Madras High Court Half Yearly Digest: January to June 2022 [Citation 1- 276]
NOMINAL INDEX M/s.The Kancheepuram Reading Room and Tennis Club, Represented by its Secretary v. The Director-General of Police & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 The University of Madras, Rep. By its Registrar v. Dr. S. Bhaskaran & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 Payel Biswas v. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 All India Anna...
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s.The Kancheepuram Reading Room and Tennis Club, Represented by its Secretary v. The Director-General of Police & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
The University of Madras, Rep. By its Registrar v. Dr. S. Bhaskaran & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
Payel Biswas v. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam & Another. v. J.Deepak & Ors. & Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
S.Mukachand Bothra (Deceased) & Anr v. The Central Government & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
Fr P. George Ponniah v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
Trichy Cold Storage (P) Ltd., Rep.by its Manager v. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
Swadeshi Panchalai Thozilalar v. The Secretary, Industries and Commerce, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
S.P.Eswaramurthy v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
M/s MRF Limited v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
SpiceJet Limited v. Credit Suisse AG, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The State Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police v. Samivel @ Raja, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
B. Ramkumar Adityan v. The Chief Secretary & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
R. Ganesan v. M/s. ASREC (India) Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
Venkateswarane Sivadjy v. Alice Viala, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
G. Babu v. the District Collector & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
Dalmia Refractories Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
R. Parthiban v. The Chief Secretary & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
M/S Sun TV Network Ltd v. M/S Supergood Films Private Ltd & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
P.Subbiah @ Subbian v. The District Collector, Theni & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
K. J Sumathy,W/o.Late K.S.Jagannathan & Ors v. The District Registrar, Dharmapuri Registration District & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
Poompuhar Traditional Fishermen v. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Others., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
Dr.Parkaviyan R. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
S. Nithya v. The Secretary to the Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
Anna Nagar Club v. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, TNHB (Anna Nagar Division), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
Annamalai v. Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
M.Sornam v. The Union Of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
C. Joseph Vijay v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Dr.M.Nakkeeran v. The State Election Commissioner & Ors. & Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
G.Sivarajaboopathi v. State & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
Rt.Rev.Timothy Ravinder Dev Pradeep, The Bishop, CSI Coimbatore Diocese v. Rev.Charles Samraj.N & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
Meharaj v. The State Rep By Its Secretary & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
Amica Financial Technologies Pvt.Ltd. v. Hip Bar Pvt.Ltd. & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
K.K Ramesh v. the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors and Other Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
M/s.CSCO LLC & Anr. v. M/s.Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
Palaniyappan & Ors. v. State & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
M/s. Nag Leather Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Muzain Hides, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
Muruganantham v. The Director-General of Police & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
Dr. Ramu Manivannan v. The Chief Secretary & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
Nakkeeran @ JeroanPandy v. State & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
K.K Ramesh v. Union Of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
Thanthai Periyar Tomato Traders Association v. Member Secretary & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
Vodafone Idea Limited & Anr. v. The Inspector General of Registration & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
C. Raghuraman, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
V. Subramanian & Ors. v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
S.Anthonydoss v. Union of India & Ors & Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
S. Jagannathan v. The Managing Director, TASMAC & Ors and Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
Paulraj vs District Collector & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
A. Radhakrishnan v. Secretary to Government & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 & Anr. v. Anuttam Academic Institutions Private Limited & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
R. Henry Paul v. the State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Mylapore Club v. The Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
Susi Ganesan v. Leena Manimekalai & Anr., Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
N. Ravichandran v. The Director of Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Sudhir Cranes Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretary To Government & Ors. & Other Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
Maridhas v. S.R.S Umari Shankar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
S. Vasanthi v. M. Baggyalakshmi, Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
Prof. M.K Surappa v. The Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
Dr. Elizabeth Rajan, Daughter of late Mr.Thanarajan v. The Inspector General Of Registration & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
A. Thilakam v. The Joint Director/ Appellate Authority & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
Vellore Institute of Technology, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Trustees v. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Anr. and Others., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
S. Muruganandam v. J. Jospeh & Other Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
P. Dhanaseelan v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
Gnanaloussany Valmy v. The Registrar of Marriages, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
P. Arumugam v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
