Madras High Court has dismissed the assessee's criminal original petition and held that the assessee was found to have suppressed and concealed the income, and the mens rea is categorically proved against the assessee since he failed to disclose a major portion of the income in his return.
The bench of Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan has observed that the provision makes it punishable under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non-filing of return within the stipulated time and wilfully concealing its true and correct income under Section 276C(1), and the petitioner cannot seek the indulgence of the Court to quash the entire proceedings.
Case Title: Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Versus PCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
The Madras High Court has allowed the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claim on the grounds that filing Form-67 after filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) but before the issuance of an intimation amounts to due compliance.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the returns were filed without FTC; however, the same was filed before passing the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the Act, and it will always be directory in nature.
Case Title: G.Mayakannan v. The District Collector
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
While dismissing a plea challenging the appointment of a woman to the post of Panchayat Secretary claiming that she was not a resident of that place, the Madras High Court observed that a married woman should not be presumed to have disowned the residential rights at her parents home on account of her marriage.
Justice RN Manjula stressed that retaining or waiving the residential address was completely at the will of the married woman and her family in certain circumstances. This will, along with a house was enough to provide her with a residential certificate, the court added.
Case Title: Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd v Dr Dheeraj Saurabh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
Granting relief to the Apollo group, the Madras High Court recently observed that the trademark “Apollo” was a well-known mark in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry and was entitled to highest level of protection as the public associated the name “Apollo” only with the healthcare group.
Justice Abdul Quddhose was hearing a plea by Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd to declare their “Apollo” mark as a well-known trade mark and to injunct the defendant, DR Dheeraj Saurabh, proprietor of New Appolo Hospital in Bihar from using their marks.
With respect to the grant of recognition as well well-known mark, the court observed that after amendment in 2018, the Trade Marks Rules empowered the trademark registry to grant recognition of a trademark as a well-known mark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. However, the court noted that the amendment had not taken away the court's power to grant such recognition. The court thus observed that the court and the registry had concurrent powers to recognise a mark as a well-known trademark.
Case Title: AM Paramasivan and another v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
While deciding a 23-year-old appeal against the order of Special Judge sentencing former Minister for Labour Welfare Late AM Paramasivam and his wife under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Madras High Court confirmed the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed on the minister's wife Nallammal.
Paramasivam was a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly during the period 1991 to 1996 and served as the Minister for Labour Welfare in Government of Tamil Nadu during 1993-1996. During this period, Paramasivam, along with his wife had acquired properties beyond their known pecuniary resources during the check period between 1991 to 1996.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the Minister, being a public servant had acquired wealth 400% above his known sources of income and his wife had lend her name in acquiring properties through undeclared sources thus committing the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: State v XXX
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that medical practitioners who continued to conduct Two-Finger Test banned by the Supreme Court will be guilty of misconduct.
The bench of Justice SS Sunder and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation while coming across a Medico-Legal Examination report in a rape case where a Two Finger Test had been conducted. The court expressed regret that even after directions from the Supreme Court and the High Court, doctors were still continuing to conduct the test.
2 Years Limitation To File GST Refund Application Is Directory & Not Mandatory: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus JCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
The Madras High Court has held that the 2-year limitation to file a GST refund application is a directory and not mandatory.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the terms used in Section 54(1) of the CGST Act ''may make application before two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed'', which means that the assessee may make application within two years, and it is not mandatory that the application has to be made within two years, and in appropriate cases, refund applications can be made even beyond two years. The time limit fixed under Section 54(1) is directory-like in nature and is not mandatory. Therefore, even if the application is filed beyond the period of two years, the legitimate claim of refund by the assessee cannot be denied in appropriate cases.
Case Title: M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills Versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
The Madras High Court has held that Section 245C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021) is read down by removing the retrospective last date of the 1st February 2021, as the 31st March 2021.
The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has observed that the Finance Act, 2021, was retrospective in nature. Those who have had a right to approach the Settlement Commission (ITSC) i.e., those who had a case pending against them, would have missed the bus by not actually filing the application before the ITSC as it was retrospectively made inoperative. Only for the action of filing the application, the circular extends the date by 30.09.2021, even though, as per the Income Tax Act, it was only 01.02.2021. When paragraph No. 4 categorically states that only those assessees who are eligible to file an application for settlement as of January 31, 2021, it cannot be said that it introduces an additional clause of eligibility that is not found in the statute. On the other hand, if only clause 4(i) is not there, it would render violence to the Finance Act, 2021.
