Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 To 525NOMINAL INDEXS.Sarath Kumar v. The District Collector and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 278Ganesan v. SHO and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 279M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal Additional Director General, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 280Sankar...
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 To 525
NOMINAL INDEX
S.Sarath Kumar v. The District Collector and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Ganesan v. SHO and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal Additional Director General, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
Sankar v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
Dr G. Selvarajan v. Dr M.S Santhosh and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
G.Francis Raja v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
M/s.KTV Health Foods Pvt Ltd v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - Imports, Custom House Versus M/s. Mahadev Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Sridhar Versus The Superintendent of GST, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
S Krishnamurthy v. Dr Manivasan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
V.Krishnamurthy v. The State of TN and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. R Chitradevi and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
C.Soman v. The Secretary, HR&CE and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
Charu K. Bagadia Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(2), Mumbai, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
B.Ramprakash v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
O. Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
P.Velumani v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
C Sivakumar v. A Srividhya, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
V.S.J.Dinakaran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
K.Lal Bhagadhur Sasthri v. The Director of Medical Education and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
E.Seshan v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
C Joseph Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Ltd. and ors v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
Dr.Sreejith V.Ravi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
B.C. Mohankumar Versus Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
Bava Bahrudeen @ Mannai Bava v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
Asan Basha @ Ashan Batcha and another v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
K Vijayakumar v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Sathiya v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
Edappadi K Palaniswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Sudha Hospital v. The Director of Medical And Rural Health and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Kader Batcha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 316
Mr.P.Adhavan Seral v. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
Siva v. State by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
Jaisankar v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Irfana Nasreen v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
Sureshkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
R.Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 323
M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
Dr.R.Senthilkumar v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
S.Bhanupriya v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
P.Arumugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
P.Ranganathan and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
Vasmi Sudarshini v. The Sub Registrar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
P.Ganesan v. M.Revathy Prema Rubarani, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
S.Pongulali v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
Subburaj and another v. State and another , 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
Jayalakshmi v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The District Collector v. Mr R Vetri and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
Dr. Lakshmi v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
KL Prabakar v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
Azhagan @ Prabhu v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
White Cliffs Hair Studio Private Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
Karthika Agencies Export House v. The Commissioner of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
C Jagadeesan v. Additional Director General of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
Kannan v. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
J Thennarasu v. Anita Nalliah (and other connected cases), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
Aravinth and others v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
Natchal vs. V Chokkalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
R.Silambarasan v. Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
M/s. Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. versus Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB), 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 346
TJ Gnanavel and another v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
A. Viswanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
P Mihiran v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
V. Sounthar v. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
The Principal General Manager, BSNL and another v. The Administrator, ISHA Foundation, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
V Anusha v. B Krishnan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
Arul Daniel and others v. Suganya, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
M Raja v. Superintendent of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
O Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
Pastor V. Mariya Arockiam v. The District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
S Sasikumar v. The Vice Chancellor and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
Vinith Baid v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
K Muthu v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan v. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
Sathish v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
A Priyanka and others v. The Principal Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
U Manickavel v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry v. VK Sethukumar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
Air Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
Narayanan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
Subramanian P v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
M Sekar v. The District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
Sadam Hussain v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
Kiruthika Jayaraj and others v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
M/s Gupta Hair Products (P) Ltd. Versus The Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
V Kannan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
Woodlands Theatres v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
Dr. P R Subaschandran v. State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
K. Samad & Anr. versus Reliance Capital Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
S. Annapoorni v. K Vijay, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s.Ganges International Private Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
M/s. Sunwin Papers versus M/s. Sivadarshini Papers Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
India Yamaha Motor Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
B Shanmugam and others v. Karthik Dasari, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
Dr. A Packia Raj and others v. State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
Kamalanathan and others v. State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
Gokul Ajith and others v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
Kanthan v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
K.J.Suriyanarayanan v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
Jegan @ Ellamaran and others v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
M Satheesh v. Secretary, Revenue Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
Anandam Gundluru v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
Minor V Amrutha v. Council for Architecture and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
S.Ravi Selvan v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & customs and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
Andal Dorairaj & Ors. versus M/s. Rithwik Infor Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
TCI Freight Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
Kasthuribha and Indira Nagar Residents Welfare Forum v. Secretary, PWD, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
Nordex India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
Deepan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
B Ramkumar Adityan v District Collector, Thoothukudi, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
Registrar Judicial v. Shankar @ Savukku Sankar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
Innovators Facade Systems Ltd. versus Larsen & Toubro Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
Sowdha Mani v. State, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 410
M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
Manokaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
Dr. R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
V Anusha v. B Krishnan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
Gotla Alex Binoy v. IOP Chennai, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
Richa Sharma v. Ganesh Kasinathan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 416
SJ Sheik Abul Asim v The Registrar cum Chairman and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
Mohammed Siddiq v. Rasheeda Begum and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
P Senthil v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419
Kaladi v. District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
K Seeni Thevar v. The Joint Commissioner and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. versus J. Vengatesh & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 422
SEEMAN and others Vs. IOP, CHENNAI, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 423
Ravichandran v. State [Crl.A.No.65 of 2020], 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 424
Mr N Nagarajan v. Mr. Schekar Raj, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
T.Keeniston Fernando v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 426
Azizul Karim v. PS Kirubakaran and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 427
Murali v. The Inspector of Police ,2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
A. Irudayaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Adjudication Cell, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
Tamilselvi v. The Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 430
Asia (Chennai) Engineering Company Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 431
Abirami S v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, O.P. No. 298 of 2019, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
Vikas Rambal and others v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
P Rajendran v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
Mrs Karthika v. Superintendent of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 436
Shiva Sankar Baba v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 437
M/s.Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
P Ramkumar v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 439
Balamurugan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
Sahil Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 441
M/s ES Mydeen and Co. v. The Designated Officer and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v The Branch Manager, Bank of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
RKR. Gold P. Ltd Versus ACIT, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 444
The Union of India v. R.K. Constructions, Arb. O.P. (Com Div) No. 148 of 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
Rahul Dinesh Surana v. The Senior Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
Tamil Nadu Pondy Plastic Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s MAC Public Charitable Trust (batch), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
S Mukanchand Bothra (Died) and another v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
Senthil Balaji v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
Prasanna Gunasundari v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
K Kala v Secretary, Education Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
V Vijay and another v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
R Karthikeyan v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. The National Commission for Scheduled Caste and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
Lilly Pushpam v The Additional Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
N/s.Sayar Cars Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
Vinoth v Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
K Vinopratha v The Teachers Recruitment Board and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
Ramki Cements Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
Kirankumar Moolchand Jain versus TransUnion CIBIL Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
Sunitha v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
S Rajarethinam (Deceased) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
M/s. Polyhose India Private Limited versus The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
M/s. Deetech Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
S Muthumalai Rani v The Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
Arul Daniel v Suganya and other connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
S Jagathrakshakan v The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
V Senthil Balaji v Nirmal Kumar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
Viacom18 Media Private Limited v Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
M.R.Sivaramakrishnan v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
R Prema Latha and others v State and others, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 472
Dr. K Sri Hari Prashanth and another v The Government of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
M Muthu v Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
Mr.K Varathan v Mr. Prakash Babu Nakundhi Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
P Muthusamy and ors v Mrs P Vennila and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
M Kala and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
Vinoth R v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
Leelavathi and another v. Kamala and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
G Deepa and another v The General Manager and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
Rajamani v The Inspector General of Police (South Zone) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
KR Raja v State, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 482
Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
V Annadurai v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
SP Narayanan v District Collector, Thoothukudi, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 485
Arappor Iyakkam v The Director and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
A Veronica Mary v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
Latha Educational Society Kaniyamoor v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
Yuvraj and others v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
L Muruganandam v The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
Edappadi K Palanisamy v Arappor Iyakkam and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
U Akbar Ali v The State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
M Seetharaman v The Commissioner HR&CE and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 493
Tvl.Marimuthu Venkateshwaran Versus The Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 494
Murali Krishna Chakrala Versus Deputy Director, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
Ramesh Dugar v The Deputy Director and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 496
Shakil Ahamed v The Superintendent of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
Dr P Balakrishnan v The Tamil Nadu Medical Council and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 498
Karunyam Mission (Trust) rep. by Trustee v. H Ganapathy and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 499
J Nithya v The Director of Elementary Education, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
Ravi @ Virumandi v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 501
Molasi Primary Agricultural Versus ITO, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 502
Tax Recovery Officer Versus Union Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 503
Tmt.R.Nalini v Tmt.R.Nirmala, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 504
GP Bhaskar v Sumathi and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 505
Narendra Kumar Gupta v State rep by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 506
Isha Foundation v Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 507
S Selvaraj Simpson v The District Collector and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 508
M Ramya v N Satish Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 509
M/s. Raj Kishore Engineering Construction (P) Ltd. Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 510
Arvind Gupta v Punjab National Bank and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 511
M Hemalatha v The National Medical Commission and others and Minor K Megatharani v The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 512
V Anand v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 513
Thulasidass Adikesavan v. Inspector of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 514
ML Ravi v. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 515
R.Chandrasekar v. The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 516
Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Ltd., v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 517
Viacom18 Media Private Limited v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 518
S Lawrence Vimalraj v. The Registrar (Judicial) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 519
The Dean, Government Medical College Hospital and another v. Vijayalakshmi, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 520
P Vedachalam v. The Principal Secretary, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 521
Durga Lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam and another v. Idols of Arulmighu Siddhi Ganesar Natarja Perumal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 522
K.Balasubramaniam v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and others (batch cases) 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 523
S.Karthi v The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 524
Mir Anas Ali v State 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 525
REPORTS
Case Title: S.Sarath Kumar v. The District Collector and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court recently refused to issued directions for registration of a couple's marriage under the Special Marriage Act, stating that the conditions stipulated under Section 4 of the Act for solemnization of special marriages and the procedure thereof contained under Sections 5-13 has to be mandatorily complied with.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench observed that the marriage was performed on 10.06.2022. Only thereafter, notice was given under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, it was not solemnized as per the procedure laid down under the Special Marriage Act. The court observed that since the petitioner did not marry Lediya under the Special Marriage Act, he could not claim benefits under Section 4 of the Act.
Case Title: M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
The Madras High Court has ruled that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 cannot dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the Resolution Plan submitted by the assessee did not contemplate any concession from the Income Tax Department, even though notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee prior to the submission of the Resolution Plan.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan held that the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be interpreted in a manner which is inconsistent with any other law in the time being in force. Thus, the Court ruled that the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Ganesan v. SHO and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
While allowing a revision of the order of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application for further investigation, the Madras High Court recently observed that an application for further investigation can be made even after the commencement of trial. The court observed that bringing out the truth was of utmost importance and that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not put any fetter on the Police to conduct a further investigation after the commencement of trial.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that "Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., does not place any fetter on the Police to conduct further investigation in the case after commencement of trial and whenever they come across any additional information it is just and necessary that the same be brought to the notice of the Court"
The court also observed that by filing the revision, the de facto complainant was only bringing to the notice of the court that an erroneous order had been passed which according to him will lead to injustice. The same would, therefore, not amount to taking over of the prosecution.
Case Title: M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal Additional Director General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court has ruled that officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) are "Central Excise Officers" for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 since they are vested with the powers of Central Excise Officers by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC).
The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan, while considering a bunch of writ petitions, held that that the definition of "Central Excise Officer" in Section 2(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is expansive and that any person, including an officer of the State Government, who is invested by the CBEC with any of the powers of a Central Excise Officer under the Central Excise Act, is a "Central Excise Officer".
Case Title: Sankar v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
Observing that the accused must be given an opportunity to place his defence, the Madras High court recently allowed a POCSO accused's plea for recall of the victim for cross examination.
Justice V.Sivagnanam explained that Section 33 (5) of the Act was introduced only to ensure that the child should not be repeatedly called to the Court for examining as it would affect the mind of the child. In the present case, the victim was no longer a child and had attained majority. Hence, the victim could be called for cross examination to give a last chance to the accused to give his defence.
Madras High Court Confirms Order Of CB-CID Enquiry Into Medical Admission Scams
Case Title: Dr G. Selvarajan v. Dr M.S Santhosh and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
The Madras High Court on Monday confirmed the order of the single judge directing a CB-CID enquiry in a matter relating to series of scams relating to admissions to the medical courses in state.
The court passed the order on an appeal filed by Dr G. Selvarajan, former secretary of the Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, seeking a stay of a single bench order whereby the court had found Selvarajan along with others guilty of not conducting the mop-up counselling for the management seats.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the proceedings against the appellant could continue and that the court could only interfere with respect to the stoppage of pensionary benefits to the appellant subject to the outcome of the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were to be completed within a period of six months and no extention of time would be granted. The court also agreed with the direction of the single judge to pay Rs. 4 lakh each to the writ petitioners as the students were dragged to the litigation only for the reason that the writ appellant did not conduct mop-counselling.
Case Title: M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
While quashing the assessment order, the Madras High Court held that a demand for GST, interest, and penalty on Form DRC-01A cannot be made without the issuance of a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.
The single bench of Justice M.Nirmal Kumar has observed that the department/respondent has not followed the procedure. After the issuance of notice on Form DRC-01A, the department issued Form GST DRC-01A. If the petitioner has any objections and has not paid the tax as determined, a show cause notice must be issued under Section 74(1) of the TNGST Act. After receiving objections and giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the assessment order ought to have been finalised.
Case Title: G.Francis Raja v. State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
The Madras High Court recently allowed an appeal for quashing criminal proceedings against one Francis Raja accused of forgery and cheating. The court made the order after raising suspicion about the manner in which the further investigation was conducted, especially by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Justice Nirmal Kumar observed a lot of defects in the manner in which further investigation was carried out. The court observed that the Trial Court ought to have noted the manner in which the Deputy Superintendent of Police had carried out the investigation when the case had already been closed as a mistake of fact. Finding that the act of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not in a manner known to the law, the court remarked that the entire further investigation was a tainted and coloured one. The court thus ordered for quashing of the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate.
Case Title: M/s.KTV Health Foods Pvt Ltd v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Madras High Court has allowed a petition for quashing the tender process after the bidders approached the court citing Indonesia's ban on the export of RBD Palmolein and other palm products as a Force Majeure Event which made it impossible for them to complete the tender process.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Indonesia is a major supplier of Palmolein and therefore the ban order imposed by the said exporter itself has momentous consequences on the market.
The major factor that weighed with the court in granting relief was that the Tender Authority failed to open the bid on time and in the intervening period, the ban was imposed. Hence, it was of the view that though bidders offers constitute "Standing Offers" so as to bind them the moment the tenders were opened and accepted by the Respondent Corporation, however, this position will follow only where the tender had taken place as per the tender notification.
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - Imports, Custom House Versus M/s. Mahadev Enterprises
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
The Madras High Court bench of Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice S.Srimathy has allowed the re-exportation of betelnut products subject to the execution of a bond to cover the value of the goods.
The respondent/assessee imported betelnut products with a particular description. The department stated that the assessee had imported goods by mistake. The appellants sought to levy duty by classifying the goods under Chapter VIII. However, the assessee, stating that he cannot afford to pay tax under the classification proposed, submitted a representation to the appellants that the respondent may be permitted to re-export the goods to avoid tax being assessed under Chapter VIII.
The court noted that the respondent had no objection to submitting himself for enquiry. As a matter of fact, the investigation was going on and the respondent had already appeared before the investigative agency once. The court directed the appellants to permit the respondent to exercise the option as per the order of a single judge upon the respondent's executing a bond to the full value of the goods that are sought to be re-exported.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Harassment By GST Department
Case Title: Sridhar Versus The Superintendent of GST
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
The Madras High Court has dismissed the petition alleging harassment by the GST department.
The single bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the term "harassment" is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criterion. The petitioner, having given a complaint, is bound to cooperate with the police for an inquiry.
The court noted that the enquiry was pending and, without cooperating with the police, the petitioner could not seek such a blanket direction.
The court directed the police to issue a notice within two weeks to cause the appearance of the petitioner for enquiry. After enquiring the petitioner, the police may either register a complaint, if any cognisable offence is made out or close the complaint.
Case Title: S Krishnamurthy v. Dr Manivasan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
Elaborating on the thought that the measure of a society is the way in which it treats its most vulnerable, the Madras High Court recently issued a slew of directions to the State Government for proper maintenance of the Old Age Homes in the state.