Syed Ibrahim v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioners & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
Mrs S. Sushma & Ors. v. The Director-General of Police & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
M/s.Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Ltd v. M/s.Spencer's Retail Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
B.Balamurugan v. The Chairman & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
S. Gunaraja v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Manimaran v. The Chief General Manager/ Reviewing Authority, Canara Bank & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
Wasib Khan v. The State represented by its Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Chennai Range) & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
Indic Collective Trust & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
P.A Josseph v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
K.V Komarasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Adhoc Board of Administrators, Nagore Dargah Interim Adhoc Administrators v. Muhalli Muthavalli & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
South Indian Artistes Association rep. by its Former General Secretary v. The Registrar of Societies, South Chennai & Anr.2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
M.Muthumadasamy v. The Accountant General and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
K. Radha v. The Chief Educational Officer & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
Saratha vs Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
Karti P.Chidambaram v. The Regional Passport Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
Kannan@ Mannanai Kannan & Ors. v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
Irfan v. K.S Kumaran & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
O. Selvam & Ors v. The Commissioner of School Education & Ors & Connected Cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
D.Balasubramanian v. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department & Ors and Prabhu Nambiappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
Immaculate College Of Education For Women v. Pondicherry University & Anr. and Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Deputy General Manager v. Rajeswari & Ors and Connected Cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
P. Pugalenthi, Director, Prisoners Rights Forum v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
Ashraf & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
T. Akshaya & Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
S. Meena & Anr. v. Sivakumar & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
Pueblo Holdings Limited v. Emirates Trading Agency LLC & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
N. Rahul Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected Matte, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
M/s. V.R.S. Traders Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
D.S. Radhika v. The State Represented By Secretary to Government & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
P. Kannan v. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Ors., D. Sekar v. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kancheepuram, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
M.A.M Raja v. The Special Personal Assistant to Minister for Law & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
Rahul Surana v. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
M. Selvaraj v. Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Thirukkoil, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
O. Panneerselvam v. P. Milany & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
Suo Motu W.P. No. 12935 of 2021, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
Kiruthika v. The State Represented By Inspector of Police & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
S.P Muthu Raman v. The Joint Secretary & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
Dr. Esther, MBBS, DGO v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
L. Ponnammal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited & Anr. v, T. Mohan & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
P. Subburaj v. The Principal Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam v. National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
R.R Saravana Balagursamy v. The Superintendent of Police and Ors, 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 113
The Divisional Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited v. A.C. Jagadeesann & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
SC Raja Rajeshwari v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
S. Ganeshan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Krishnamoorthy v. State Represented by Inspector of Police & Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
Malliga v. P. Kumaran, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil v. Pappayee & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
State rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID v. A Sivakumar & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
M/s.MNS Enterprises Versus The Additional Director General Directorate of GST Intelligence, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
M/s.Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asst Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
S.P. Velayutham Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
Shri. Ahmed A.R.Buhari, S/o.Shri.Abdul Rahman Buhary Seyed v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
Mr.G.Nagaiyan & Anr. v. Mr. K. Palanivel, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
M. Gowrishankar v. The Deputy Manager (SME) & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
Cannou Parimala Rani @ Mary Rosay Parimala Rani v. Ilamathy and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
A. Ganesan v. Javeed Hussain (died) and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
L Praveen v. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
Edappadi K. Palanisamy and Anr v. Va Pugazhendi, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
Dr. S. Subbiah v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by Secretary and anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
T.Lakshmi v. M.Vasantha and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
M. Ramasamy v. State represented by its chief secretary and anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
G.Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
V. Vasanthakumar v. The Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
Kamala v. Murugesan and Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
Major Frank Ralston Samuel Raj v Kezia Padmini Swarna Pandian, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
S.P Chockalingam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
K. Vasudevan v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
Ms Preethika C (Minor) v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
S. Sampoornam v. C.K Shanmugam, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 143