Case Title: Manav Menon Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
The Madras High Court has held that prosecution under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable as the tax payable after crediting prepaid taxes was less than the prescribed sum of Rs. 3,000.
The bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan has observed that proviso (ii)(b) to Section 276CC takes care of genuine assessees who either file the returns belatedly but within the end of the assessment year or those who have paid substantial amounts of their tax dues by prepaid taxes from the rigour of the prosecution under Section 276CC.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Federation v Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court recently stressed on the importance of Trade unions and observed that unions were as important as a strong opposition in a democratic set up.
Justice R Hemalatha was hearing a plea by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Federation challenging the decision of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited to engage drivers and conductors through a man power agency to operate regular bus operations.
The court advised the authorities to adopt a more transparent and easier process to recruit drivers instead of venturing into the outsourcing mode through man power agencies. The court also allowed the plea and set aside the tender notification calling for employment of drivers and conductor.
Case Title: Gunasekaran v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
While dismissing a challenge made to the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, the Madras High Court observed that a person unauthorisedly occupying a land cannot claim protection under Article 21 of the Constitution when the eviction proceedings were as per law.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy also observed that the Act did not violate Article 19 of the Constitution as a right to reside and settle in any part of the country would not mean residing unauthorisedly. The court added that a person who unauthorisedly possesses a property could not say that he had a constitutional right to unauthorisedly occupy the land.
Madras High Court Stays ED Summons To District Collectors In Sand Mining Money Laundering Case
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court has stayed the operation of the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to the district collectors in sand mining money laundering case. The court has however allowed the investigation to go on.
The division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the interim orders in a batch of pleas challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to District Collectors in Tamil Nadu in an alleged sand mining money laundering case. The court granted three weeks time to the directorate to respond to the case.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Former MP TM Selvaganapathy In Cremation Shed Scam
Case Title: T M Selvaganapathy and Others v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of former Rajya Sabha MP T M Selvaganapathy in the cremation shed scam.
Justice G Jayachandran acquitted Selvaganapathy and set aside the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed by a special court for CBI cases in 2014. Selvaganapathy had lost his Rajya Sabha membership following the conviction.
The CBI court had sentenced Mr. Selvaganapathy, the then Minister for Rural Development and Local Administration; J.T. Acharyulu, former Secretary, Rural Development; M. Sathyamurthy, former Director, Rural Development; M. Krishnamurthy, retired project officer; and T. Bharathi to two-year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on each of them.
Case Title: Yohann J.Setna v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
The Madras High Court recently quashed a forgery case upon noting that the final report on the matter had been filed after an inexplainable delay of seven years. The court noted that the trial court should not have taken cognizance of the final report as the same was barred by limitation.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that the purpose of a speedy trial was to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing a positive obligation on the courts and the prosecution. In the present case, the court observed that when the delay was not due to the fault of the petitioner, allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: J Jayaraj and Others v The Chief Educational Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
The Madras High Court recently underlined that right to protect peacefully without arms was guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and was an integral part of a democratic country like India. The court added that right to protest was an integral part of speech and inherent facet of right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice L Victoria Gowri also noted that when attempts was made to constrain legitimate dissent arbitrarily, which in turn scuttled the democratic values guaranteed by the Constitution, it had to be dealt with iron hands.
Case Title: Lakshmichandra Harishchandra Sharma v Union of India and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
The Madras High Court has asked the Central Government to reconsider enhancing the retirement age of all Coast Guard staff from 57 years to 60 years. The court also set aside an order of the Defence Ministry rejecting a plea by Coast Guard members below the rank of Commandant seeking such enhancement.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy also gave liberty to the members of the Coast Guard to make representations and submit materials justifying how Ministry's rejection of the plea was incorrect.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by members of the Coast Guard challenging the Constitutional Validity of Rule 20(1) of the Indian Coast Guard Rules 1986 and an order passed by the Ministry of Defense refusing to enhance the age of retirement of members of the Coast Guard up to the level of commandant to 60 years from 57 years.