These directions involved frequent inspections, compliance to the executive orders, registration of old age homes, maintenance of record, cancellation of registration in case of non-compliance, and establishment of a grievance cell.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad was adjudicating upon a contempt petition alleging that an earlier order of the Government directing the State to ensure proper compliance of the Government Order dealing with proper administration of Old Age Homes. While issuing direction the court also remarked that the society could not be positively transformed through judicial directions alone and the society had major role to play in ensuring the well being of the senior citizens of the country.
Case Title: V.Krishnamurthy v. The State of TN and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
Coming down heavily on a litigant for approaching the court on his whims and fancies depending upon the change in the political climate of the State, the Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea and imposed heavy costs.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that from the conduct of the Petitioner, it was clear that he would use this Court by filing Writ Petitions whenever the political climate was not in his favour and withdraw the same once it turns in his favour.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. R Chitradevi and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court recently observed that the relevant date while considering the pensionary benefits of Teachers would be the date on which the teacher entered into service and not the date on which the appointment was actually confirmed.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice N Mala relied on the decision in V.Vasanthi v. State of Tamil Nadu wherein, on similar facts, the court had held that the service period of teachers commences from the date of appointment and not from the date of approval, even though the monetary benefits start to accrue only from the date of completion of the training. Thus, the service rendered before the completion of training was also to be considered for pension.
Case Title: C.Soman v. The Secretary, HR&CE and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
Coming down heavily on a Petitioner seeking direction that the non-Hindus should not be permitted to participate in the Kumbabishegam festival of Arulmighu Adikesava Perumal Thirukovil at Thiruvattar, the Madras High Court held that a person belonging to any religion should neither be prevented nor prohibited entry into a temple.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice R Hemalatha approached the issue with a broader prospective. The court even went on to give examples of temples playing songs rendered by Dr. KJ Yesudas, a Christian by birth and how Hindu Worshippers visited Vailankanni Church and Nagore Dargah regularly.
Additionally, the court also pointed out that when such a public function like the Kumbhabhishegam of a temple is performed, it would be impossible for the authorities to check the religious identity of every person to permit entry into the temple.
Case Title: Charu K. Bagadia Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(2), Mumbai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
The Madras High Court invalidated the reassessment procedures on the basis that the reopening of the income tax assessment was conducted by an officer without jurisdiction.
The division bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad has observed that the ACIT Mumbai, who recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment, has no jurisdiction over the appellant, to issue a notice dated 28.03.2018. Though the files pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the appellant were transferred, the ACIT Chennai has no authority to continue the reassessment proceedings. Hence, the notice issued by him was also held to be invalid.
The court held that the notice issued by the ACIT Mumbai under section 148 as well as the consequential notice issued by the ACIT Chennai cannot be allowed to be sustained.
Efflux Of Time Valid Ground To Reject Claim For Compassionate Appointment: Madras High Court
Case Title: B.Ramprakash v. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court has observed that a compassionate appointment cannot not be claimed as a matter of right, and only if a person is entitled under the terms and conditions so specified, can the scheme be extended. The court observed that a compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment as no selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility is tested but the appointment is under exceptional circumstances i.e, the death of an employee.
Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that Providing compassionate appointment after a lapse of many years would not only defeat the purpose and object of the scheme, but also the penurious circumstances arose on account of the sudden death became vanished.
In the present case, the mother of the petitioner who was working as a Junior Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of Police died on 14.04.1995. The court also noted that the application was filed on 17.03.2004, i.e. after a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased. "Now after a lapse of about 27 years, the benefit of the Scheme could not be extended in favour of the petitioner", the court noted.
Case Title: O. Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the general council meeting of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that out of the 2665 members of the General Assembly, more than 2100 members have expressed desire to conduct the meeting. "In a democratic set up, the will of the majority will prevail", the court remarked.
The court also reprimanded the manner in which the petitioner was repeatedly approaching the court instead of participating in the meeting and putting forward his ideas. While allowing the conduct of the meeting according to law, the court also held that if anyone was aggrieved that the meeting was not conducted in accordance with law, they could move with a Civil Suit to that effect.
Case Title: S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Central Government has the liberty under the Extradition Act to choose any Magistrate to deal with the fugitive criminals. Such Magistrate need not be the one within whose jurisdiction the fugitive was apprehended.
Justice R Vijayakumar relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Rosiline George Vs. Union of India and others where the court had observed as under:
It is obvious from the plain language of Section 5 of the Act that the Central Government can direct any Magistrate to hold inquiry provided the said Magistrate would have had jurisdiction to inquire into the offence if it had been an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction.....The Act, being a special provision dealing with the extradition of fugitive criminals, shall exclude from application the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In any case, Section 5 of the said code gives overriding effect to the special jurisdiction created under any special or local laws. Sections 177, 188 and 190 of the Code have no application to the proceedings under the Act.
Case Title: P.Velumani v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
While quashing proceeding against an advocate for trespass, the Madras High Court observed that there is a recent trend where the advocates are implicated along with their clients for offences alleged to be committed by the clients with an object of achieving the intended result quickly. Such practice should be condemned and deprecated.
Justice Murali Shankar of the Madurai Bench observed:
"A new trend has been emerging in implicating the Advocates as accused along with their clients with ulterior motive of achieving the intended result quickly or immediately. The practice of implicating the Advocates along with their clients for the offences alleged to have committed by the clients is to be condemned and such a practice is to be deprecated."
Case Title: C Sivakumar v. A Srividhya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
While granting the relief of divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by his wife, the bench of Justice V.M Velumani and Justice S Sounthar recently observed that the act of wife suspecting the character of the husband and making allegations of extra marital affair in the presence of his colleagues would all amount to mental cruelty. The court also noted that the respondent wife had also given police complaint connecting the appellant husband with his female colleagues without specifically naming anybody. Such a police complaint would also amount to cruelty when it is not substantiated by any evidence. The court observed that during the time of separation, the respondent had removed her thali chain. The court opined that tying of Thali Chain was an essential ritual in marriage ceremony and its removal was an unceremonious act.
Case Title: V.S.J.Dinakaran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
While confirming the order of the single judge dismissing a challenge to the provisional attachment under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the Madras High Court held that there is no provision for providing an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses from whom they have collected the information regarding benami property, at the preliminary stage and therefore, the question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise at the preliminary stage. It is applicable only during the adjudicatory proceedings.
A division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad observed:
"The provisions of law mandate the respondent authorities to furnish such documents, particulars or evidence and provide an opportunity of being heard to the appellant only at the stage of adjudication proceedings; and there is no provision under the Act to provide an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the witnesses at the preliminary stage."
Case Title: Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
Dismissing a writ petition filed against a circular issued by the Union Bank of India taking away Leave Travel Concession for travel abroad, Justice SM Subramaniam observed that such decision was taken in view of the policy of the Government and in the absence of any statutory right, the same did not warrant interference. The court observed as under:
Concessions or facilities extended by way of Administrative Instructions beyond the scope of the rules cannot be construed as an absolute right to the employees.. Regulation 44 remains as the same, providing right to travel within India by the shortest route and therefore, the Administrative Instruction/ Circular, granting an additional facility by way of discretion to travel abroad is to be construed as concession/facility and cannot be construed as a service right, so as to enforce the same.
Case Title: K.Lal Bhagadhur Sasthri v. The Director of Medical Education and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
Observing that digitisation should lead to empowerment and not deprivation, the Madras High Court recently directed the Director of Medical Education and its Selection Committee to award a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to a student who failed to register himself for the NEET counselling process due to technical glitches and poor internet connectivity in his village, thereby losing admission prospects.
The Madurai Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the state had an obligation to compensate a student who was deprived of his entitlement due to "digital divide". The court also directed the Department to ensure that the selection procedure is conducted in such a way so that incidents like these do not occur in future.
Case Title: E.Seshan v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
The Madras High Court recently expressed alarm at the "day in and day out" illegal transportation and slaughter of cows and other animals in open places in the State.
A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that such situation can arise only when the administration fails to ensure compliance of the provisions of the statutory laws and does not take timely action against the defaulters.
The court was hearing a plea claiming that the provisions with respect to prevention of cruelty to animals namely the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001; the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, the Prevention of Cruelty in Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 etc were being violated in the state. The court found merit in the plea and issued a slew of directions for protection of animals
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
Madras High Court on Friday disposed of a writ petition filed actor Vijay challenging the order of Commercial Tax Department directing the actor to pay penalty for non-payment of entry tax for a BMW X5 luxury car imported by him from the United States in 2005.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar directed that the penalty for non-payment of entry tax could be levied only from 29th January, 2019 when a division bench of the court had directed that car importers were liable to pay entry tax. The court held that the penalty was to be calculated from the date of the order till the actual payment of the entry tax and not from the day of actual import.
Case Title: Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Ltd. and ors v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High Court recently imposed a penalty upon a company for allotting shares in violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and opined that though the charge was not separately framed under Section 24(2), the penalty was imposed by the authority keeping in mind the ingredients of the section.
The bench of Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus imposed two penalties on the company. Firstly, under the unamended Section 24(1) of the Act for allotting shares in violation of the act and secondly under the amended Section 24(2) of the Act for violating the directions of SEBI.
Case Title: Dr.Sreejith V.Ravi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court recently directed a doctor, who was in violation of his compulsory service bond executed for a period of 10 years, to either serve a bond period of two years or pay an amount of Rs. 50 lakh in breach thereof.
The court thus set aside the impugned order passed by the Dean of Tirunelveli Medical College wherein the college had called upon the young Doctor to pay a sum of Rs. 2 crores as damages for breach of bond condition.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench observed as under:
I am more than certain that when it comes recovery of bond amount, the authorities will adopt an uniform policy throughout the State. Either the petitioner has to serve for the bond period of two years atleast from now on or he has to pay the amount of Rs.50 Lakhs as fixed by the Government themselves. The impugned order is quashed with the aforesaid clarifications.
Madras High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Rejecting The GST Registration Application
Case Title: B.C. Mohankumar Versus Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the GST registration application. The court held that if the assessing authority is inclined to reject the application, which he is entitled to, he must assign reasons for such objection and adhere to proper procedure, including due process.
Case Title: Bava Bahrudeen @ Mannai Bava v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court recently allowed a criminal appeal and granted bail to a man booked by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) over his social media posts, allegedly instigating Muslims to act against Hindus and create communal disharmony amongst different religions.
The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira opined that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was involved in any violent activity and the only allegation was regarding uploading of Facebook posts. The court was also satisfied that the organization was not a terrorist organization. Considering that the appellant was in custody for more than 300 days and that there was no likelihood of the trial being completed at the earliest, the court was inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
Case Title: Asan Basha @ Ashan Batcha and another v. The State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to seven members of Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath who participated in the meetings against the recent Karnataka High Court Hijab judgment. The anticipatory bail was granted keeping in view that the prime accused had already been granted bail and after taking on record the joint affidavit filed by the petitioners tendering their unconditional apology.
Justice Murali Shankar of the Madurai Bench, while granting bail also observed that every person has a right to express their views but the same should be done in a good faith. In the present case, the speakers had in fact exceeded the limits and went to the extent of threatening the Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court.
Case Title: M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court recently set aside the order of conviction of one M/s. RK Emu Frams which was convicted under Sections 120B, 420, and 406 IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection Of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act after observing that the order of conviction was passed without hearing the appellant/accused.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the right of the accused to be represented was an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and that even when the counsel for the accused is absent, the Court should not remain helpless and must appoint an Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.
Case Title: K Vijayakumar v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
Coming to the aid of a 13 years old rape victim, the Madras High Court recently allowed termination of her 28 weeks + 3 days old pregnancy on a plea by the girl's father.
Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that even though the pregnancy had crossed the legal period of 20 weeks, it had to be noted that she was a small statured girl and was not mentally or physically strong to withstand the pregnancy. Apart from this, the court also noted that the girl's father, the Petitioner herein, was an agricultural labourer and if the pregnancy was allowed to continue, not only the victim girl but the whole family would suffer. The court also noted that it had wider power under Article 226 of the Constitution than what is prescribed under section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
While discussing the power of the court to discharge an accused under Section 245(2) of the CrPC, the Madras High Court recently observed that the words "at any previous stage" used in the provision would mean the stage from when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the case.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed as under:
"The phrase "at any previous stage of the case" means a case on file with cognizance being taken , as otherwise, there cannot be a 'discharge' from the case. Therefore, I am of the view that in this case, the stage of Section 200 of Cr.P.C., itself has not commenced and even before that such application (discharge) cannot be filed."
Case Title: Sathiya v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
In a rare incident, the Madras High Court released a mother, convicted for killing her two daughters, on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy saw the case as a testimony to the gender inequality prevailing in the country.
The court found it to be a case of "Nalla Thangal syndrome" wherein unable to bear the taunt of the society, the state of mind of the mother led her to attempt suicide and kill her children along with it. This concept of "state of mind" had been previously considered by the court in the case of Suyambukani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and was later reiterated by a division bench in Poovammal Vs. State.
Case Title: Edappadi K Palaniswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed the order of Revenue Divisional Officer sealing the headquarters of AIADMK party. Justice Sathish Kumar directed the RDO to hand over the keys of the headquarters to Palaniswamy and also directed the police to provide necessary protection to ensure that no untoward incident takes place. In view of the violence that had taken place last week in connection with the sealing, the court also directed Edappadi Palaniswamy to not allow party cadres to enter the building premises. The court also directed the registry to keep the pendrive containing video footage of the violence in safe custody.
Case Title: C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
While adjudicating a man's plea for permanent absorption into the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) on the ground that he had been continuously rendering temporary services since 25 years, the Madras High Court heavily criticised the practice of back door appointment that was prevalent in the country.
Justice S M Subramaniam opined that the practice of back door appointment was infringing the fundamental rights of all those candidates who were trying to secure public employment through open competitive process.
Case Title: M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy recently observed that whenever a vehicle is involved in a crime, the same cannot be returned to the owner when confiscation proceedings are pending before the authorities.
Though there were divergent views taken by the court in various judgements, the instant bench was inclined to follow the observations made by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Uday Singh [(2020) 12 SCC 733] wherein the court held as under:
"29.4.......The jurisdiction under Section 451 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the authorised officer initiated confiscation proceedings."
Case Title: Sudha Hospital v. The Director of Medical And Rural Health and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed an order of the Government of Tamil Nadu sealing Sudha Hospital in Erode for their alleged involvement in illegal sale of oocyte from a 16 year old girl.
Justice Abdul Quddhose quashed the order after observing that the respondent authorities had failed to record in writing the reasons for suspending the registration of the clinic establishment without issuing any notice, as was necessary under proviso to Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishment (Regulation) Act 1997 and Section 20(3) of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
Case Title: Kader Batcha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court on Friday directed Central Bureau of Investigation to probe into the allegations levelled against retired IPS Officer AG Ponn Manickavel for his alleged collusion with idol smugglers. The orders were issued by Justice G Jayachandran in a plea moved by a former Deputy Superintendent of Police Kader Batcha.
The court concluded that for it to satisfy its conscious, it was necessary that there was an impartial investigation. To ensure the same, the court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to ensure fair and impartial investigation. For this, the court deemed it fit to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Case Title: Mr.P.Adhavan Seral v. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that informations touching upon the right of privacy of third parties cannot be sought through RTI applications without putting them on notice.
Justice Anand Venkatesh was dealing with a plea seeking directions to the Tamil Nadu Information Commission to provide details with respect to persons who have registered themselves in the district employment office under the special category of Inter Caste Marriage and to furnish the certificates provided by such persons.
Case Title: Siva v. State by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of conviction of a man accused of murder after observing that the trial court was misled in corroborating the statement of witnesses recorded under S. 164 CrPC with the medical evidence when in fact all the independent witnesses had turned hostile.
Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira took note of the judicial precedents where the courts have clearly laid down that the statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC are not substantive evidence and that they can only be used to corroborate/contradict the statement of a witness.
Case Title: Jaisankar v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
While quashing a final report against a man accused of being in possession of an intoxicating drug and charged with Section 4(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937, the Madras High Court observed that the prosecution was a malafide one.
After going through the materials available on record, Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that though it was alleged that 96 rum bottles were found in possession of the accused, there was no evidence except the statement of the investigating officer. The court also noted that even though the courts do not generally go into the materials collected by the police, if it was found that the prosecution itself was without any material, the same could be quashed.
Case Title: Irfana Nasreen v. The State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
Allowing an application for alteration of FIR filed by an estranged wife, the Madras High Court recently directed the respondent police to register offences under Section 417 and 420 of IPC for cheating against the husband who deceived the wife by non-disclosing his impotency.
Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench directed the respondent police to add the offences along with already existing Section 498-A and 406 and submit the final report within four months after investigation.