R. Selvaraj(died) and ors v Amutha and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
Popular Front of India v. Haj Committee of India and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
B Amudha v K Rajendran(Died) and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
Dr. P. Vijayan v. The Union Of India and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
S.V Ramamurthy v. The Secretary, Government of TN, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
A Pitchaiah v. The Managing Director and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
S.Sakthivel & Anr v. The State rep. by the Food Safety Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
Sivakumar v. A Radhakrishnan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
M/S.Smart Roofing Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
V. Senthilbalaji and Ors v. State rep. By Inspector of Police and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
High Court of Madras v. R.D Santhana Krishnan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
P. Vijayabharathy v. The District Collector-cum- District Magistrate and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
Murugan @ Panni Murugan v. The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police and Anr.,2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
K.J Sumathy and Ors v. The Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Ors, 2022 Live Law (Mad) 157
I Nisha v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 158
M/s.RKS Agencies Versus State Tax Officer-I, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
Madurai Kamraj University v. The Chairman, Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
D. Nagarathinammal v. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India and Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Saint Gobain India Private Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
Dr. S. Kothandaraman v. The Pro-Chancellor and connected matter, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
Chinnasami and Ors. v. Dhanasekaran, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer-I, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
M/s. Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Private Limited Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
Sivashankar Baba @ C.N. Sivasankaran v. State, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 167
Numinous Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 168
M/s.St. John CFS Part Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 169
Nallammal and another v. Sengoda Gounder and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. v. Harkhabhai Amarshibhai Vaghadiya, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 171
R Vijayagopal v. The Inspector of Police and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
Thanikodi v. Parameswari and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
Rajivgandhi v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
S.M.D Mohamed Abdul Khader v. Muniswari, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
Arjunan v. Arunachalam, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
Rajasthani Marbles and Anr. v. Na.K. Kumar Son of N. Kuppurathinam, Arb. O.P. (Comm.Div) No. 73 of 2021, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
K. Gopinath v. The Director of School Education Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
State of Tamil Nadu Versus Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Olympics Association v. S. Nithya and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
M Thamilselvi @ Meera Mithun v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
Sri Ram Samaj v. The Commissioner and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
N. Karunanidhi v. The Union of India and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
Udayanithi Stalin v. R Premalatha, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
Suresh Kumar Kankariya v. K Jigibai @Pushpammal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
M/s.Color Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s.Color Castle Owners Society, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research v. D Ganeshlan and Another, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 187
Tvl.Asian Paints Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
The Chief Engineer / Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways), Southern Railway and Anr. versus M/s. Progressive-Aliens, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
S. David Leo v. The Principal Secretary to the Government and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
A. Periyakaruppan v. The Principle Secretary to Government and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
Agavai (Name Changed) v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
Case Title: M.Ani v. The Government of Tamilnadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
Hema Jwaalini and others v. The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
Nakshatra Bind A.K v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Project Director (LA), NHAI versus T. Palanisamy and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Deputy Superintendent of Police v. The Deputy Director Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
Mrs. Noorjahan Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
Suresh Rajan v. The State rep. by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
Thirumalai and Others v. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College & Hospital v. The Government of Puducherry and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
M/s.Srinivasa Stampings Versus The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
Lakshmi Ammal and Others v. Gejaraj (died) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
Mrs. Noorjahan versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and M/s. AMK Solutions Private Ltd. & Ors. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot Versus The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
Lakshmi Ammal (died) and Others v. Ammayi Ammal (died) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
K. Murugan v. The Registrar and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
M/s.Vetrivel Explosives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
N. Sarojini v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
S. Mohankumar v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
R Barathbaran (died) and others v. R. Nallathambi, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
P. Anandhraj, Joint Director and Others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
P.R Srinivasan v. The Commissioner, HR&CE and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
G. Sendrayan v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
Nandha Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital represented by Chairman v. The Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy and Others & other connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
Pranav Srinivasan v. The Government of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