Case Title: Mangalam v. The State Government and Others, WP (MD) 21450/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
While dealing with a case relating to illegal quarrying, the Madras High Court recently remarked that law must be potent enough to deal with people in power and those having higher connections.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that law was not only meant to be used against ordinary citizens but against the powerful also, whenever they committed any illegal act. The court added that if no action was to be taken against such persons, the law will remain a damp squib.
The court was hearing a plea seeking action against a private individual (respondent No.9), alleging that he had been illegally quarrying the lands belonging to the petitioner without any valid permission.
Case Title: K Gopinath v District Collector
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
Upholding the tenets of religious harmony in India, the Madras High Court recently dismissed a man's review petition against an earlier decision which dismissed his plea challenging the construction of a mosque near a temple.
Noting that no new grounds were set up in the review, the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that an appeal could not be disguised as a review and that the jurisdiction of the court in the review was very narrow and could be exercised only if there was an apparent error.
Case Title: G.Selvamoorthy v The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
The Madras High Court has recently observed that in service jurisprudence when two interpretations could be given to rules relating to penalty and punishment, the one favourable to the employee should be given effect.
In allowing the plea by directing an enhancement in the petitioner's retirement benefits, Justice RN Manjula observed that since service jurisprudence was similar to penal jurisprudence due to the imposition of a penalty, such a view, akin to one taken in penal jurisprudence while giving the accused the benefit of doubt, could be imported to service jurisprudence as well.
Case Title: K Annamalai v V Piyush
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
The Madras High Court has recently stayed all further proceedings against Tamil Nadu BJP Head K Annamalai in the defamation case filed by one V Piyush.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that prima facie, a case had been made out to quash the defamation complaint, as Piyush failed to establish his locus standi.
The case pertains to alleged hate speech made by Annamalai against a Christian Missionary NGO. The leader is stated to have said that it was the Christian NGO that first approached the Supreme Court to ban crackers during Diwali.
In October this year, the Tamil Nadu Government had accorded sanction to prosecute Annamalai. In his legal opinion, State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah stated that Annamalai had intentionally and out of context uttered remarks about the Christian Missionary NGO which forced the missionary to file a petition before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: T Ganesan v Government of India and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Union and State Governments to treat a Sri Lankan repatriate man and his family as Indian Citizens and to grant them all reliefs as announced by the Government of Tamil Nadu for Sri Lankan repatriates.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench was hearing the plea of a man, T Ganesan, who came to India 33 years ago, seeking confirmation of his Indian Citizenship by the authorities. It was his case, that though he had been registered as an Indian citizen with an Indian passport, his status as a citizen was not being recognised by the Indian authorities.
In allowing the man's plea, the court noted that India had signed three repatriation agreements with Sri Lanka in which India was obliged to repatriate six lakh persons from Sri Lanka and grant them citizenship.
The court further noted that though half a century had elapsed since the numbers were drawn up, India had conferred citizenship to only around 4,61,639 Indian Origin Tamils and had still not fulfilled their treaty obligations.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v K Parvathy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (mad) 378
The Madras High Court recently observed that when special rules for recruitment to a particular post, had already granted a five-year age relaxation to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, further relaxation under the General rules was impermissible.
The Court was seized of appeals by the State, challenging an order of a single bench which had set aside the cancellation of the appointment of some individuals to the post of “cook” under the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department. In doing so, the single bench extended the maximum age limit for application from 35 years to 40 years for candidates belonging to the SC/ST community.
In allowing the appeal, a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice R Kalaimathi observed that such relaxation was beyond the scope of judicial review and the courts could not extend such age limits fixed by the employer under the statutory rules.
Case Title: S.Uttam Chand Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings as the petitioner had disclosed the information with regard to the sale of agricultural land, and all the particulars with regard to the sale of agricultural land were disclosed before the Assessing Officer in full extent.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that there is no failure on the part of the petitioner with regard to providing material facts, and the notice issued under Sections 148 and 149 of the Income Tax Act for reopening assessment for the Assessment Year 2013–14 is not sustainable, and the same is liable to be set aside.
Case Title: S Muthu Kumar v The Cabinet Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
The Government of Tamil Nadu recently informed the Madras High Court of the various schemes implemented in the State in compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court in National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India.
The submissions were made before the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice KK Ramakrishnan in response to a plea seeking the authorities to implement the NALSA judgment.