Case Title: S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Freedom Fighter's Pension could not be brought under the category of family income for grant of family pension. It observed that Freedom Fighter's pension is given to honor the sacrifices made by them for the nation in the freedom struggle. Justice B Pugalendhi thus allowed a woman's plea to draw a family pension arising out of her mother's service in addition to the freedom fighter's pension.
Case Title: Sureshkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High court recently gave a clean chit to Madurai's former Commissioner of Police, S. Davidson Devasirvatham in connection with matters pertaining to issuance of fake passports to Sri Lankan and Indian Nationals by using forged documents.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan observed that field enquiry police officer play the most crucial in verification process and the buck stops with the nodal officer. "Involvement of the officials above the said rank may not really arise."
Case Title: R.Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 323
On a plea seeking the inclusion of photographs of the Prime Minister and the President of India in the advertisements for the 44th Chess Olympiad organised by the Federation Internationale des Echecs [FIDE], the Madras High Court directed the State government to ensure that the pictures of the Prime Minister and the President are included in all the advertisements. The division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice S Ananthi also directed the government to ensure that in future events also, these directions are followed.
Case Title: M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumnath has quashed the VAT assessment and directed the department to follow the procedure set out in the circular regarding the issue of mismatch.
The court ordered that the procedure set out in the circular be applied to the present case as well. The orders of assessment are set aside to enable both parties, i.e., the assessee as well as the department, to engage in the finalisation of the issue in line with the circular.
Case Title: Dr.R.Senthilkumar v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor registered with State Homoeopathy Medical Council who was found practicing in Allopathy Medicine.
Justice Teeka Raman observed that Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani practitioners who are registered in the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine are eligible to practice in the respective system with Allopathy based on the training and teaching they had in the Course. The court however cautioned that such persons cannot exclusively practice Allopathy medicine.
Case Title: S.Bhanupriya v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh has ordered lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a young mother who was forced to undergo three surgeries due to delay on part of a government hospital to shift her to a better facility, consequently kept away from her newborn baby for nine months.
Since the hospital was a government hospital, the State was vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. Thus, the court directed the state to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
Case Title: P.Arumugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
While upholding the disciplinary action against an erring police official, the Madras High Court heavily criticized the manner in which his fellow officials had given false statements before the trial court in the connected criminal case.
Justice SM Subramaniam remarked that police officials making false or incorrect statements before the criminal courts could be construed as "misconduct" under the Government Service Conduct Rules.
Case Title: P.Ranganathan and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
The Madras High Court recently directed the Archaeological Department to take control of the property of Thalaivetti Muniyappan Temple at Kottai Road, Periyeri Village, Salem District after the Archaeological department confirmed that the idol inside the temple depicted the mahalakshanas of Lord Buddha.
The court also prevented any further pooja from being conducted in the temple. Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that allowing Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) department to continue treating the sculpture as that of Thalaivetti Muniappan would be against the tenets of Buddhism.
Case Title: Vasmi Sudarshini v. The Sub Registrar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
Coming to the aid of a young couple, the Madras High Court allowed solemnisation of marriage through virtual mode with the groom in USA and bride in India. The court also allowed the bride's plea for getting marriage certificate by observing that she could affix signature in the certificate for both herself and the groom as she had a power of attorney to that effect.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench observed that Section 12 of the Special Marriage Act 1954, gives liberty to the parties to adopt any form of solemnisation of marriage provided that it must be recognised and reasonable and not against public policy.
Case Title: P.Ganesan v. M.Revathy Prema Rubarani
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Madras High Court has held that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, though before a Magistrate, are civil in nature. It observed that the intention of the legislature in enacting the Domestic Violence Act was to ensure civil law remedies to the victims of domestic abuse by adopting criminal procedure.
The court also held that since the legislature had clear intentions while granting special powers to the Magistrate under the Act, the same could not be diluted by transferring the domestic violence proceedings to a civil court or a family court, without the victim's consent.
The bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan was answering a reference made by two single judge benches of Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Murali Shankar.
Case Title: S.Pongulali v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently allowed a mother's plea to register a case for the offence of Murder against the police officials allegedly involved in the custodial death of her 22 year old son. It directed the CB-CID to alter the charge against the accused police officials and proceed against them for the offence of murder and file the final report within a period of eight weeks.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the Police has a responsibility to ensure that a citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life, except according to procedure established by law.
Case Title: Subburaj and another v. State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
Criticising the trend of implicating family members in matrimonial cases, the Madras High Court bench of Justice N Satish Kumar observed that in such cases, mere omnibus allegation against the family members could not be the basis for initiating criminal proceedings.
The court also opined that though under Section 482 CrPC, it cannot assume the role of a trial court. However, if it is satisfied that the prosecution has been maliciously instituted, it could go into the materials and find out whether there are materials, which requires a trial.
Case Title: Jayalakshmi v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision to close a TASMAC shop after considering that the proposed area had a College, a De-addiction Centre, and temples in the vicinity.
Justice Nirmal Kumar agreed with an earlier order with respect to the same premises which held that the distance rule cannot be the only criteria for allowing a TASMAC shop to function near a college.
Case Title: The District Collector v. Mr R Vetri and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order passed by the civil court declaring title in favour of private respondents qua a government land, after observing that the order was obtained by committing fraud on the court.
Justice Anand Venkatesh held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can nullify the judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil court if it has been obtained by playing fraud on the Court and such a decree is a nullity and non-est in the eye of law.
Passenger May Be Prosecuted For Motor Accident Caused By Drunk Driver: Madras High Court
Case Title: Dr. Lakshmi v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
The Madras High Court recently held that a co-passenger in a vehicle involved in motor accident caused by an inebriated driver can be prosecuted for instigation and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (ii) of IPC.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the co-passengers could not escape liability by merely claiming that they were merely sitting in the passenger seat and were not behind the wheels.
The court noted that the petitioner had committed a "positive act" in opening the door and sitting in the front seat of the car and thus participating in the journey. Whether this positive act would amount to instigating the driver to drive in an inebriated state would depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the parties were going on a night stroll which would amount to instigation.
Case Title: KL Prabakar v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
The Madras High Court recently emphasized that directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be issued by Magistrates without the application of judicial mind.
Justice N Sathish Kumar also observed that before ordering an investigation of an offence by the police, the Magistrate can, in appropriate cases, verify the truth and veracity of the allegations made. The Magistrate should also ensure that remedies under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of CrPC have been availed. Further, an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC must contain the details of all these applications made before appropriate authorities.
Case Title: Azhagan @ Prabhu v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
The Madras High Court recently modified a judgment of conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to one under the IPC after observing that the prosecution had failed to establish the age of the victim at the time of the offence.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy opined that when the prosecution had not produced the Transfer certificate of the victim and when the victim had categorically deposed before the court that her date of birth was 27.07.1995 not making her a minor at the time of the offence, her evidence should be taken as her correct age and therefore altered the charges.
Case Title: White Cliffs Hair Studio Private Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
The Madras High Court has held that the primary activity is the manufacture of the wig, for which the central excise duty is remitted. The fitment of the wig, including the preparation of the scalp and optional maintenance of the wig itself, is incidental to the manufacturing and supply of the wig.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Supreme Court has specifically noted the difference between a composite contract and an indivisible one. A composite contract is one that would involve components of sale and service, whereas an indivisible contract, also involving components of sale and service, is one where the distinction between the two is very fine and difficult to determine.
Case Title: Karthika Agencies Export House v. The Commissioner of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
While ordering de-freezing of an account seized pursuant to investigation into a loan fraud, the Madras High Court held that it was an essential requirement of Section 102(3) of CrPC that information of the seizure should be duly reported to the Magistrate.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that in the case on hand, the information regarding the seizure was made after considerable delay. As this necessary procedure of law was not complied with, the court deemed it fit to set aside the order of seizure of the bank account.
Case Title: C Jagadeesan v. Additional Director General of Police and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
Coming to the rescue of a dismissed Police Officer, the Madras High Court recently observed that once the competent authority has regularized a period of medical leave, no further disciplinary proceedings for misconduct would sustain.
In the present case, though the petitioner was said to be absent from service for over three years, the court held that the same was condoned by the regularisation of his absence.
A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam held that though normally such a lengthy period of absence was not condoned by the authorities, especially if the Police Personnel is a chronic absentee or habitual absentee, however, once the authorities have accepted the reasons for absence, the misconduct is condoned.
Case Title: Kannan v. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a bail court, while considering an application under Section 167(2) CrPC was not concerned with going into the merits of the case. The court had to consider such an application for default bail by considering whether the statutory period for filing a charge sheet or challan had expires, whether the charge sheet or challan had been filed and whether the accused was prepared to and had furnished bail.
Justice Murali Shankar, while setting aside the decision of the lower court, also criticized the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The court expressed shock over the manner in which the impugned order was passed and the personal liberty of the accused was handled by the Judicial Officer.
Case Title: J Thennarasu v. Anita Nalliah (and other connected cases)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
The Madras High Court recently held that cross examination of a party in Rent control proceedings in the state is not a "right" and the Court's discretion to allow or disallow the same must be based on a plane of fairness in judicial proceedings.
Justice N Seshasayee also observed that though the court has been given discretion, the legislative thrust is on adherence to the principles of natural justice. Hence, even if the Rent Court can regulate its own proceeding, the same has to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Aravinth and others v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against 11 law students accused of raising slogans against the Srilankan Government, demanding their "Tamil Ealam issues".
Justice N Satish Kumar observed that the students had democratically raised protest against the inaction of the police and such a gathering could not be held unlawful.
The court also discussed the definition of the term "Unlawful Assembly" and held that the petitioners had not committed any acts that would fall within the meaning of unlawful assembly. That is, they have not shown any criminal force to commit any mischief, crime of any offence or by way of criminal force or tried to take possession of the property or right to use of incorporeal right which is in possession of enjoyment of others or rights.
Case Title: Natchal vs. V Chokkalingam
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
The Madras High Court has held that hormonal imbalance or irregular periods would not amount to impotency of a woman and would not mean that she is unfit to have sex.
Justice RN Manjula observed thus while hearing a revision petition against a Family Court's order directing a woman's medical examination on her husband's plea for annulment of marriage citing non-consummation.
The bench held that when the woman herself had admitted the fact of her hormonal imbalance and details of examination by a gynecologist, it was unnecessary to subject her to medical examination.
Case Title: R.Silambarasan v. Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed to stop the construction of sand quarries at three villages of Nagapattinam District after observing that the same was filed without bonafide.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the petitioner, who himself had a criminal track record under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, had failed to ascertain facts regarding the quarry leases granted to the respondents before filing the writ petition.
Case Title: M/s. Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. versus Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB)
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 346
The Madras High Court has ruled that limitation is a facet of public policy, and hence, an arbitral award which is incorrect qua limitation is hit by Section 34(2)(b)(ii), read with Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that, in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Voltas Limited versus Rolta India Limited (2014), if the counter claimant before an Arbitral Tribunal has invoked the arbitration clause, then, the date of such invocation would be the relevant date to decide the limitation period for raising the counter claim. Hence, the Court ruled that the view of the Arbitral Tribunal that the counter claim raised by the party was barred by limitation, by referring to the date on which it had filed the counter claim before the Tribunal, was incorrect.
Case Title: TJ Gnanavel and another v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed criminal proceedings against cine actor Suriya and director TJ Gnanavel for allegedly hurting the sentiments of the Vanniyar community in his movie Jai Bhim.
Justice N Sathish Kumar allowed the petition filed by the actor and the director to quash the FIR filed by Velachery Police on a complaint by Advocate K Santhosh, president of Rudra Vanniyar Sena. He had approached the Saidapet Magistrate seeking direction to file an FIR. Subsequently, Surya and Gnanavel were charged under Section 295A of the IPC.
The court opined that though the defacto complainant had alleged that the movie was projected in such a manner to incite violence and hostility on a particular community, no specific instance had been recorded. Further, the entire FIR was only based on inference and presumption of the de facto complainant. The court also noted that mere reference to a name would not mean that the said name related to a particular community.
Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging State's Decision To Transfer 1000 Crocodiles To Gujarat
Case Title: A. Viswanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
The Madras High Court, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Viswanathan against the Tamil Nadu Government's decision to shift 1000 crocodiles from Madras Crocodile Bank Trust to Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) in Gujarat.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala dismissed the PIL after considering the fact that the Rehabilitation Centre had the necessary infrastructure. The court pointed out that even experts were satisfied with respect to the infrastructure available at the facility and thus the court did not find any ground to interfere with the decision. There was also photographic evidence that shows the infrastructure available in the facility.
Case Title: P Mihiran v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court recently confirmed the order of the Managing Director of TASMAC to revert an employee from the post of Supervisor to the post of Salesman after observing that his absorption/promotion was not made in accordance to the established rules or principles. The employee had approached the court seeking to quash the order of the Managing Director.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the petitioner could not establish any Rule for his absorption and thus was not entitled to such promotion.
Case title - V. Sounthar v. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
The Madras High Court recently granted permission for conducting Rekla race in connection with the 75th Independence Day Celebration and Aadi Temple Festival in the Bhavani Town of the state's Erode District.
The bench of Justice T. Raja and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu said that since the Rekla race was to be conducted by residents of Erode District as part of the 75th Year Independence Day, therefore, refusing their prayer would send a message that Indians are refused to celebrate even the Independence Day.
Case Title: The Principal General Manager, BSNL and another v. The Administrator, ISHA Foundation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
The Madras High Court recently gave liberty to state-owned telecom provider BSNL to institute de novo arbitration against the ISHA foundation for its claim related to unpaid dues.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy made the order after observing that the current arbitral award, which was passed without consulting an expert committee and without giving due regard to the evidences, was patently erroneous.
Case Title: V Anusha v. B Krishnan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
While allowing a wife's plea for permanent injunction, the Madras High Court has opined that if removal of the husband from home alone is the only way to ensure domestic peace, the Family Courts should not hesitate to pass such orders.
The bench of Justice RN Manjula observed,
"The protection orders are normally given to ensure the peaceful movement of a woman within her domestic sphere. When a woman fears the presence of her husband and screams, the Courts cannot be indifferent by just directing the husband that he should not harass the wife, but by allowing him to reside in the same house."
Case Title: Arul Daniel and others v. Suganya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
A single judge of the Madras High Court recently referred to a larger bench, the question regarding the applicability of provisions of Section 482 CrPC and/or Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.
Justice N Sathish Kumar was considering a batch of petitions seeking to quash the application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act by invoking the provision under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Title: M Raja v. Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
While hearing a shop owner's plea to direct the police not to interfere with his business during late night hours, the Madras High Court noted that the Government of Tamil Nadu has already passed orders permitting shops in the State to run 24x7. In such a situation, the police cannot interfere with the business, except in case of any law-and-order situation.
Justice N Satish Kumar observed:
When the Government itself has permitted to run the business for 24x7, the police cannot restrict the time on their own.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed not the interfere with the petitioner's business and they can interfere only in case of any law and order problem arose in the shop.
Case Title: O Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
The Madras High Court on Wednesday ordered to conduct a fresh General Council Meeting of the AIADMK party. The court also ordered the status quo ante, as existed on June 23, before the General Council meeting took place on July 11. The court observed that only the coordinator and the joint coordinator had the powers to convene the General Council. Thus the court in effect canceled the General Counsel meeting held on July 11 and as a result the election of Edappadi Palaniswamy as interim General Secretary of the party
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran thus allowed a plea moved by former Tamil Nadu CM O Paneerselvam challenging his expulsion from the party and the General Council meeting of the AIADMK party that was conducted on July 11. Another General Council member P Vairamuthu had also approached the court challenging the General Council meeting.
Case Title: Pastor V. Mariya Arockiam v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Madras High Court has recently held that Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules 1972 mandates prior permission from the District Collector before construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes. The court thus dismissed the petition of a man for converting his residential place into a prayer hall after observing that the necessary permission from the authorities was not sought.
Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the building was located in a residential area and that gathering of such large number of people in a residential area would cause nuisance and difficulty to the residents of the locality.
Case Title: S Sasikumar v. The Vice Chancellor and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
While dealing with a challenge to the suspension of a law student, the Madras High Court stressed pon the need to install portraits of Dr. BR Ambedkar in Law colleges. Justice GR Swaminathan, therefore, directed the Director of Legal Studies, Chennai to issue a circular mandating the installation of portraits of Dr. Ambedkar in all Government Law Colleges.