Ramasamy Gounder @ Senban (died) v. Chinnapillai @ Nallammal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
Prakash A v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
Periammal v. Kamalam and others, LiveLaw (Mad) 219
Sanjay Simon and another v. KG Hospital and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
Union of India versus J. Auuamar and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
S.S.S Prahalathan v. The Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co Ltd v. Kathamuthu and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
Amutha v. The Additional Principal Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
Ganapathy and others v. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
C Shamilakumari v P Chandrasekar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another with connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 227
Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
TR Ramanathan v. Tamil Nadu State Mental Health Authority and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd and Anr. v. TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Arb. O.P. (Comm. Div) Nos. 410 and 412 of 2021., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
SJ Suryah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Abdul Rashid Sahib v. Ramachandran and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
S Nalini v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
S Gopikrishnan v. Regional Officer, CBFC and others, 2022 LiveLaw(Mad) 242
Deputy Commissioner of Police v. C Duraisamy, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
P. Sukumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai @ Duraimurugan and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Northern Arc Capital Limited v Sambandh Finance Private Limited and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
K Arumugam v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
A Shanmugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of Advaitha Philosophy through P.S Sundaram and others v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
M/s Ankit Ispat Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
M/s. Fenner (India) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr v. M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram and others v. Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
S. Manjula v. G. Shoba and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
Tvt.LAF Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
Udhaya Kumar v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
B Nagaraj v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
P Venkatachalam v. The Tahsildar (Batch), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
N Syamasundara Naidu v. V Dakshinamoorthy and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
P Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Dharampal R. Pandia versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
Mohamed Jiyaputheen v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
M/s.Progressive Stone Works Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
Mahalakshmi v. The Superintendent of Police and others, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 272
St. Mary's Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. .The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Sunku Vasundhara v State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
Dinesh v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
P.Sudha v. The Secretary and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
REPORTS
Case Title: M/s.The Kancheepuram Reading Room and Tennis Club, Represented by its Secretary v. The Director-General of Police & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
Justice S.M Subramaniam held that Clubs registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act with its bye-laws also registered under the provisions of the Act must strictly follow the objects and purpose already set out in the bye laws. When alcohol consumption is beyond the scope of the bye-laws of the petitioner club, it must be r/w Rules relating to the grant of licenses in Chapter IV of The Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981, which makes it abundantly clear that the Club cannot allow its members to consume alcohol in its premises without FL.2 License and an amendment to the existing bye-laws.
Case Title: The University of Madras, Rep. By its Registrar v. Dr. S. Bhaskaran & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
The Madras High Court recently expressed its dismay over the rapidly declining reputation of the Madras University, and observed that disciplinary proceedings must be instituted against errant officials for not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty.
The remarks were made by a division bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice A.A. Nakkiran after it noted irregularity in the process for appointment of Assistant Librarians in the University.
Case Title: Payel Biswas v. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
While considering a writ petition filed for obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Police for running a cross-massage centre, the Madras High Court has also analysed a recent single judge bench order for the installation of CCTV cameras inside Spa and Massage Centres.
The court observed in clear terms that mere apprehension about a breach of morality cannot be a valid ground to curb the right to relax, which is a part and parcel of the right to privacy. Referring to the landmark decision in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, (2018) 10 SCC 1, the single judge bench pointed out that 'constitutional morality shall trump public morality'.
Justice G.R Swaminathan primarily relied on Puttaswamy judgment (K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1) that elaborates about the different facets of right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21. These forms of the right to privacy are i) a right to bodily autonomy, ii) a right to informational privacy and iii) a right to a privacy of choice.
Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam & Another. v. J.Deepak & Ors. & Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
In third party appeals against the single judge order quashing land acquisition proceedings of 'Veda Nilayam', Madras High Court held that no 'public purpose' is served by converting the erstwhile residence of Late J. Jayalalitaa into a second memorial.
A Division Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup held that the state's land acquisition proceedings were riddled with procedural irregularities, concurring with the findings of the single judge bench setting aside the acquisition.
Case Title: S.Mukachand Bothra (Deceased) & Anr v. The Central Government & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
Coming down heavily on the misuse of State Emblems, Seals and Symbols, Madras High Court has issued a set of directions to ensure the compliance of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 and the Rules framed thereunder.