In its counter affidavit, the State informed the court that the Government has initiated many innovative steps for the welfare of the Third Gender such as Mobile Apps, Awards, Training programs etc. It was informed that the mobile app, created at a cost of ten lakh rupees was inclusive of information, education and communication activities for the welfare of the persons belonging to the third gender.
Case Title: M Palani v The State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Madras High Court recently observed that the orders passed under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are purely administrative in nature and cannot be challenged unless they are apparently illegal and passed without any application of mind.
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench dismissed a plea preferred by an accused seeking for transfer of his trial from one court to another, upon court pointing out that the impugned order was one passed by the Principal Sessions Judge in the ordinary course of business and there was no reason to interfere with the same.
Madras High Court Rejects VK Sasikala's Plea Against Removal From Post Of AIADMK General Secretary
Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Another v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
The Madras High Court rejected an appeal preferred by VK Sasikala against an order upholding her removal as AIADMK General Secretary.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice N Senthilkumar rejected Sasikala's appeal to be recognised as the interim General Secretary of the party.
Sasikala was appointed as the interim General Secretary of the party in December 2016, after the death of former Chief Minister and then General Secretary of the party J Jayalalitha. However, following her conviction and imprisonment in February 2017 in a disproportionate assets case, disputes arose in the party.
Following this, a general council meeting was held and the council decided to remove Sasikala as the interim General Secretary of the party. The council instead created two new posts- Coordinator and Joint Coordinator and appointed O Paneerselvam and Edappadi K Palaniswami to these posts respectively.
Case Title: S Jagathrakshakan and Others v The Special Director
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by DMK MP S. Jagathrakshakan challenging the proceedings initiated against him and his family under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ("FEMA").
Justice N Seshasayee observed that the objections raised by Jagathrakshakan could not be considered at the present stage, and allowed taking of all the defenses before the Adjudicating authority.
The allegation against Jagathrakshakan (and other petitioners) was that he had subscribed to 70 lakh shares in a Singapore-based company and later transferred those shares to his wife and two children outside India in violation of Section 4 of FEMA. Following this, the Authorised Officer (Adjudicating Authority of ED) moved the Commissioner of Customs under Section 37A of the Act for seizure of Jagathrakshakan's assets.
Case Title: K Krishna and Another v The Managing Director and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
In a significant move, the Madras High Court has asked the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to treat AYUSH treatments on par with Allopathy treatments while reimbursing expenses incurred during treatment.
Stressing the work done by AYUSH doctors during the pandemic, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that during COVID-19, traditional medicines were being recommended for infected persons and effective treatment was given under AYUSH, which provided relief to many patients.
The court thus opined that it was not reasonable to deprive policyholders of getting reimbursement for the amount spent on availing AYUSH treatments under their medical insurance.
Case Title: P.Maheswari v The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
The Madras High Court recently observed that granting of a community certificate or its cancellation would have larger repercussions as it would affect the future generations of the family concerned and as such the authorities are expected to be more cautious while granting the certificate.
In setting aside the cancellation of the petitioner's community certificate, a bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan stressed that the authorities must go through every document carefully and remove ambiguity as any ambiguity would result in the denial of the basic right of the person seeking the community certificate.
Case Title: S. Panneerselvam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by some building owners challenging decision of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited ("TASMAC") to close 500 TASMAC shops being operated in their leased-out properties.
Questioning the petitioners' locus standi, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that they were not the right persons to challenge the government decision and though the pleas were filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the motive seemed to be to achieve personal interest.
Case Title: State v RS Rajesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
While dealing with a case relating to the unauthorized dumping of bio-medical waste from Kerala to Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court recently noted that suitable amendments needed to be brought into the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (Preventive Detention Act) so that those violating the provisions of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016, are covered under the definition of “Goondas” under the Act.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench was informed that the Advocate General had given a positive opinion to bring the violators under the Detention Act for strict action to be taken against them. Noting that the steps taken by the government were appreciable, the court added that the state was expected to take necessary steps to bring suitable amendments to the Act.
The court was hearing a revision petition filed by the State challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, allowing interim custody of a vehicle involved in dumping of medical waste.
Case Title: Thol Thirumaavalan v The Principal Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
The Madras High Court has held that while appointing Law Officers to the High Court and its Madurai Bench, merit should be the sole consideration, without any scope for reservation- vertical or horizontal.