Case Title: Vinith Baid v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a Father's plea to forbear the Central Government and the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs from registering the declaration of renunciation of Citizenship or granting no objection certificate/certificate of renunciation of citizenship to his daughter.
The Court noted that the duaghter is a major, aged 25 years. Also, from the record of an earlier habeas corpus petition filed by the father, the Court noted that she had converted to Islam and applied for Bangladeshi citizenship voluntarily.
Justice Abdul Quddhose was considering a petition filed by a father who contended that his daughter, who was presently residing in Bangladesh with her husband, was a victim of radicalization, undue influence, coercion, abduction, and captivity violating all her rights and human dignity.
Protest Using Animals Would Amount To 'Animal Cruelty': Madras High Court
Case Title: K Muthu v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
While dismissing a man's petition seeking permission to conduct a democratic protest using a buffalo, the Madras High Court held that such action would amount to animal cruelty.
The bench of Justice Sathish Kumar observed that keeping the animal at the place from morning to evening cannot be permitted as it would amount to cruelty and would be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960.
Case Title: Dr. S. Radhakrishnan v. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
The Madras High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a doctor challenging the order of removal of his name from the medical register for a period of two years after observing that he had issued a fake medical certificate for wrongfully gaining property and thus had committed professional misconduct.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy opined that the appellant had let down all education imparted on him merely for obtaining land. This would double up the seriousness of his misconduct. The court thus opined that the punishment accorded to him was proportionate
Case Title: Sathish v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
The Madras High Court conducted a special sitting on Sunday after an urgent petition was filed seeking bail for an incarcerated accused on the ground that his father had died and he, being an only son was to perform the last rites.
Justice G Jayachandran granted an interim bail of 3 days to the Petitioner, subject to his own bond, to enable him to perform post rituals. He has been directed to report and surrender before the authorities on 24th. The police has been directed to escort the Petitioner to his village.
Cut/Sized Shade Trees Constitutes "Agricultural Produce", No Sales Tax Applicable: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has held that the cut and sized shade trees would constitute "agricultural produce" and, therefore, fall outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act, 1959).
The court rejected the claim of the petitioner that the cut/sized Silver Oak/shade tree would constitute "firewood".
Case Title: Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
The Madras High Court, while emphasizing that FIR is not an ordinary thing and could affect the rights of the individual, heavily criticised the order of a Magistrate directing registration of FIR against an accused, without due application of mind.
The court also noted that there was a lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title: All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court on Monday exempted temples constructed as per agamas from the rules brought by the Tamil Nadu Government in 2020 in relation to the qualifications and appointments of archakas/poojaris.
A division bench of the High Court read down Rules 7 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 to hold that they will not apply to temples constructed as per agamas.
The High Court said that reading down these Rules are necessary so as to exempt temples constructed as per agamas. Otherwise, it would offend the fundamental rights to practice religion and the rights of a religious denomination to manage its affairs guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Court however refrained from striking down the said Rules in their entirety, as they dealt with other appointments as well.
Case Title: A Priyanka and others v. The Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
In context of admissions to MBBS courses, the Madras High Court has reiterated that admission to the courses had to be commensurate with the annual intake capacity of the institution. The court also highlighted that the admissions cannot be made beyond the time limit fixed by the Apex Court for completing admissions.
The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose was hearing petitions filed by children of defence personal seeking admission to MBBS Course under the wards of defence personnel quota. The court noted that the GO dated 30.06.1979 was not applicable to the petitioners as the said notification was applicable only to PUC and BSC students which was the stream of education prevalent at that point of time.
Madras High Court Orders Complete Abolition Of 'Orderly System' From TN Police In Four Months
Case Title: U Manickavel v State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court on Tuesday passed final orders in the case against engagement of uniformed Police officers as orderlies at the residence of higher officials in Tamil Nadu.
Justice SM Subramaniam today directed the authorities to ensure that the orderly system is completely abolished within a period of four months. The court also directed the authorities to remove the orderlies appointed in the residence of retired officials as the same amounts to illegality and a violation of the law.
Further, if any complaint/ information was received with respect to misconduct or offence by officials, the authorities were directed to conduct enquiry and initiate all appropriate actions under the relevant laws and under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.
With respect to illegal occupation of the official police quarters, the court directed to initiate steps for eviction in the manner known to law.
Case Title: M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Madras High Court has held that the timelines for uploading of TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be one and the same as it leads to an unworkable position.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN-1 return be identical to the timeline for filing of a return seeking transition. The purpose of revision is to enable correction or modification of a return of transition. It would stand to reason that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return, be provided by the respondent in the latter instance.
Case Title: Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry v. VK Sethukumar and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court recently emphasized on "statutory indemnity" available to the Bar Councils with respect to bonafide disciplinary proceedings initiated against Advocates.
The court was hearing a criminal revision petition moved by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry against the order of a lower court dismissing the Bar Council's application to reject a plaint filed by an Advocate seeking damages from the Bar Council.
The court noted that since the proceedings before the Bar Council were quasi-judicial, an aggrieved party could make use of the Appeal remedies provided under the Advocates Act. The grounds of appeal shall include all the shortfalls in the order of the lower forum. Thus, when no further appeal is made against the order of the first appellate forum, there cannot be anymore grievances left out.
Arbitrator Appointed Under MSCS Act; Fixation Of Fees Is Subject To A&C Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: Air Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court has ruled that the power of the Central Registrar to appoint an arbitrator and fix the fees of arbitration under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
Holding that there is no provision under the MSCS Act where an exemption has been provided with respect to Section 38 of the A&C Act, which requires the parties to equally bear the advance costs to be deposited before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan set aside the order of the State Registrar directing the petitioner to pay the fees and expenses to the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Narayanan v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
While confirming the life imprisonment of a man convicted for sexually abusing five children, the Madras High Court emphasized that the mere absence of physical injury does not rule out the sexual acts.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice Hemalatha held sexual activity with a child to be a criminal/ immoral act and emphasizing on making the society safe for children
Case Title: Subramanian P v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
Madras High Court recently dismissed a revision petition moved by a man accused of cheating and forgery after observing that while deciding upon discharge, the High Court only had to sift through the evidence on record and form an opinion on whether there was a prima facie case and a strong suspicion against the accused.
Case Title: M Sekar v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
While directing the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment to appoint a fit person to look into the affairs of the Sri Madurai Veeran, Karupparayan and Kannimar temple at Erode, the Madras High Court expressed concern on how temples were now becoming a cause for disturbance of law and order due to "ego clashes" between worshippers.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that temples are supposed to bring man closer to god. However presently, the courts were flooded with litigations and the police and revenue authorities were made to spend their lives resolving disputes between disputing parties.
Case Title: Sadam Hussain v. State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to a man after observing that the entire case against him was based on suspicion and case was taken based on the confession statement. Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira also observed that there was no complaint made against the accused.
The court had also noted that no offence had taken place and no complaint was actually made by Kumaresan. The entire case was merely on the suspicion that arose in the mind of a police officer while doing his routine rounds. The court was therefore convinced that there was no prima facie case against the appellant.
Case Title: Kiruthika Jayaraj and others v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to two teachers, school principal, school management correspondent and secretary in connection with the death of a XIIth standard student in Kallakurichi.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that there was no evidence to show that the girl had been tortured before her death. Even going by the suicide note, there was no evidence to implicate the teachers as they had merely asked the student to study well.
Case Title: M/s Gupta Hair Products (P) Ltd. Versus The Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
The Madras High Court has held that due to technical error or lacunae in the electronic system, the petitioner/exporter cannot be deprived of its benefit/incentive under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS).
The single bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has directed the department to consider the petitioner's representation seeking to get the benefit under the MEIS for the subject shipping bill and pass orders within a period of six weeks.
Case Title: V Kannan v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
The Madras High Court on Thursday granted conditional bail to Hindu Munnani office bearer and stunt master Kanal Kannan for his remarks seeking to demolish the statur of Periyar outside Srirangam temple. The court while granting bail, however, criticised the recent trend of making such remarks. The court stated that it had become a fashion to make such comments.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan granted him bail on condition that he shall file an affidavit before the Egmore Court guaranteeing that he will not make any such statements in the future. He has also been directed to appear before the police two times for a period of four weeks.
TN Govt Prescribed "Very Low" Parking Fees In Cinema Theaters: High Court Quashes GO
Case Title: Woodlands Theatres v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
The Madras High Court recently found that the charges fixed by Tamil Nadu government for parking in cinema theaters is "very low" and directed the State to re-fix the same, keeping in view the fees levied by Municipal Corporations and Railway authorities.
Rule 91(B) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Rules 1957 empower the State to fix parking charges for the vehicles parked in the cinema theatres in the state. The petitioner theatre had challenged the fee fixation claiming that parking rates for all other places except cinema theatre was higher.
Case Title: Dr. P R Subaschandran v. State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
While disposing of a petition seeking to frame a set of guidelines for proper instruction of physical education in public and private schools, the Madras High Court stressed on the need for physical education in schools.
The court directed the state to constitute a committee to monitor and ensure that physical education is given due importance and requisite infrastructure in all schools is made available.
The committee shall be constituted by the Government within one month and shall be headed by the Secretary to the Government, School Education Department. The committee shall identify the schools not having requisite infrastructure for imparting physical education and ensure physical education is given necessary importance.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Restoring Status Quo Ante As On 23rd June In AIADMK
Case Title: E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the order of a single judge restoring the status quo ante in the AIADMK party as on 23rd June, 2022.
The bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the orders allowing an appeal preferred by Edappadi Palaniswamy.
Further, the court held that when majority of the General Council members, who were elected by the primary members, were in favour of convening a general council meeting on 11th July and had also supported the resolutions made on 23rd June, the balance of convenience was in favour of the appellants.
Section 8 Of A&C Act Falls Outside The Scope Of Section 42: Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: K. Samad & Anr. versus Reliance Capital Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
The Madras High Court has reiterated that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is an exception to Section 42 of the A&C Act. The Court added that if Section 8 is also brought within the ambit of Section 42, it would defeat the sublime philosophy underlining arbitration i.e., party autonomy.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar ruled that a party has no choice of jurisdiction while filing a Section 8 application, and that it is a Hobson's choice for it since it is constrained to file an application under Section 8 in the Civil Court where the civil suit has been filed by the opposite party.
Case Title: S. Annapoorni v. K Vijay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Madras High Court on Friday ruled in favour of original jurisdiction of High Court for hearing child custody and guardianship cases in a 3:2 majority decision.
Justice R Mahadevan, Justice M Sunder and Justice AA Nakkiran delivered the majority judgment and held that the jurisdiction of the High Court on original side is not ousted in view of explanation (g) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. They further observed that the judgement in Mary Thomas continued to be a good law.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh however ruled against original jurisdiction of High Court and held that Mary Thomas was not a good law.
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s.Ganges International Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
The Madras High Court, consisting of Justice R. Ramdevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, has held that the assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit of the service tax already paid but the assessee was unable to claim due to a transitional provision that has come into effect from 01.07.2017.
The court directed the appellant to consider the application of the assessee under section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, based on the available materials on merits and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, within a period of six weeks.
Case Title: M/s. Sunwin Papers versus M/s. Sivadarshini Papers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court has ruled that if an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), of ruling on its own jurisdiction, has the effect of concluding the arbitral proceedings, the same would be challengeable under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that since registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) is not compulsory, the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal accepting the plea of lack of jurisdiction due to the non-registration of the claimant under the MSMED Act, is patently illegal and in conflict with the public policy of India.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
The Madras High Court has ruled that interest on late GST remittances is levied even if credit in electronic cash or credit ledgers is available.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that unless an assessee actually files a return and debits the respective registers, the authorities cannot be expected to assume that available credits will be set-off against tax liability.
Case Title: M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings and held that an audit objection does not satisfy the requirement of the Assessing Officer having an independent "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, that too after the elapse of nearly six years.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that all materials with regard to the computation of tax under the provisions of MAT were available before the Assessing Authority during the original assessment proceedings.
Madras High Court Restrains ED From Proceeding Against TN Minister Senthil Balaji
Case Title: B Shanmugam and others v. Karthik Dasari
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
The Madras High Court recently allowed a petition moved by Minister Senthil Balaji and two others and quashed the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate.
Justice T Raja and Justice K Kumaresh Babu made the orders after observing that the proceedings emerging from the FIRs was quashed in one case and stayed in two others. The court observed that when a stay had been granted, it would eclipse the proceedings initiated thereunder pending disposal of the suit.
Case Title: Dr. A Packia Raj and others v. State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by three doctors seeking to set aside the GO passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu giving special preference to "In Service Doctors" in admission to Post Graduate courses.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that a challenge to the above GO had already been decided by a division bench. The division bench had also observed that no arbitrariness can be made out from the data pertaining to only one academic year.
Case Title: Kamalanathan and others v. State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
Stressing on the importance of preserving water bodies, the Madras High Court recently stated that water bodies play a significant role in maintaining ecology and environment and usage of land earmarked as waterbody for any other purpose would be detrimental to the society at large. The court thus highlighted that it was the duty of officials to preserve and protect government lands which have been reserved for specific purposes.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala were disposing petitions challenging the notices issued in Form III under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007.
Case title - Gokul Ajith and others v. The State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to 3 BJP workers who allegedly waylaid the Car of the State Finance Minister, abused and insulted him, and threw slippers toward his car bearing the national emblem on August 13, 2022.
However, the Court did term the entire incident as very unfortunate as it emphasized that the political ideologies may differ, but, while exercising the democratic right, when the same turn violent and ugly, then causality will not be the political opponent, but the society at large which every political party intends to serve and evolve.
Case Title: Kanthan v State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
The Madras High Court recently remarked that information technology today is posing a great challenge in upbringing of teenagers, whose minds are often affected by easily accessible pornography, misleading them and making them indulge in sexual offences without understanding its consequences.
The Madurai bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice N Anand Venkatesh emphasized that whenever these teenagers are arrested, efforts should be made to attend to their mental perversity.
Case title - K.J.Suriyanarayanan v. State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
The Madras High Court recently observed that once FIR has been registered against a person, his/her re-examination by the investigation agency on its own should not be permitted merely by registering another FIR with regard to the same occurrence.
"If such protection is not given to a suspect, then possibility of abuse of investigating powers by the police cannot be ruled out. It would result into a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary harassment to the accused and registration of multiple FIR's on the same occurrence would be hit by the doctrine of sameness and it would have to be obliterated, as it would amount to violation of fundamental rights of a citizen," the bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan further remarked.
Case title - Jegan @ Ellamaran and others v. State and another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
The Madras High Court has recently quashed a case against 5 persons who had allegedly indulged in a protest and had raised various slogans against Prime Minister for announcing Demonetization.
The bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar observed that the offences against the accused under Sections 143, 188 of IPC @ 143, 149, 353 IPC were not made out.
Case Title: M Satheesh v. Secretary, Revenue Department and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
The Madras High Court has categorically held that the reservation for women in public employment can only be made horizontally and not vertically. The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala, thus, directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to amend the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act of 2016 accordingly or otherwise the same would be declared ultra vires.
Case Title: Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court on Friday directed the National Medical Commission to revisit the office memorandum which directed that fees in 50% seats in Private Medical Colleges and Universities should be at the rate of Government seats. The Court said that the structure should be amended in such a way that merit is not affected.
The NMC has been asked to reconsider the Office Memorandum and if necessary issue a fresh OM. Till such exercise is completed, the present fee structure prescribed shall continue.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala also upheld the validity of Section 10 of the National Medical Commission Act.
Madras High Court Acquits Man Who Possessed 1.5 Kg Heroin Believing It To Be Wheat Flour
Case Title: Anandam Gundluru v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
The Madras High Court recently directed the release of a man who was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 rupees for consciously possessing 1.5 kg Heroin for transportation to Kuwait. The bench of Justice G Ilanthiraiyan observed that the appellant had carried the material believing it to be wheat flour and tamarind and not a prohibited substance.
Case Title: Minor V Amrutha v. Council for Architecture and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh to a student for denying her admission to the Architecture course. Justice R Subramanian also observed that the conduct of the respondent was outrageous and inexplicable in that they had acted blatantly in violation of previous court orders.
Case Title: S.Ravi Selvan v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & customs and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
While dismissing a challenge against the formation of an Internal Complaints Committee, the Madras High Court observed that the formation of the Internal Complaints Committee was under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The challenge would therefore fall within the scope of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 and could not be dealt with by the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution.
Justice Abdul Quddhose opined that the petitioner should have taken up the matter with the Administrative Tribunal dealing with service matters and not approach the High Court in the first instance.