In dismissing the pleas, a bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the appointment of Law Officers by the government was not a civil post and the officers were not employees of the Government. Thus, while selecting law officers, the Government had to select the most competent, capable, and meritorious lawyers to represent them as Law Officers.
The court noted that the government, being the custodian of public interest was obligated to protect the public interest to the optimum extent and in the best possible manner. To fulfill this duty, the Government was mandated to engage the best officers based on 'merit.'
Case Title: C Mani v Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a medical claim could not be rejected merely on the ground that treatment was undertaken in a non-networking hospital.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that when there was no dispute with respect to treatment and the treatment was found to be genuine, there was no reason to reject the medical claim.
Case Title: Sri Subramaniyaswami, Thirukovil Sundhanthirai Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha v. The Commissioner, HR&CE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
The Madras High Court has restrained the state government from conducting practical training under a Chief Priest for candidates who have completed courses from Archakar Training Schools run by temples under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.
During the course of the proceedings, Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench remarked that temples are abodes of deities where devotees come to offer worship and should not be treated as training centers or laboratories.
Case Title: Asif Musthaheen v State, Criminal Appeal No.542 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
While dealing with a bail plea of a man arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Madras High Court noted that the question of whether killing a Hindu religious leader would itself constitute a terrorist act was debatable.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that as per Section 15 of the UAPA, the act must have been done with an intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with an intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country. In the present case, the court noted that there was no evidence to conclude that there was a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. G Sampath Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
The Madras High Court sentenced IPS officer Sampath Kumar to 15 days simple imprisonment in a contempt plea moved by cricketer MS Dhoni.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan however suspended the sentence for 30 days to allow Sampath Kumar to file an appeal.
Dhoni contended that the IPS officer made disparaging and derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court which is capable of shaking the faith of the common man in the judicial system and thus constitutes criminal contempt.
Case Title: R Sumathi v Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government and police authorities to give accelerated promotion to Sumathi, a Grade I Constable who was assigned to collect information about the notorious Forest Brigand Veerappan.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the authorities had already given accelerated promotion to another Sub-Inspector of the Special Branch assigned with a similar task. The court noted that Sumathi had taken a larger risk and performed a better duty and thus declining promotion to her would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: J Vivek v Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a PIL seeking CBI enquiry into the arrest of Ankit Tiwari, the Enforcement Directorate Officer arrested by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for allegedly collecting Rs 20 Lakh bribe from a government doctor threatening to reopen a case against him.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel dismissed the plea and remarked that the State investigating agency had the power to investigate when the officers in the central force were engaged in such wrongdoings.
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a plea moved by Kerala State Road Transport Corporation against the registration of the word mark “KSRTC” by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that as per Section 33 of the Trade Marks Act, Kerala SRTC had acquiesced in the use of the mark by the Karnataka SRTC. Similarly, relying on Sub Section (2) of Section 33, the court added that Karnataka SRTC was not entitled to oppose the use of the earlier mark by Kerala SRTC. Thus, the court asked both the Public Sector undertakings to co-exist peacefully and continue their businesses.
Case Title: CSI College of Dental Sciences and Research v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
The Madras High Court has referred to the full bench the issue of whether the Government Order insisting on Minority Self Financing Education Institutions to fill up 50% of the seats based on the merit list prepared by the competent authority in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation case.
Justice Anand Venkatesh opined that the recent judgment of a division bench of the Madras High Court which had upheld the seat-sharing power of the State had not fully considered the judgment in PA Inamdhar's case, which, taking into consideration the judgment in TMA Pai, the Apex court had taken away the power of the State to fix quota for seat sharing.
Case Title: Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
The Madras High Court recently observed that in extraordinary circumstances, the High Courts had discretion to grant bail even to a person who is not an Indian Citizen.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan was hearing appeals preferred by persons whose bail was canceled by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act 2008. The court noted that bail was canceled for one of the appellants, Mohamed Rifas, alleging that he had suppressed his nationality and had obtained bail.
The court noted that even assuming Rifas was a Sri Lankan national, his liberty could not have been curtailed after 4 years merely because of an FIR. The court also noted the prosecution had not filed a petition for cancelling the bail immediately after the registration of FIR but had filed the application after 3 years without explaining the reasons for the delay.