Case Title: Andal Dorairaj & Ors. versus M/s. Rithwik Infor Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
The Madras High Court has ruled that the parties have got the liberty to deviate from the terms with respect to the jurisdiction, as contained in the Arbitration Clause; however, the number of such deviations is limited to only one.
The Single Bench of Justice R.N. Manjula held that waiver of the jurisdiction clause contained in the arbitration agreement can be presumed from the conduct of the parties. The Court added that if the parties have waived the earlier agreement on jurisdiction and have substituted a new jurisdiction by conduct, then, in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the parties cannot make any further diversions with respect to the jurisdiction.
Transporter Of Goods May Seek Release Of Only The Conveyance: Madras High Court
Case Title: TCI Freight Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court has held that the transporter may seek release of only the conveyance upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions.
The division bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the phrase 'person transporting the goods' in Sections 129(1) and (6) to mean the owner or his agent who has contracted to supply the goods, and not the transporter who will provide the carriage for the same. Both sub-Sections 129(1) and (6) use the phrase 'goods or conveyance' whereas the proviso extends the benefit of release, upon terms, to the transporter, but is restricted to the conveyance alone.
Case Title: Kasthuribha and Indira Nagar Residents Welfare Forum v. Secretary, PWD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
While disposing of a writ petition filed by Kasturbha and Indira Nagar Residents Welfare forum seeking to remove encroachments from the Buckingham Canal lying between Chennai and Puducherry, the Madras High Court emphasised that it was the duty of every individual to protect and improve the national environment and the national assets
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the citizens and the government were two wheels of development and if any one wheel derails, it will affect the development.
The court also pointed out that encroachments were a direct reflection on the failure of the Government to provide basic facilities to the poor.
Case Title: Nordex India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
The Madras High Court has allowed the concessional customs duty benefit on goods used in the rotor of windmills for notional billing to customers.
The single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has observed that the imported rotor blades need no customization and mechanisation. Hence, raising an invoice in the name of the client after importing and transporting it to the customer's site is only a notional exercise. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not the importer and that he is the person who has used it for a specific purpose for which it was imported.
Madras High Court Asks Man To Distribute Pamphlets Against Drunken Driving As Condition For Bail
Case Title: Deepan v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
The Madras High Court recently set a unique condition for bail for a man accused of drunken driving. While granting bail, the bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, directed the petitioner Deepan to distribute pamphlets against "Drunken Driving" everyday in the morning and evening for a period of two weeks.
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v District Collector, Thoothukudi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
The Madras High Court recently directed the Thoothukudi District Collector and police authorities to strictly implement a Circular Memorandum regarding procedure to be followed while granting permission to conduct cultural events, sports events, procession/meeting etc. The authorities were thus to ensure that no obscene or vulgar dance performance or other procession takes place during the Dasara festival in the Arultharum Mutharamman temple.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were hearing a petition filed by one Ramkumar Adityan to direct the police authorities to obtain a declaration from the organisers of all Dasara Groups and Sound Hire Service Providers not to sing and play any non Devotional Songs and Kuthu Pattu during Dasara festival in connection to the festival of Arultharum Mutharamman Thirukovil, Kulasekarapattinam, Thoothukudi District. By doing so, the petitioner sought to stop vulgar and obscene dance performances in the name of Dasara Groups and to protect the Traditional Culture, Traditional Viradham System and Religious sentiments of lakhs of Devotees.
Case Title: Registrar Judicial v. Shankar @ Savukku Sankar and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
The Madras High Court(Madurai Bench) on Thursday sentenced Savukku Shankar to six months simple imprisonment in a suo moto contempt proceeding for his remarks against the higher judiciary. The bench also refused to entertain the request of Mr. Shankar to suspend the sentence until filing of appeal before the Supreme Court. The court thus directed that Mr. Shankar be forthwith taken to custody and lodged in Central Prison, Madurai.
The orders were passed by a bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi. This was the second suo moto contempt proceeding initiated against Mr Shankar.
Case Title: Innovators Facade Systems Ltd. versus Larsen & Toubro Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
The Madras High Court has ruled that where the parties have agreed to give only supervisory powers to a third party with respect to the disputes arising between them, and a clause which does not disclose the intention of the parties to give any adjudicatory powers to the third party, does not qualify as an 'arbitration agreement', as defined under Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that the adjudicatory process is an essential feature of arbitration, in contra-distinction to mediation, and hence, when there is nothing to demonstrate that the contracting parties intended to put an adjudicatory mechanism in place, an arbitration agreement cannot be said to exist.
Case Title: Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
While answering a reference, the Madras High Court Bench of Justice SS Sundar, Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the Registrar does not have the power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify a deed of conveyance made earlier, when the deed of conveyance has already been acted upon.
The court was answering a reference made by Justice S Vaidyanathan with respect to the maintainability of a writ petition against the Registration of a unilateral cancellation deed.
Case Title: Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
The Madras High Court on Monday said that it cannot not direct the State Government to treat all Visually Impaired Persons on par with other Differently Abled Persons who may be incapable of any employment.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation on a plea by Nethrodaya, an organisation working for the differently abled community. The petitioner organization had sought for transfer of the Pension Scheme for the Visually Impaired from the Social Welfare Department to the Differently Abled Department. The second prayer was to enhance the pension of the Visually Impaired persons from Rs. 1000 to Rs.1500 on par with that given to other Differently Abled Persons.
Case Title: M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court has held that in the matters of interception, seizure, and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of "working day" and "holiday" since substantial civil rights of the parties were at stake.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that neither the assessee nor the department could have the luxury of reference to a holiday to delay or protract the proceedings. The acts of interception and retention, though an invasion of the rights of citizens have been accorded statutory sanction in pursuance of the aims and objects of the Goods and Services Act. Thus, it was imperative that the intrusive acts be carried out in strict compliance with the statutory provisions.
Case Title: R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
While dealing with a petition seeking conversion of some Police Officers from Armed Reserve to Law and Order, the Madras High Court observed that suitability and eligibility, etc had to be assessed by the concerned departments and High Courts could not interfere in such matters. Interference was only possible when there was an irregularity in appointments.
The court emphasized that the authorities were the best persons to assess the eligibility of the personnel. Since the personnel posted in the Law and order category had more responsibility and accountability, the government thought it fit to prescribe certain additional criterias. Further, conversion could not be claimed as a matter of right. Even if the conversion was granted to certain personnel violating the guidelines, illegality could not be a ground to claim equality.
Case Title: Sowdha Mani v. State
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 410
While dealing with a petition by BJP functionary Sowdha Mani seeking return of her phone which was seized in connection with an investigation following objectionable retweets, the Madras High Court observed that delay in production of material objects before the Jurisdictional Magistrate would vitiate the entire prosecution.
In the present case, the material (phone) was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate six days after its seizure.
Observing that this unexplained delay of six days could not be brushed aside, Justice P Velmurugan ordered the Director General of Police to take stringent action against the investigating officer.
GST Registration Cancellation: Madras High Court Directs Changes In Architecture Of GST Portal
Case Title: M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
The Madras High Court has directed the GST department to take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable changes in the architecture of the GST Web Portal to allow the petitioners to file their returns and pay the tax/penalty/fine.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that payment of tax, interest, fine/fee, etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any input tax credit which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners.
Two Women Kept In Illegal Detention For 128 Days, Madras High Court Awards Rs 5L Compensation
Case Title: Manokaran v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court recently directed the State to pay Rs five lakh compensation each to two women who were unauthorisedly kept in preventive detention for more than four months.
"The sequence of events in the case on hand reveals beyond any doubt that it is a classic case of bureaucratic lethargy and slumber, which has played a lot in depriving the personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," said the division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira.
Case Title: Dr. R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
Dismissing a university professor's petition against trial court's refusal to order investigation on his complaint, the Madras High Court recently said Section 3 (1) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act comes into play only when a person is trying to promote ill feelings against the members of SC or ST community as a group.
Section 3 (1) (u) criminalises any communication that promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe.
Marriage Not For Mere Carnal Pleasure, But Mainly For Progeneration: Madras High Court
Case Title: V Anusha v. B Krishnan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
Dealing with an estranged couple's case related to the custody of their children, the Madras High Court in a recent order said marriage is not for "mere satisfying the carnal pleasure" but mainly for the purpose of progeneration. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy was dealing with a petition filed by a woman, lawyer by profession, for interim custody of her two minor sons from her husband, who is also a lawyer.
Stating that though courts are mindful of the interest of the child, Justice Ramasamy said it is "to be lamented" that the law leaves the child "with only one hand, rather than two". The court also said child "brought into this vicious world through the act of the two individuals for their pleasure" is made to suffer for no fault of his.
Case Title: Gotla Alex Binoy v. IOP Chennai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
Granting anticipatory bail to a biker accused of performing dangerous stunts on a public road, the Madras High Court directed the 22-year-old to upload a video on his Instagram account against reckless driving and also report before a trauma ward duty doctor at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital for three weeks.
The directions are part of the conditions imposed by the court while granting him the pre-arrest bail. Justice AD Jagadish Chandira ordered the accused to report to the Duty Doctor at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital and assist the Ward Boys at the Trauma Ward in taking care of the patients from Tuesday to Saturday between 8 am and 12 PM for three weeks.
Madras HC Sets Aside Order Requiring Wife To 'Serve Snacks' To Estranged Husband During Visitation
Case Title: Richa Sharma v. Ganesh Kasinathan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 416
The Madras High Court recently allowed a mother's appeal against a single judge order requiring her to treat her estranged husband, during child visits, as an "Athithi" (Guest) and show hospitality by providing snacks and dinner, etc.
The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the single judge was swayed by what should be the conduct of the parties towards each other and that prescribing such stipulations was not relevant for deciding their rights.
Case Title: SJ Sheik Abul Asim v The Registrar cum Chairman and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
While hearing a Degree Graduate's plea seeking to allow him to study law in the absence of a 12th Standard Degree, the Bar Council of India informed Justice GR Swaminathan that as per the decision taken by its Legal Education Committee on 21st May 2022, diploma courses and polytechnic courses will be treated at par with a 12th standard certificate.
Case Title: Mohammed Siddiq v. Rasheeda Begum and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that as per the settled legal position, there is no bar or prohibition on initiating simultaneous proceedings for claiming maintenance under different statutes. The parties however should disclose about previous maintenance petition before the subsequent court.
Justice Murali Shankar of Madurai Bench was deciding upon the plea of a husband, who was seeking to quash the proceedings before the Family Court, Thiruchirappalli in which the wife had moved a Maintenance case.
Case Title: P Senthil v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419
The Madras High Court recently observed that while deciding upon matters involving matrimonial disputes, the courts should not brush aside the evidence of the woman's family members merely because they are interested parties.
Justice P Velmurugan observed that in these types of matters, it is the family members who can notice the incidents and come forward to give evidence since a third party may not interfere in such matters thinking that it's a family dispute.
The court observed that mere non-production of a medical certificate or not lodging of the complaint soon after the occurrence was not fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially in matrimonial disputes. This was because a newly married girl will not immediately rush to the police station to lodge a complaint in a quarrel as she would take time to settle the issues instead.
Case Title: Kaladi v. District Collector and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
Directing the Thoothukudi District Collector to take a decision on a resident's representation seeking permission to install statues of social reformer Thanthai Periyar and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar at his property, the Madras High Court has said there cannot be any objection from anyone against it as both of them are respected by people in the state.
"As far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, there cannot be any objection from anyone for erecting the statues of Thanthai Periyar or Dr.Ambedkar. The people individually have respects for these leaders," said Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup.
Case Title: K Seeni Thevar v. The Joint Commissioner and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
The Madras High Court recently emphasized on the right of every individual to worship a god according to his personal faith. The court was dealing with a challenge against a notice issued by the "Fit Person" of Arulmigu Gurunathasamy Temple, which has remained closed since 2011, stating that the temple will be re-opened on 7th October 2022.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed,
In the light of the fact that the worshipping of a god is a right of every individual according to his personal faith, it would be appropriate to direct the 1st respondent herein to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the temple under the provisions of the HR & CE Act [The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act], and decide the rights of the parties in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. versus J. Vengatesh & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 422
The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award directing specific performance of a contract, cannot be set aside on the ground that the nature of agreement between the parties was not capable of specific enforcement. The Court added that the said issue related to the construction of an agreement, which cannot be made a ground for interference of the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Division Bench of Justices Paresh Upadhyay and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that an arbitral award cannot be interfered on the ground that it directed specific performance of a contract which was inequitable in nature and which gave an unfair advantage to a party.
Case title - SEEMAN and others Vs. IOP, CHENNAI
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 423
The Madras High Court recently quashed a case against 13 persons who had allegedly raised slogans condemning the implementation of National Education Police 2020 by the Union Government.
Quashing the proceedings the bench of Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan noted that the police officer was not a competent person to register an FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC and thus, the FIR or final report was liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.
Further, regarding the charge of Section 143, the Court observed that since the complaint did not state how the protest formed by the petitioners and others was an unlawful protest and also, it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC, therefore, the final report was liable to be quashed
Case title - Ravichandran v. State [Crl.A.No.65 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 424
The Madras High Court, in a judgment delivered in a criminal appeal, laid down certain significant principles relating to the examination of witnesses (who are unable to speak) under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court significantly held that wherein a witness is not able to either communicate verbally or give his evidence in writing and can only communicate through signs, then it is mandatory for the court to take the assistance of the interpreter and order recording of such statement by way of videography. In essence, the Court has held that the proviso to Section 119 applies only to such witnesses who give evidence by way of signs.
Case Title: Mr N Nagarajan v. Mr. Schekar Raj
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
Moved by the plight of an old couple, the Madras High Court recently upheld the judgement and decree of the trial court and cancelled a settlement deed executed in favour of their son, after the court was convinced that the son failed to look after the aged parents.
Even if the deed is considered as a settlement deed by virtue of Section 23 of the Maintenance Act the same has to be declared void in as much as the plaintiff has failed to comply with the obligations imposed upon him under the deed by ignoring the medical needs of the parents.
Case Title: T.Keeniston Fernando v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 426
The Madras High Court recently denied bail to two Srilankan nationals, who are accused of attempting to siphon off funds from the bank account of a deceased woman in Mumbai to fund LTTE.
The bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Teeka Raman denied bail after observing that the indefeasible right for default bail stood extinguished as the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had already submitted the final report.
Case Title: Azizul Karim v. PS Kirubakaran and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 427
The Madras High Court recently requested the Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram to consider passing appropriate orders under the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act 1949 against a Chennai resident who is prima facie in the habit of filing vexatious litigations in different courts throughout the state.
The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy gave liberty to the Advocate General to consider the materials on record and pass appropriate orders as he deems fit.
Case Title: Murali v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
The Madras High Court recently quashed FIR against a man booked under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 for possessing ganja after observing that there were serious lapses on the part of the investigating officer.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the seized contraband had not been tested for its content even after 5 years. Further, in spite of directions by the court, the Investigating Officer had not taken steps to number the final report.
Case Title: A. Irudayaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Adjudication Cell
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
The Madras High Court has ordered the release of the vehicle as the department has failed to pass the detention order within the period as provided for under Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) and no show cause notice has been issued within the period of 7 days as set out under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that since the statutory show cause notice is to be issued within a period of 7 days from the date of interception, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to pass an order of detention prior thereto.
Third Gender Candidates Entitled To Special Reservation: Madras High Court
Case Title: Tamilselvi v. The Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 430
The Madras High Court has directed the state Health and Family Welfare Department and Directorate of Medical Education to provide special reservation to the third gender/ transgender in the admissions for Post Basic (Nursing) Course.
The direction was passed after a transgender woman approached the court with a plea seeking quashing of the Prospectus issued for the Post Basic (Nursing) Course and Post Basic Diploma in Psychiatry Nursing Course for the academic year 2022-2023 after she was considered only a woman in the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee.
Justice R Suresh Kumar observed that the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the special category was not just a mere omission but against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
GST Dept. To Consider Reply to SCN Sent By Assessee Through post and Not Portal: Madras High Court
Case Title: Asia (Chennai) Engineering Company Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 431
The Madras High Court has held that the GST Department should consider a reply to a show cause notice even if it is sent by the assessee through the post and not the portal.
While rejecting the objection of the department that the postal/physical reply to them shall not be considered, the single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has directed the department to give an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner, hear the objections, peruse the documents submitted and the explanations.
Case title - Abirami S v. The Union of India and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
In a significant observation, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has said that the principles of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 can very well be made applicable to the Hindu Tamils who were the primary victims of the racial strife in Srilanka.
The bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan observed thus as it took into account the fact that Srilanka does not fall within the ambit of CAA 2019, a parliamentary law that permits the persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh to get Indian Citizenship.
Limitation Qua Counter-Claim Stops On The Date Of Notice Of Arbitration: Madras High Court
Case Title: Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, O.P. No. 298 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
The High Court of Madras has held that the limitation period qua Counter-Claims would be arrested on the date on which the respondent issues the notice of arbitration and the date of filing of counter-claims would be irrelevant.
The bench of Justice M. Sundar further held that limitation is a facet of 'public policy' and an error in limitation clearly leaves an award hit by Section 34(2)(b)(ii) read with Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 thereat.
The Court further held that if the agreement includes pre-arbitration reference to Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) or Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the period of limitation for initiating arbitration commences only after dispute resolution fails before these panels.
All Directors Of Pharma Company Liable For Production Of Substandard Drugs: Madras High Court
Case Title: Vikas Rambal and others v. The State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by directors of Sunrise International Labs for quashing a criminal proceeding initiated against them alleging that the company supplied drugs of substandard quality.
Justice G Jayachandran rejected the contention of the directors that the prosecution should be quashed against them since they were not involved in the day to day functioning of the company.
The court observed that the decision to manufacture drugs was a collective decision of the board of directors and thus all the directors will be made liable. The directors could not merely claim that they were not involved in the production of the drugs.
Case Title: P Rajendran v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
The Madras High Court has made it clear that Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others does not preclude the Enforcement Directorate from prosecuting a person for offence of money laundering under PMLA, merely because such person was not prosecuted for the predicate offence.
The bench of Justices PN Prakash and Teeka Raman found force in the submission that while a person may not be involved in the original criminal activity that had resulted in the generation of "proceeds of crime", such person may later help the main accused in laundering the proceeds of crime.
'Ego' Is A Small Three Letter Word That Spoils Relationships: Madras High Court
Case Title: Mrs Karthika v. Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 436
While dismissing a wife's habeas corpus petition claiming that her husband had kept their four year old son in illegal custody, the Madras High Court stressed that parents must keep aside their 'ego' for the welfare of the child.
Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice C Saravanan dismissed the petition observing that the child was not in the illegal custody of the husband. The court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and work out her remedy for the custody of the child.
Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 437
The Madras High Court has allowed the quashing petition filed by self-styled Godman Shivshankar Baba in a case pertaining to sexual harassment.
The Court had observed that the FIR was registered in 2021 while the offence was alleged to have been committed in 2010-2011. Though the court found the allegations to be serious, since no application was filed under 473 CrPC to condone the delay, the prosecution was held to be barred by limitation.
Case Title: M/s.Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
The Madras High Court has held that ASMT 10 is mandatory before proceeding to issue GST DRC-01. Failure to issue ASMT 10 in respect of the discrepancies forming the subject matter in GST DRC-01 culminating in GST DRC-07 would vitiate the entire proceedings.
The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that any proceeding in GST DRC-01A/1 culminating in an Order in GST DRC-07, if pursuant to scrutiny under Section 61 of the TNGST Act, ought to be preceded by the issuance of Form ASMT 10.
Visually Challenged & Print-Disabled Persons Facing "Book Famine": Madras High Court
Case Title: P Ramkumar v State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 439
The Madras High Court recently expressed concern over the "book famine" being faced by the present generation where people with print disabilities including visually challenged persons do not have access to printed works and books.
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were hearing a plea for bringing out Braille Version of Thirukkural in Tamil and English languages to ensure that the visually challenged people could read, recite and enjoy the essence of Thirukkural.
Noting that the Central Institute of Classical Tamil had already taken steps to issue and distribute 45 Sanga Ilakkiya Noolgal including the Thirukkural in braille format to the Visually Challenged persons free of cost, the court directed the authorities to give wide publicity about the availability of the Sangam Literature in braille form so that more persons could enjoy the same.
Case Title: Balamurugan v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
Upholding the conviction of a 28-year-old man who set a class IX student on fire in 2018 merely because she rejected his proposal, the Madras High Court has said such incidents are on the rise and only reflect the fact that man considers woman chattel and wants to own or "forcibly take her under his control" without understanding that she is a human being, who is entitled to "decide on her wishes".
The division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Anand Venkatesh further observed:
"This loathsome act was committed by the appellant with the only motive that the girl who did not reciprocate the love proposal made by him, should not live in this world and she should not have any relationship with anybody else in this world."
Bank Account Cannot Be Frozen By Way Of Summons U/S 91 CrPC: Madras High Court
Case Title: Sahil Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 441
The Madras High Court has held that the police have no jurisdiction to freeze bank accounts while issuing summons under Section 91 of CrPC. While issuing such summons, the investigating officer can only summon a person to produce the document or other things.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus observed as under:
Thus, it is clear that the first respondent (Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime) has no jurisdiction. In the summons issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., the investigation officer summons the person to produce the document or other things. On the summons issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., account cannot be freezed.
Case Title: M/s ES Mydeen and Co. v. The Designated Officer and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
Dealing with the State's argument that consumption of tobacco is causing a serious health hazard and Article 47 of the Constitution imposes a duty on it to improve public health, the Madras High Court said the government's contention would have impressed it had the law been enforced into totality.
"Unfortunately, that is not the case. The State has monopolized the privilege of selling liquor. The government of Tamil Nadu is raising huge revenue through liquor sale. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), a wholly government owned company, has thousands of retail outlets throughout the State," said the court
Justice G R Swaminathan compared the state's argument on Article 47 against tobacco to "devil quoting the scripture or pot calling the kettle black."
Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v The Branch Manager, Bank of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
The Madras High Court has directed the District Revenue Officer (RDO), Madurai to take possession of the 13kg gold armour to be adorned on the statue of late freedom fighter Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar during the Guru Pooja Celebrations of his birth anniversary.
The Madurai bench of Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan observed that since there were claims and counter-claims going on between AIADMK factions of O Paneerselvam and Edappadi Palanisamy, it was difficult to operate the locker facility of joint account along with the Pasumpon Thevar Ninaivalayam and receive the golden armour that has been kept in the locker facility of the respondent bank.
Case Title: RKR. Gold P. Ltd Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 444
The Madras High Court has held that the criminal investigation wing is separate and distinct from the assessment wing and that disclosure made before one wing will not exonerate the assessee from the requirement of making a "full and true disclosure" before the assessing officer in an assessment.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that in the absence of full and true disclosure in the first instance, the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing authority beyond the period of four years is not barred by limitation, and cannot be faulted.
Case Title: The Union of India v. R.K. Constructions, Arb. O.P. (Com Div) No. 148 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
The Madras High Court has held that the arbitral tribunal can award interest despite there being a contractual prohibition if no pleading as to the prohibition was made by the aggrieved party.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that a party cannot rely on a Clause under GCC for challenging the arbitral award for awarding interest contrary to the said clause if it had not taken such an objection before the arbitral tribunal during the arbitral proceeding.
Case Title: Rahul Dinesh Surana v. The Senior Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
Denying bail to the former CEO of Surana Group of Companies in the alleged case of defrauding various banks to the tune of Rs 10,000 Crore, the Madras High Court recently observed that white-collar crimes are particularly harmful to the society as they are committed by well-educated and influential persons who understood the consequence of their actions.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira in the order said:
Among other crimes, this sort of white-collar crimes are particularly harmful to society as they are committed by not just literated, but, well educated and influenced persons, who are expected to set a moral example and behave responsibly. The fraudulent activity in siphoning of pubic money by defrauding the financial institutions is unlike any other offence which could have been committed by sudden provocation as it is a well calculated one with the deep understanding as to the consequences and with the ideology to conquer them.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Pondy Plastic Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
Lamenting the manner in which the venue of a recent enrolment ceremony was turned into a litter zone, the Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council to submit a report on how it proposes to ensure that such functions in future are conducted without the presence of the family members and friends of candidates.
The court has issued the direction in a matter related to the ban on use of plastic in Tamil Nadu. Noting that it had earlier instructed the Bar Council and bar associations to ensure that hgh court also should march towards an eco-friendly and plastic-free zone, the division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice PT Asha said:
"However, it has been brought to our notice on the very same day, the Bar Council has held its Enrolment Ceremony at the Auditorium within the precincts of the High Court. The entire place after the Enrolment Ceremony was turned into a litter zone. SUP, garlands, papers, etc. were strewn not only before the Auditorium, but around the entire campus. This is a very serious matter which requires attention."
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s MAC Public Charitable Trust (batch)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
The Madras High Court on Monday deprecated the practice of receiving capitation fee in exchange of admissions. The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that such practice of receiving capitation fee is against the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992.
It is therefore beyond the pale of any doubt that education can never be a commercial activity or a trade or business and those in the field of education will have to constantly and consistently abide by this guiding principle. However, the undeniable reality staring at our face is the collection of capitation fee as a condition precedent for admission into educational institutions.
Case Title: S Mukanchand Bothra (Died) and another v. The Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
The Madras High Court came down heavily on public authorities delaying action upon complaints by citizens against government officials. The court was hearing a plea by a man who had given a complaint to the Chief Secretary against an officer in 2016. When the complaint was not acted upon, he approached the court.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed that failure of public authorities take action upon complaints would result in people's "no confidence" in the public authorities. Further, such inaction/omission was also unconstitutional and authorities had to ensure that such delay does not arise in the future.
Case Title: Senthil Balaji v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
Madras High Court has ordered a fresh enquiry into the cash-for-job scam, a case involving irregularities in the appointment in State Transport Corporation.
Justice V Sivagnanam observed that there were irregularities in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency as the agency had failed to include certain crucial aspects.
The court also dismissed the discharge petitions filed by the Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji, stating that the case impacts the society. The court also noted that there were materials against the Minister and there was no infirmity in framing of charge by the court below.
Case Title: Prasanna Gunasundari v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
The Madras High Court recently observed that the power to entertain mercy petition of any convicted person under any law to which the executive power of the State extends is only available to the Governor of the State.
Thus, the office of the Director General of Police (DGP) has no statutory power to entertain mercy petitions against orders passed in departmental action. Such an exercise of power by the DGP is thus in violation of the Indian Constitution. The court noted that the exercise of jurisdiction by authorities in excess of their jurisdiction would result in colorable exercise of power.
Case Title: K Kala v Secretary, Education Department and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
The Madras High Court criticized the recent trend of parents implicating school authorities and teachers whenever a school student commits suicide. Justice SM Subramaniam noted that teachers and headmasters could be made liable only if there was sufficient evidence regarding their misconduct.
The court also noted that while it is easier to engage in blame-game, it is much difficult to maintain discipline in schools. Further, such general blaming would also negatively affect the students studying in the institution.
The court also highlighted that the duties of parents co-exists with that of the teachers. The court noted that being the natural guardians, the role played by parents was pivotal and had great importance in shaping the lives of children. It said that parents are expected to be the "watchdog" regarding the activities of their own children, both inside the house and outside.
Satisfied With CB-CID Investigation, Madras High Court Refuses CBI Probe Into Custodial Death
Case Title: V Vijay and another v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
The Madras High Court recently refused to transfer the investigation of the alleged custodial death of Vignesh to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Justice V Sivagnanam observed that the investigation by CB-CID was satisfactory and that there was no need to transfer the case.
Vignesh, who was intercepted by the police was allegedly assaulted by the authorities and later died.
Case Title: R Karthikeyan v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
The Madras High Court on Friday permitted the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to carry out a procession at 44 locations out of the 50 requested for, on November 6.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan said the procession could be carried out in 44 locations, after perusing the sealed cover report. For six locations i.e., Nagercoil, Coimbatore city, Pollachi, Tirupur, Palladam, and Arumani, the court did not grant permission procession as it found "some materials".
The court directed the organization to conduct the proceeding in compounded premises such as Ground or Stadium. The participants were directed to go by their respective vehicles without causing any hindrance to the general public and traffic. Even during the programs, the participants were directed not to make adverse remarks against any of the individuals or the organisations banned by the Government.
The participants shall not bring any stick, lathi or weapon that may cause injury to any one.
ALSO READ: Instructions Issued by DGP To Permit RSS March On Nov 6: Tamil Nadu Govt To Madras High Court
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. The National Commission for Scheduled Caste and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
The Madras High Court recently observed that while the National Commission for Scheduled Castes can exercise the powers of the civil court for the purpose of conducting an adjudication in an effective manner, it cannot direct the authorities to grant promotion to a person or post her at a particular station or place.
"More specifically, National Commission is not empowered to issue any direction to transfer an employee in a particular post or place. Promotion is also a condition of service and all promotions are to be granted strictly in accordance with the Service rules in force," said Justice SM Subramaniam.
Case Title: Lilly Pushpam v The Additional Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
The Madras High Court recently set aside a preventive detention order after observing that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 days in considering the representation made on behalf of the detenu.
The court relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in Rekha v State of Tamil Nadu, Tara Chand v State of Rajasthan and others and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sumaiya v The Secretary to Government where the court has repeatedly held that unexplained delay renders the very detention illegal and is sufficient for setting aside the detention order. In view of the same, the court directed the respondents to release the detenue forthwith.
Case Title: N/s.Sayar Cars Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
The Madras High Court has held that the assessment made to the best of the authority's judgement would not be sufficient for the imposition of penalty, as the degree of proof required for the imposition of penalty is much higher than that required for the purpose of framing a best judgement assessment.
The single bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has observed that the petitioner has admittedly remitted the difference in tax along with interest even at the time of inspection. The imposition of a penalty under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act was automatic and erroneous in law.
Case Title: Vinoth v Sub Divisional Magistrate and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
The Madras High Court recently came down heavily on Executive Magistrates passing orders "without knowing or understanding the basic concepts of criminal law". The remarks were made while hearing a challenge to an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Magistrate under Section 122(1) (b) of CrPC.
Justice K Murali Shankar lamented that the Executive Magistrates were passing orders mechanically, without conducting any sort of inquiry.
The court thus noted that the government should conduct Training/Refresher Courses for newly appointed Executive Magistrates to ensure that they conduct enquiry in a proper manner.
Case Title: K Vinopratha v The Teachers Recruitment Board and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
The Madras High Court recently said that when the answer key is manifestly and patently erroneous, interference will be warranted.
The court added, that the apex court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta has held that key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization.
Show Cause Notice Issued To The Driver Of Consignment Is Not Adequate: Madras High Court
Case Title: Ramki Cements Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
The Madras High Court has held that the show-cause notice issued to the driver of the consignment is not adequate.
The single bench of Justice S. Srimathy has quashed the demand for tax and penalty in Form GST MOV-09 and directed the department to issue a fresh notice.
The court opined that the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity. The petitioner has not received the show cause notice. The show-cause notice issued to the driver was not adequate. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Kirankumar Moolchand Jain versus TransUnion CIBIL Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
The Madras High Court has ruled that the bar contained under Section 31 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (CIC Act) will not apply to proceedings for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, to resolve the disputes in the manner prescribed under the CIC Act.
The Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the object and purpose of Section 31 of the CIC Act is to preclude the parties from seeking redressal of grievances in any manner other than that prescribed under the CIC Act. It added that since Section 18 of the CIC Act provides for dispute resolution through arbitration, the provisions of Section 31 would not bar the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: Sunitha v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
Expressing shock over Tamil Nadu government's abuse of preventive detention laws, the Madras High Court has said that it will impose costs on the State whenever a preventive detention order is found to be illegal.
The division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh gave the ruling in two habeas corpus petitions filed by relatives of the detenues under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.
The court held that callous indifference towards the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution clearly constituted a "Constitutional Tort". It added that such detention orders, which are passed ignoring the law, only to be set aside, clearly shows the State's refusal to follow the law.
Case Title: S Rajarethinam (Deceased) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
The Madras High Court on Monday initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the Director General of Police and other police officials for prima facie flouting the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in DK Basu's case, while arresting a lawyer in 2017.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the report of the Magistrate concerned revealed about the excessiveness of the police and an act of violation allegedly committed by them. It observed that the police officials are expected to understand the scope of fundamental rights enumerated under Articles 14,16,19 and 21 of the Constitution while initiating action against any individuals. The bench also expressed dismay over the long delay in concluding the disciplinary action that was initiated against the errant officials.
The court was satisfied that the procedures as contemplated under DK Basu were not followed. In light of the such matter, the thought it fit to initiate suo moto contempt proceedings against the officials.