Case Title: State v K Ponmudi and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
The Madras High Court has sentenced Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi and his wife Visalakshi to three year simple imprisonment and 50 lakh fine each in a disproportionate asset case.
Justice G Jayachandran gave 30 days to the parties to surrender and added that the parties could work out their remedies before the Supreme Court during this time. The court also said that any decision on an extension of the time would be considered later if the couple could not work out their remedies before the Apex Court. The court also remarked that if it was any other ministry the matter would have been different but the Minister had committed the offence being in charge of the Ministry of Higher Education which affected the future generation also.
On Tuesday, the court had set aside the acquittal of the Minister and his wife finding them guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. With this order convicting the Minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ponmudi will be disqualified as a legislator under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act 1951.
Case Title: C Alagappan v The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to producer Alagappan and his family in a cheating case registered by Actress Gauthami.
Noting that there was prima facie material, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the facts not only revealed cheating but also misappropriation and siphoning of funds for personal gains. The court also remarked that Alagappan and his family intended to cheat a damsel, already in distress who was trying to provide security for her daughter.
High Court Denies Bail To ED Officer Arrested By Tamil Nadu DVAC For Allegedly Taking ₹20 Lakh Bribe
Case Title: Ankit Tiwari v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected bail to Enforcement Directorate Officer Ankit Tiwari who was arrested by the Tamil Nadu Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing for allegedly collecting a Rs 20 lakh bribe from a government doctor by threatening to reopen a case against him.
Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench dismissed the bail plea moved by the officer.
Case Title: Eicher Motors Ltd v Nitin Service Point and Automobiles
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
The Madras High Court recently restrained a service centre from using the trademark “Royal Enfield” for selling or advertising its products or from replicating the look and feel of the exterior and interior of the authorized outlets of Royal Enfield.
Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that “Royal Enfield” was a well-known trademark as per the provisions of Section 2(1)(zg) read with Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act 1999. The court also directed the Registrar of Trademarks to notify “Royal Enfield” in the register of well-known marks.
Case Title: P Mohanraj v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
The Madras High Court recently directed the Madurai District Administration and the Municipal corporation to jointly conduct the Jallikettu festival in Avaniyapuram.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the festival should be conducted peacefully without bringing in religion and caste.
The court was hearing a plea moved by Mohanraj, a resident of Avaniyapuram area. Mohanraj had approached the court seeking directions to the authorities to conduct the festival. He claimed that several petitions had been filed before the district administration seeking permission to conduct the Jallikattu festival, which, if allowed, would create a law and order problem and hamper the smooth conduct of the festival.
Case Title: VBR Menon v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
The Madras High Court recently set aside a Government Order appointing the Transport Commissioner as the Appellate Authority under the Petroleum Rules.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that as per the new Petroleum Rules 2002, the Appellate Authority ought to have been the immediate superior authority to any District Authorities as defined under the Rules. Since the Transport Commissioner was not a superior authority, the court noted that the appointment would be against the rules. The court thus directed the State to appoint an appellate authority as per rules within a period of 12 weeks.
Case Title: Mansoor Ali Khan v Trisha Krishnan and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
The Madras High Court on Friday refused to grant leave to Actor Mansoor Ali Khan to file a defamation suit against actors Trisha Krishnan, Khushboo Sundar, and Chiranjeevi for their social media comments about the former.
Justice N Satish Kumar remarked that the actor had approached the court for publicity and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh to be paid to Adyar Cancer Institute. The court also remarked that it was normal for humans to react in the manner in which the actors had reacted when such derogatory comments were made against women and the same did not call for filing of a defamation suit.
Khan had made misogynistic and disrespectful remarks against his co-actor Trisha in a press meeting following the success of the Tamil movie “Leo”. The remarks were widely criticized with Trisha, Khushboo, and Chiranjeevi commenting on social media expressing their displeasure and condemning the statements.
Case Title: C.Chellamuthu Versus The Principal Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment order passed without considering the assessee's request for a personal hearing through video conference.