DGFT Cannot Amend Foreign Trade Policy; Can't Restrict The Benefit Of SHIS Scheme: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. Polyhose India Private Limited versus The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
The Madras High Court has ruled that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), in exercise of its power to clarify the doubts regarding the interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), as formulated by the Central Government, cannot amend the very policy itself.
The single bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar noted that the FTP 2009-2014 provided for grant of Status Holder Incentive Scrip (SHIS), an export incentive, to the entire Plastic sector. The Court held that the DGFT cannot restrict the said incentive to the plastic products falling under a particular Serial Number under the ITC HS Classification, in the absence of any amendment in the FTP.
Case Title: M/s. Deetech Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
The Madras High Court has ruled that once a dispute is referred to the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), if the Facilitation Council adjudicates the dispute on merits, such decision would operate as res judicata and would bar the institution of arbitral proceedings in respect of the same dispute.
However, the Court held that if the Facilitation Council declines to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not maintainable before it, the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties would survive.
The single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that by way of a legal fiction contained under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, an arbitration agreement in terms of the A&C Act is statutorily imported once the dispute is taken up for arbitration under the MSMED Act. The Court ruled that the said legal fiction does not have the effect of novating the agreement between the parties by deleting the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement.
Case Title: S Muthumalai Rani v The Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
The Madras High Court recently directed the government to constitute "Flying Squads" at Regional and District levels to conduct frequent surprise inspections in Government Hospitals, Primary Health Centres, etc., across the State to ensure that Doctors and other staffs are properly working in the hospitals and also ensure that the Hospitals are working in a good manner.
The court also directed that the activities of the Flying Squad could be monitored by the Head of Departments or the Government to maintain its efficiency.
Case Title: Arul Daniel v Suganya and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
A Full Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday held that proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act can be challenged in the High Court only under Article 227 of the Constitution and not by invoking the court's power under Section 482 CrPC.
The matter was referred to the bench of Justice PN Prakash, Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira after Justice N Satish Kumar, while considering a batch of petitions seeking to quash the application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act by invoking the provision under Section 482 CrPC, in an order observed that a division bench's recent ruling on the legal question was not in consonance with the Supreme Court decisions.
While disposing of the petition, the larger bench observed that the High Court did not have the powers to quash proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act through Section 482 of CrPC. It observed that this is because, under the Domestic Violence Act, a Magistrate court is the designated court to hear applications. Since Magistrate's court is not a criminal court, a petition under Section 482 is not maintainable. The High Court could thus entertain challenges against proceedings under Domestic Violence Act only under Article 227.
Madras High Court Quashes ED's Money Laundering Proceedings Against DMK MP Jagathrakshakan
Case Title: S Jagathrakshakan v The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
The Madras High Court recently quashed Enforcement Directorate proceedings against DMK MP S Jagathrakshakan. A bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice RMT Teeka Raman allowed the petition filed by the Minister after observing that the FIRs in the predicate offense were already quashed by a single judge.
While seeking to quash the proceedings under the Money Laundering Act, the petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money-laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.
In light of the above judgment, the court allowed the petition filed by the Minister and set aside the proceedings under the Money Laundering Act.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Nirmal Kumar and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
The Madras High Court has recently restrained the head of Tamil Nadu BJP IT Wing, CTR Nirmal Kumar from making any defamatory remarks, statements or tweets against DMK Minister Senthil Balaji.
The interim orders were passed by a bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan on a plea by Senthil Balaji.
In his plea, Balaji submitted that the defendant, was habitually offending the Minister due to political differences, through tweets and other interviews. He also submitted that the allegations did not have any backing as there was no evidence to support the claims. The defendant was thus making vexatious and slanderous allegations without any basis, Balaji said.
Madras High Court Restrains Over 12K Websites From Illegally Broadcasting FIFA World Cup 2022
Case Title: Viacom18 Media Private Limited v Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
The Madras High Court on Friday granted interim injunction to Viacom18 and restrained more than 12,000 websites from showcasing the FIFA World Cup 2022.
While granting the interim injunction, Justice M Sundar said:
With regard to prima facie case, there is no difficulty in accepting prima facie that the plaintiff is the owner of the Copyright in the Sporting Event. In Terms of balance of convenience, if this interim order is not granted now, it would result in alleged piracy being completed in all and every aspect of the matter.
Finding merit in the case of the Plaintiffs, the court restrained the respondent internet service providers "or any other person or entity" from infringing the plaintiff's copyright over the FIFA World Cup sporting event "to prevent copying, transmission, communication, displaying, releasing, showing, hosting, streaming, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing and exhibition of the sporting event".
Case Title: M.R.Sivaramakrishnan v State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
While dismissing a petition to quash the final report with respect to a sexual harassment case on the ground that the harassment did not occur in the public place, the Madras High Court held that harassment of a woman would still be an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.
Even for the sake of argument, if it is understood that in order to punish the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the occurrence ought to have occurred in a public place, still the harassment of a woman is an offence and the accused can be punished under Section 354 IPC. Because, the Court is not precluded to punish the accused for any other lesser offence, if the offence is cognizable in nature, Justice RN Manjula observed.
Case Title: R Prema Latha and others v State and others
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 472
The Madras High Court recently declared as null and void the appointment of 254 assistant professors in colleges managed by Pachaiyappa Trust after it was found that the appointments were tainted with malpractice.
"The Management of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board is directed to terminate the services of all the appointed candidates forthwith," said the court in the judgment dated November 17.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that since it was not possible to segregate the tainted and non-tainted appointments, it was preferable to cancel the entire appointment.
Case Title: Dr. K Sri Hari Prashanth and another v The Government of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
The Madras High Court has asked the State Government to seek a clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the applicability of the Tamil Nadu government notification earmarking 50% of seats in the Government medical colleges to in-service candidates for the academic year 2022-23.
In the meantime, the court gave liberty to the Centre to continue its process of counselling, provided that no final allocation is given to any candidate infringing the 50% reservation for in-service candidates in view of the Government Order.
Case Title: M Muthu v Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
The Madras High Court recently observed that trained Uniformed Personnels, under no circumstances, can be utilised to perform the menial job in the residences of Higher Authorities.
Justice SM Subramaniam remarked that trained Uniformed Personnel are expected to perform the combatant duty and other law and order duties in the interest of public at large. It added that forcing them to perform menial jobs in the name of orderlies is below their dignity.
The bench has therefore directed the Home Ministry to take strict action against higher officials whenever an incident of practicing orderly system is reported. It also directed that apart from taking departmental action, the salary payable to officials engaged as an orderly must be recovered from the errant higher official.
Case Title: Mr.K Varathan v Mr. Prakash Babu Nakundhi Reddy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a suit does not have an "urgent interim relief" it will be hit by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act which bars any commercial suit wherein pre- institution mediation was not carried out.
Justice M Sundar said that 'interim' relief and 'urgent interim' relief are distinct and one cannot escape pre-litigation mediation unless a case for the latter is proved.
The court thus set out certain tests/parameters (illustrative, not exhaustive) to be looked into to see if a relief was an "urgent interim relief":
Case Title: P Muthusamy and ors v Mrs P Vennila and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
Lamenting the casteism still prevailing in the country, the Madras High Court noted that even after 75 years of Independence, the government still has to provide separate burial grounds on communal lines. Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the government should ensure that at least the burial grounds should be made common to all communities.
But even in the Twenty First Century, we are left grappling with casteism and classification based on caste is made even in matters of burial of the dead. This situation has to change and the change should be for the better. We sincerely hope that the Government of the day would come forward to make a beginning by making at least burial grounds and burning grounds common to all communities.
Case Title: M Kala and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
The Madras High Court recently imposed Rs. 35K cost on a litigant for filing false case against Police personnel. Rs. 5 thousand will be paid to each of the seven police officers impleaded in the proceedings.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that there is a recent trend of filing petitions against police officers without any substance and such practice should never be tolerated.
Observing that the present petition was filed almost 5 years ago, the court added that keeping such petitions pending for long years would cause mental agony to the field officers and thus, the courts should ensure that such frivolous cases are disposed of soon.
Case Title: Vinoth R v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the District Collectors of Tenkasi, Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Coimbatore and Ooty to form a committee to curtail illegal diversion of the natural flow of waterfalls by the private resorts, who have created artificial waterfalls at their properties.
"We are of the view that the natural waterfalls which emerge after thousands of years of natural wear, tear, erosion and geomorphological changes, cannot be permitted to be cut and diverted by illegal means to the private resorts/estates/properties by the private persons," said the court.
The Madurai bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad directed the collectors to form a committee in their districts for inspection of the private resorts or estates in question.
Case Title: Leelavathi and another v. Kamala and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court has apologised to four women litigants before it for the insestivity shown to them by a lawyer, by putting humiliating questions to them during cross-examination.
The four women (plaintiffs) were wife and daughters of one VR Mani (deceased) who abandoned them for want of a son and then married defendant no.1 who gave birth to his son, defendant no. 2.
In a property dispute between the two sides, the lawyer appearing for the defendants "very high-handedly" put questions to Mani's first wife, suggesting that she is of loose character and even questioning the paternity of her two daughters. The Court found that the allegations were not backed by any valid material.
Justice Chakravarthy apologized that such an episode took place under the supervision of the Court and assured the three daughters that they are as good as sons.
Case Title: G Deepa and another v The General Manager and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
The Madras High Court recently observed that banks setting up ceiling limits based on the Reserve Bank of India's circular in non-base branches are not violative of the Banking Regulation Act.
Justice N Sathish Kumar further observed that when the account holder himself opened the bank account knowing all the restrictions put up on non-base branches, he could not later complain that the same is violative of his property right.
Thus, finding no merits in the petition, the court dismissed the same. The court also opined that it was open to the RBI and other banks to modify the restrictions and to enhance the ceiling limits.
Case Title: Rajamani v The Inspector General of Police (South Zone) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
Coming to the aid of a detenue, whose rape complaints were not properly considered by the police officials, the Madras High Court expanded the scope of a Habeas Corpus Petition and went on to seek a status report from the Superintendent of Police regarding the allegations.
The detenue was kept at a care home following registering of a rape complaint and not allowed to meet her family. The counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the hardships that the detenue had to go through, being a victim of rape to register her complaints. He submitted that her complaints were not duly looked into by the authorities.
Hearing this submission, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh sought a status report.
Make Tourist Destinations Accessible For Disabled: High Court Directs Tamil Nadu Govt
Case Title: KR Raja v State
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 482
The Madras High Court has directed the State government to take steps and make all tourist destinations in Tamil Nadu accessible for disabled persons in accordance with the standards of accessibility as formulated under section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The bench of Justices R Mahadevan and J Sathya Narayana Prasad remarked,
Accessible tourism is integral for equal participation of persons with disabilities in recreational and cultural life, like the other persons. It also applies to the senior citizens and elderly persons to experience and participate fully in their older years.
It therefore directed the State to devise a program in consultation with expert bodies to make tourist destinations accessible for all.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
The Madras High Court on Tuesday closed the suo moto proceedings that were initiated following a ragging incident at Christian Medical College, Vellore.
Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar took note of the 'preventive actions' taken by the college to ward off any future incidents of ragging.
A police complaint was filed after a video went viral detailing the incidents of mass ragging at CMC Vellore. Based on the complaint, seven students were suspended.
Following news reports of the incident, the Court took suo moto cognisance of the incident.
Case Title: V Annadurai v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
While hearing a plea by a former Senior Driver seeking terminal and pensionary benefits which were not settled in light of a corruption case against him, the Madras High Court expressed deep unhappiness over the pendency of corruption cases in the state.
As per a status report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, nearly 1635 corruption cases are pending across the State of Tamil Nadu and those cases were registered from the year 1983 onwards.
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that with such pendency there was no possibility of controlling corrupt practices among public servants. Further, when criminal proceedings are kept pending for such a long period, the offenders will get encouragement to escape the clutches of law.
Case Title: SP Narayanan v District Collector, Thoothukudi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 485
Hearing a plea seeking measures against use of temple land as a burial ground, the Madras High Court observed that while the right to be cremated or buried is an essential part of fundamental right to practise one's religion, the same cannot be allowed on the land belonging to temples.
"At the same time, it cannot be allowed to bury dead bodies in the land belonging to the temple. This court has time and again retierated that the lands belonging to the temples are used only for religious purposes and the activities connected therein"
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad said that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) department, being the custodian of temples, should take all possible steps to remove encroachments and unauthorised occupation.
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v The Director and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed one of the two FIRs filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Corruption (DVAC) against former Minister SP Velumani. The court quashed the DVAC proceeding were the former minister was alleged to have awarded tenders irregularly while he was in office as the Minister of Municipal Administration.
The bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice RMT Teekaa Raman further held that prosecution in another case involving disproportionate assets would continue. It is alleged that the minister along with 11 others amassed wealth to the tune of over ₹58.23 crore that was disproportionate to their known sources of income during 2016-21. As per the FIR, it is also alleged that the Minister had channelized his ill-gotten wealth into other firms/companies owned by his relatives or associates.
Case Title: A Veronica Mary v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
Observing that sexual harassment in educational institutions continues to remain inadequately addressed, the Madras High Court recently issued directions to the State government for proper implementation of the law and policies framed against sexual abuse of children.
The division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad directed the school education department to coordinate with the State Commission for Protection Of Child Rights to ensure that an Internal Complaints Committee is constituted in the schools as required under under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The court also said the schools may frame anti-sexual harassment policy and distribute it among students and teachers. Importantly, the court said it needs to be ensured that every schools has reporting and redressal mechanism in place.
Case Title: Latha Educational Society Kaniyamoor v State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
The Madras High Court on Wednesday permitted Latha Educational Society to reopen its two schools, which were vandalised in July following the death of a school girl, for classes IX-XII on a trial basis for one month
Justice R Suresh Kumar said the students in the higher classes have to appear in the half-yearly examination this month and at least for that, the classes need to be opened so that they can prepare for and write the exams well.
The court directed that the District Administration, headed by the District Collector and the District Superintendent of Police, to visit the school before the date of reopening and hold discussions with the school management and other stakeholders on security arrangements in the school premises and the locality.
Case Title: Yuvraj and others v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against Swathi, a prime witness to the Gokulraj Murder Case.
While hearing the appeals challenging the life imprisonment, the madurai bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh summoned Swathi.
During the previous hearing on November 25, Swathi was showed CCTV footages of the deceased Gokulraj coming out of the temple with her. Though Swathi identified the man in the video as Gokulraj, she failed to identify the woman as herself.
The court however observed that Swathi was making false statements under oath. When asked if she was being forced to make such statements, Swathi started weeping and later fainted.
Even though the court warned that contempt proceedings will be initiated for such acts, Swathi stood by her statements. This led the court to initiate contempt proceedings against Swathi.
Case Title: L Muruganandam v The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
Shocked over the fact that a Police Sub-Inspector had not even read the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar which provides guidelines on arrest, the Madras High Court observed that the Chief of Police had a duty to ensure that the guidelines reached every police officer.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Kumaresh Babu was hearing a plea by a lawyer, who was suffering from locomotive disability seeking an enhancement of compensation in an order of the State Human Rights Commission. The petitioner had claimed that his arrest was improper and there was a blatant human rights violation.
Finding that the police force in the State was not given proper sensitisation to handle cases involving persons with disability, the court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department to ensure that district wise sensitisation is carried out.
The court added that similar guidelines should also be issued to Government Doctors who examine such persons with disabilities who run into conflict with law and are brought for medical examination.
Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v Arappor Iyakkam and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
The Madras High Court on Friday temporarily restrained NGO Arappor Iyakkam from making any derogatory statements against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswamy.
While granting the interim injunction in favour of Palaniswamy, the bench of Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy observed that the right to free speech guaranteed under the Indian Constitution does not give a right to defame others.
The court said any baseless publication would have considerable impact throughout the career of a politician.
Case Title: U Akbar Ali v The State of Tamil Nadu and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person who has converted to another religion cannot claim the benefits of his community before conversion unless it is expressly granted by the State.
Justice GR Swaminathan further added that whether a person who has converted to another religion can be given the benefit of community reservation was a matter pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. Thus, it was not for the High Court to decide the matter.
Case Title: M Seetharaman v The Commissioner HR&CE and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 493
While directing Tamil Nadu Government to impose restrictions against usage of mobile phones inside temple premises in the State of Tamil Nadu the Madras High Court observed that though Article 25 of the constitution entitles everyone the freedom of religion, the same is subject to regulations inside the temple premises.
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad of the Madurai bench observed that the usage of mobile phones and cameras inside the temple which diverts the attention of the devotees can be regulated by the temple authorities concerned.
The court observed that under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act 1947, the Trustees or authority-in-charge of a temple was empowered to make regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum of the temple. The Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act 1947 also prescribes certain code of conduct for maintenance of order and decorum in the temple, apart from the regulations made by the trustee or authority as the case may.
Cancellation Of GST Registration On Health Issues; Madras High Court Revokes
Case Title: Tvl.Marimuthu Venkateshwaran Versus The Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 494
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has lifted the cancellation of the GST registration as the tax returns were not filed by the taxpayer due to health-related issues.
The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shafiq, while considering the directions issued in the cases of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, has directed the department to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration.
Case Title: Murali Krishna Chakrala Versus Deputy Director,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
The Madras High Court has held that the chartered accountant (CA) is not required to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the documents submitted by his clients.
"A Panel Advocate, who has no means to go into the genuinity of title deeds and who gives an opinion based on such title deeds, cannot be prosecuted along with the principal offender. Applying the same anomaly, we find that the prosecution of Murali Krishna Chakrala, in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, cannot be sustained," the division bench of Justice P. N. Prakash and Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed.
Case Title: Ramesh Dugar v The Deputy Director and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 496
The Madras High Court has held that when the investigation is being carried out in a different place, the court does not have territorial jurisdiction to order the return of seized articles even though the search and seizure were carried out within its territorial limits.
It observed that the search and seizure was the effect of the investigation and not the cause of the investigation. Therefore, as the investigation by the CBI and the ED was being held in Delhi, the court could not interfere in the matter.
Thus, the court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum.
Case Title: Shakil Ahamed v The Superintendent of Customs
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
While allowing a criminal revision petition and granting statutory bail to a petitioner in a NDPS case, the Madras High Court observed that even if the investigating agency has filed an application seeking an extension of time for completing the investigation, the public prosecutor has to file a separate report, showing that he had applied his mind and was satisfied with the investigation.
Even if the application is routed through the Public Prosecutor that will not be sufficient, he is expected to apply his mind independently, while seeking extension of time by the investigating agency Justice G Ilangovan observed.
Case Title: Dr P Balakrishnan v The Tamil Nadu Medical Council and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 498
The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the state to revamp the "archaic" Madras Medical Registration Act, 1914 after it was brought to the court's notice that the old Act was still being used by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council to conduct its elections and appoint office bearers.
Justice R Subramaniam directed the State government to revamp the old act within a period of three months and directed the Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC) to defer its elections till that time.
In the meantime, the court also directed that the present court order will not have an impact on the working of the present office bearers. The court directed them to continue till new rules are framed by the government.
Madras High Court Orders Police Inquiry Against Litigant For Filing False Affidavit In Court
Case Title: Karunyam Mission (Trust) rep. by Trustee v. H Ganapathy and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 499
The Madras High Court recently directed the Joint Registrar Original Side to lodge a police complaint against a litigant who had approached the court with false affidavit and other documents.
Justice CV Karthikeyan made the above direction after observing that the litigant had created a false death certificate, false legal heirship certificate, false Will with false signatures, all of which were evidently false and thus the petitioner tried to influence the flow of justice of the court.
Case Title: J Nithya v The Director of Elementary Education
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
The Madras High Court has recently directed the State to revamp its scheme regarding appointment of teachers to ensure that candidates who have acquired qualifications through regular campus education are given priority.
Also noting that the State ranked 27th in providing quality education, Justice SM Subramaniam highlighted the importance of imparting quality education for overall development of the state.
Case Title: Ravi @ Virumandi v State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 501
Upholding the conviction and 10 years sentence of a man in a POCSO case, the Madras High Court recently said that it is "eagerly" waiting for an amendment in the law to appropriately deal with cases involving relationships of adolescents.
Justice P Velmurugan made the comment while upholding the conviction and sentence of one Ravi who was accused of kidnapping and forcibly marrying a 17 year old girl in May 2014. He was convicted by the trial court under Sections 366 of IPC, Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)(i) r/w 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.
Case Title: Molasi Primary Agricultural Versus ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 502
The Madras High Court has held that the TDS exemption under Section 194N of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to cash withdrawal by primary agricultural credit co-operative societies.
The bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that the provisions of Section 194 N provide for a mandatory deduction of 2% of cash withdrawals and the object is to discourage and drive the move toward a cashless or cash-free economy.
Case Title: Tax Recovery Officer Versus Union Bank of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 503
The Madras High Court has held that the orders of attachment passed by the Tax Recovery Officer or Income Tax Department were subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the secured creditors and have no legs.
The division bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that even if recovery proceedings are quashed for any reason, the bankers' and financial institutions' rights to claim priority in terms of Section 31 B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and Section 26 E of the SARFAESI Act would still be available. The right to recover under the Income Tax Act, of 1961, must yield to the provisions under the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the exercise of attachment may not serve any useful purpose.
Case Title: Tmt.R.Nalini v Tmt.R.Nirmala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 504
The Madras High Court has held that the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is a rent authority, does not have powers to order for recovery of possession as per the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that as per Section 21(2) of the Act, a "rent court" could make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises.
Case Title: GP Bhaskar v Sumathi and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 505
The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant who had initiated contempt proceedings against a presiding judge of family court claiming that the family court did not comply with high court directions to dispose of his divorce petition within a time frame.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed the petitioner to deposit the amount to the relief fund of the Chief Justice of the High Court within a period of two weeks.
The court noted that even though the High Court had directed the Family Court to dispose of the divorce petition by 11.01.2017, soon after, the petitioner had filed an appeal against an order of interim monthly maintenance.
Case Title: Narendra Kumar Gupta v State rep by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 506
While allowing the bail plea of a man charged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Madras High Court reiterated that personal liberty could not be arbitrarily taken away unless in accordance with law.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, after observing that the petitioner was also suffering from a medical condition remarked that the man needed medical intervention.
Since there was no concrete ground for denial of personal liberty and being satisfied that the petitioner had complied with the twin conditions for granting bail, the court allowed the petition on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the title deeds of immovable property worth 5 crores and executing a bond for a sum of rupees ten thousand.
Case Title: Isha Foundation v Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 507
Madras High Court on Wednesday allowed Isha Foundation's plea against a show cause notice issued to it in Tamil Nadu for carrying out construction work between 2006-2014 at Coimbatore without obtaining mandatory environmental clearance as per the Central Government's Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar observed that since the foundation was carrying on construction work for promoting group development activities and for promoting yoga, it came within the definition of an educational institution and thus was exempted from seeking prior environmental clearance.
Case Title: S Selvaraj Simpson v The District Collector and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 508
The Madras High Court has recently held that though the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act provides for declaring certain property transfers as void, a settlement of property cannot be cancelled unless it fulfills the conditions of the Act.
While dismissing a litigant's plea seeking directions to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider his application, Justice R Subramanian observed that since the settlement deed did not contain a clause imposing an obligation on the settlee or transferree to maintain the settlor or transferor, the authority could not entertain an application for cancelling the settlement deed.
Case Title: M Ramya v N Satish Kumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 509
Observing that the delay in disposal of the maintenance petitions infringes the fundamental right of the minor children, the Madras High Court has said that the family courts dealing with matrimonial matters must ensure that the interest of minor children is taken care of and their livelihood is protected by all possible means.
Justice SM Subramaniam took note of a submission that courts across Tamil Nadu are delaying the proceedings in maintenance petitions by not disposing the petitions or even granting interim maintenance.
Justice Subramaniam stressed that courts must consider social implications of such cases and consider the interest and livelihood of the children. "...and in case the mother, who filed the maintenance petition is unemployed, then interim maintenance must be ordered to protect the livelihood of the child in the custody of the moth," the bench added.
Madras High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Cancelling GST Registration
Case Title: M/s. Raj Kishore Engineering Construction (P) Ltd. Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 510
The Madras High Court has quashed the order canceling GST registration without referring to the reason for the non-filing GSTR-3B return.
The single bench of Justice M. Sundar has remitted the matter back to the appellate authority with a directive to examine the matter on the merits based on available records and based on the opportunity already given to the writ petitioner/assessee under sub-section (8) of Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Arvind Gupta v Punjab National Bank and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 511
The Madras High Court has held that circumstances to seek "urgent interim relief" under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation must exist at the time of institution of the suit.
While dismissing an application seeking an injunction against the invocation of a bank guarantee, Justice M Sundar observed,
As Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that Section 12A is mandatory, it is in the nature of a jurisdictional fact. A jurisdictional fact should precede the suit and there can be no ex post facto jurisdictional fact. The plaintiff cannot be heard to contend that this Commercial Division should look at the matter as it stands today. The test is as it stood on the date of institution of suit i.e., 17.10.2022 in this case.
Case Title: M Hemalatha v The National Medical Commission and others and Minor K Megatharani v The Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 512
Granting relief to two students belonging to the Backward Tribe category seeking to be considered for reservation in the NEET UG medical admissions, the Madras High Court directed the Union Territory of Puducherry to allow them to fill up the vacant seats in the Scheduled Tribe category.
Justice CV Karthikeyan noted that it was the duty of the Government of Puducherry to ensure reservation to the Backward Tribe community which had been specifically created by the government. The judge also noted that the government could not merely state that the reservation was made according to the Medical Counselling Committee guidelines and thus the Backward Tribes could not be included as in reality the Medical Counselling Committee had no idea about the existence of the Backward Tribes in the Union Territory of Puducherry.
Case Title: V Anand v State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 513
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking to prohibit Tamil Nadu government and Greater Chennai Corporation from operating garbage trucks at peak office or school hours.
While dismissing the petition, Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said that the court cannot not fix the operating hours of the garbage trucks.
The petitioner, V Anand, submitted that the garbage trucks operating in peak times - 8:30 am to 10:00 am, cause great disturbance and nuisance to the general public and also create traffic snarls.
Case Title: Thulasidass Adikesavan v. Inspector of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 514
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay Rs one lakh compensation to the family of a 74-year-old man who has not been found since being taken to a government hospital in June 2020 for COVID-19 treatment.
The division bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the police to take effective steps to find the whereabouts of the missing person and continue with its investigation in the matter.
The court said Tamil Nadu government and Greater Chennai Corporation had done their best to fight the COVID war and no single officer could be blamed for the lapse
At the same time, the court agreed with the submission of the family that had the police registered the FIR in the first instance itself, police would have been able to trace Adikesavan.
Case Title: ML Ravi v. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 515
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging a Government Order issued by the Energy Department permitting Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Tangedco) to insist on linkage of Aadhaar number with electricity consumption consumer billing number for availing certain services.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the petition observing that the same was devoid of merits.
The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in KS Puttaswamy wherein it was held that Adhaar authentication can be insisted upon for welfare schemes under which the benefits, subsidies, or services are provided to intended recipients.
Case Title: R.Chandrasekar v. The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 516
The Madurai bench of Madras High court recently noted that use of stickers bearing official name, designation or political marks in vehicles is a tactic employed by violators to avoid being questioned by the police.
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad also opined that such stickers would in effect defeat the purpose of legislations standardising the marks and size of the number plate.
The court thus directed the Regional Transport authorities to conduct daily inspections and seize such vehicles if their number plates are not in accordance with the standards prescribed. The court also directed the authorities to impose fine and initiate appropriate action against the violators.
Case Title: Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Ltd., v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 517
While dismissing a plea by a company challenging the proceedings initiated by Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Madras High Court observed that the two requirements to start an investigation by the ED are (i) commission of a predicate offence (which was a schedule offence) and (ii) prima facie material to show that such schedule offence has generated proceeds of crime.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that once these conditions are satisfied and the court is convinced that the investigation is conducted by the Directorate within their power, then the court could not act as a "stumbling block" in the progress of the investigation.
Case Title: Viacom18 Media Private Limited v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 518
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Viacom 18 thus restraining 26 Internet Service Providers from unauthorizedly broadcasting auctions and other events related to Indian Premier League 2023.
Viacom 18 submitted that it has been given the broadcasting rights by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) with respect to all the events to be conducted between the period of 2023 and 2027. Fearing that certain ISPs were likely to illegally broadcast the events, Viacom18 had approached the court seeking injunction against such ISPs.
Justice C Saravan, after hearing the applicant observed that it had made out a case for granting interim relief and that the balance of convenience was in their favour.
Case Title: S Lawrence Vimalraj v. The Registrar (Judicial) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 519
Dismissing a petition seeking reservation for women in designation of Senior Advocate, the Madras High Court last week observed that conferring the status of Senior Advocate on an Advocate is a privilege and not a post. The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice N Satish Kumar was hearing a plea by S Lawrence Vimalraj seeking equal numbers or 30% reservation for women advocates in the conferment of designation of Senior Advocates.
Dismissing the petition, the court said that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to go forward with the petition as he is neither an applicant nor an aggrieved person whose rights have been affected.
Case Title: The Dean, Government Medical College Hospital and another v. Vijayalakshmi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 520
The Madras High Court has held that whenever loss to the State Exchequer is caused due to the negligent acts of public servants, such financial loss should be recovered from them.
Justice SM Subramaniam was hearing a civil revision petition filed by the Dean of the Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvarur and District Collector, Thiruvarur to set aside the attachment order passed by the Sub Court attaching the movables in the office of the revision petitioner.
Case Title: P Vedachalam v. The Principal Secretary, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 521
The Madras High Court recently said that late disbursal of scholarship amount to the SC/ST defeats the constitutional purpose for which the Post Matric Scholarship Scheme has been formulated.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad was hearing a plea seeking directions for disbursal of the post-matric scholarship to SC/ST/SCA students of all colleges in Tamil Nadu at the beginning of every academic year.
Taking note of difficulties being faced in implementing the scheme to disburse the scholarship amount in time, the court asked the authorities to consider constituting a task force with representatives from both union government and state government ministries.
Case Title: Durga Lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam and another v. Idols of Arulmighu Siddhi Ganesar Natarja Perumal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 522
The Madras High Court has said Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 can no more be read as requiring an express authorisation from the Commissioner for filing of a suit as the very appointment of the Executive Officer enjoins the said duty.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing an appeal challenging the order of the City Civil Court wherein the court authorized the management of the Arulmigu Siddhi Ganesar Natarja Perumal Durgaiamman temple to manage and administer a Kalyana mandapam situated in the temple.
The court said people generally had "a sentiment/fear not to exploit the temple property" but with the population growth and urbanisation, the sentiment has vanished in thin air and "the properties of the temple, be it residential plots or commercial buildings or agricultural lands are encroached upon without any guilt and the temple is divested of the income."
Thus, the court noted that the 'power' to file a suit has transformed into a 'duty' to file a suit. In such a situation, the appointment of the Executive Officer itself enjoins a duty to protect the temple property.
Case Title: K.Balasubramaniam v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and others (batch cases)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 523
The Madras High Court recently upheld the validity of the Government Order issued by Tamil Nadu's Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and the consequential resolutions of Greater Chennai Corporation and Coimbatore Corporation by which the property taxes in Chennai and Coimbatore were revised and increased.
The court however emphasised that this revision in tax rates could not be implemented retrospectively and rejected a revision notice to such extent.
Justice Anita Sumanth passed the decision on petitions challenging the Government Order revising property tax in Chennai and Coimbatore. Along with it, a challenge was also made to Property tax General Revision Notices for the period 2022-23 which made 1st April 2022 the effective date for the implementation of the new tax rates.
Case Title: S.Karthi v The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 524
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University to permit a student, who had pursued a three-year diploma after the 10th standard, to participate in the admission process for the five-year BA LLB course.
The court said he cannot be disqualified merely on the ground that he had studied three year diploma course after completing the 10th standard.
The Bar Council of India had earlier clarified that the 3 year diploma/polytechnic course issued by an institution recognized by the government shall be considered at par with Class XII certificate for the purpose of admission to the 5 year integrated L.L.B. Degree Course.
Case Title: Mir Anas Ali v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 525
The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to conduct a "refresher course" for judicial officers focusing on special enactments like Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, SC/ST Act and NDPS Act.
The direction came from a bench of Justice P.N. Prakash and Justice N. Anand Venkatesh after it observed that the lower courts had failed miserably to follow proper procedure while dealing with the bail plea of a man accused under various provisions of IPC and UAPA.
The court noted that since the appellant was charged under the UAPA, only a special court would have the jurisdiction. As per a full bench decision of the Madras High Court in Jaffar Sathiq v. State, till the Special Courts are constituted by the State, the Court of Session alone will have the jurisdiction to entertain bail applications.