The bench of Justice S.Srimathy has observed that since it was a high-pitched assessment, the petitioner has sought a video conference hearing. Therefore, the non-granting of opportunity was clearly a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: The Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan Primary Handloom Weaver's Cooperative Society Ltd v Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
The Madras High Court recently suggested that benefits like flood relief, Pongal gifts etc could be directly paid to the bank accounts of the beneficiaries without making cash payments. The court remarked that rooting the payments through the bank accounts would minimize the chances of swindling of funds by those in charge.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy also observed that such acts would save valuable time of members of the Co-Operative Societies as they would not have to go through the process of approaching the society or ration shop to register and collect the money which would have caused them unnecessary hardship. The court added that when a way was available to minimize the mishandling of money, the Government and societies must follow the same.
Case Title: Pandiarajan C v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
The Madras High Court recently directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to conduct the Margazhi festival in the Arulmighu Chelliyaramman Temple in Virudhunagar District while ensuring that all the devotees including people belonging to the scheduled caste community are permitted in the temple.
The court passed this direction while hearing a plea of a man alleging that the scheduled caste members were not being permitted inside the temple.
Justice B Pugalendhi further directed the Tahsildar to ascertain if any issue of untouchability prevailed in the Village and submit a report to the District Collector for taking appropriate action. The court also stressed that no person or any group could restrain a person from performing his religious duties which was a right guaranteed under the constitution.
Case Title: University of Madras v Dr. UT Manisundar (Died) and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court recently directed the Madras University to frame statutes to govern the service conditions of its employees. The court added that it was painful that the University, with such a stature and standing and having been established a century ago did not have any such service conditions already in place.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu directed the University to frame the guidelines within six months and also directed the State Government to govern the service conditions of the employees. The court also pointed out that such regulation would not govern the teaching faculty as they are governed by the University Grants Commission.
Case Title: M/s.Cognizant Technology Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
The Madras High Court has stayed the tax demand of Rs. 9403.09 crore in the case of Cognizant Technology's Rs. 19,000 crore buyback dividend distribution tax controversy.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has directed that the assessee, Cognizant Technology, make a payment of Rs. 1500 crores in cash or give a letter to the bank to remit Rs. 1500 crores to the credit of the respondent or department from the fixed deposits available and furnish property security for the balance tax liability with interest and penalty to the respondent within a period of four weeks. On the payment and deposit of title deeds pertaining to the property, the department shall release the lien on the remaining fixed deposits lying in the banks.
Case Title: PK Mukmuthu Sha v PS Mohammed Afrin Banu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
The Madras High Court recently observed that although Islamic Law allowed a husband to have polygamous marriages, he was obligated to treat all the wives equally.
The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji thus confirmed a family court order allowing dissolution of marriage finding that the husband had treated the wife with cruelty by not treating her on par and equally with the second wife.
Case Title: R Suresh Kumar v The Principal Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
The Madras High Court recently upheld the State Government's power to appoint Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors under Section 24 (6A) of the CrPC. The court added that this power was dehors the regular cadre and the appointment of special Public Prosecutors for particular cases.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel was hearing a plea by Advocate, Suresh Kumar challenging the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors in District courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madurai bench. It was contended that the Government was appointing District Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors without taking recourse to recruitment of cadre Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors.
Case Title: A Vasanthi v S Jayakumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court recently directed the State government to re-look the scheme for payment of compensation to victims in hit-and-run cases. Noting that the compensation that was currently being awarded was terribly low compared to the compensation awarded to road accident victims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the court added that this prompted people to plant vehicles to claim higher compensation.
Justice R Subramaniam and Justice N Senthil Kumar also noted that in some cases, the police connived with the victims of road accidents as the investigation relating to road traffic accidents was not done as seriously as in other crimes and thus resulted in slackness. To avoid these situations, the court also suggested the Director General of Police ensure that FIRs are not closed for non-filing of final reports within the time prescribed under Section 468 of CrPC thus requiring the police to file a final report in all cases.
Empty Liquor Bottles Can't Be Included In Scrap, TCS Not Applicable: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
The Madras High Court has held that empty liquor bottles cannot be included in scrap, and TCS is not applicable.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the petitioner is neither the owner of the bottle nor generates scrap as is contemplated under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The activity of opening and uncorking is not a “mechanical working of material." Therefore, the invocation of Sections 206C, 206CC, and 206CCA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was wholly misplaced and unwarranted under the circumstances against the petitioner for the alleged failure to collect tax at 1% on 99% of the license fee payable to the government and 1% retained as agency commission.