A single-judge bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam opined that not even a single case has been registered by Tamil Nadu Police against unauthorised use of such Emblems, Flags, names of departments and other Symbols on vehicles or elsewhere. The court made the above inference after referring to the status report filed by DGP who was suo motu impleaded. According to the status report, apart from registering cases under Motor Vehicles Act and for impersonation of public servants under Sections 170 and 171 of IPC, the Police 'miserably failed to register any case under the Act 50 of 2005', noted the court.
Case Title: Fr P. George Ponniah v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
While refusing to quash an FIR registered against the Catholican Diocese Priest P. George Ponnaih for an inflammatory speech against the Hindus, the Madras High Court made a few observations about religious conversions.
Justice GR Swaminathan, who considered the case, observed that it is important to maintain the status quo regarding religious demography. "If there is a serious subversion of the status quo, calamitous consequences may follow", Justice Swaminathan stated. While saying that an individual's choice to change religion is protected by the Constitution and must be respected, Justice Swaminathan said that religious conversions cannot be a "group agenda".
Case Title: Trichy Cold Storage (P) Ltd., Rep.by its Manager v. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy & Anr.
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
In a peculiar case, the Madras High Court has ordered payment of Rs 1.25 lakh to a cold storage facility keeping seized dates, after a Magistrate Court ordered the Police to store the perishable contraband until disposal of the case.
Considering the factual circumstances surrounding the issue, the High Court observed that the jurisdictional magistrate was not justified in directing the police to keep the perishables in safe custody via its October 2018 Order.
"Section 459 of Cr.PC authorizes the magistrate to direct sale of seized properties that are subject to speedy and natural decay. Fruits obviously come under the said category. The prosecution would not in any way be weakened by the disposal of the goods. The fake labels and wrappers are sufficient to establish the case against the accused", the court observed, adding that the order was 'erroneous in extreme'.
Case Title: Swadeshi Panchalai Thozilalar v. The Secretary, Industries and Commerce
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court has set aside notices for the closure of two Mills in Puducherry, whose history dates back to the French Colonial period, on the ground that provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with in its true spirit.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan noted that the Mills were closed without issuing any notice of enquiry under Section 25-O of the 1947 Act for making objection before the Authority concerned and without taking up the matter for hearing.
9. 'God Cannot Be Summoned': Madras High Court Overturns Order To Produce Idol
Case Title: S.P.Eswaramurthy v. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
Overturning a lower court's decision, the Madras High Court has observed that an idol is believed to be a God by the devotees cannot be summoned by the Court. While hearing a challenge to the order of the lower Court in an idol theft case, where the idol was called to be produced in the Court to enquire its condition, Justice R. Suresh Kumar observed that,
"The God cannot be summoned by the Court to be produced for a mere inspection or verification purposes, as if that it is a material object of a criminal case."
Case Title: M/s MRF Limited v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
The Madras High Court has recently held that under the writ jurisdiction there should be no interference with a preliminary enquiry ordered by the Competition Commission of India under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.
A bench of Justice T. Raja and Justice T.V. Thamilselvi observed that the failure to comply with any requirement of CCI rules and regulations shall not invalidate any proceedings unless the CCI is of the view that such failure has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Case Title: SpiceJet Limited v. Credit Suisse AG
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
Madras High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by SpiceJet against a single-judge bench order for admission of its winding up on Credit Suisse AG's Company Petition.
After hearing the counsels appearing for SpiceJet and Credit Suisse at length, a Division Bench of Justices Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup and Paresh Upadhyay noted in the order that the Original Second Appeals are dismissed and the Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are accordingly disposed off. Since the stay on the operation of the impugned order is till today, the bench agreed to extend the application of stay order till 28th January so as to afford the appellant an opportunity to approach the Supreme Court.
Case Title: The State Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police v. Samivel @ Raja
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
In a case arising out of aggravated sexual assault and cruel murder of a 7-year-old child from a marginalised community, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has upheld the death sentence imposed on the culprit by the trial court.
A Division Bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice G. Jayachandran confirmed the death sentence of the accused made by Mahila Court, Pudukottai.
The bench held that the brutality of the attack, the barbaric manner in which the deceased child was murdered and the mental agony undergone by the parents makes it one of the 'rarest of rare' cases. The court added that it necessitates the imposition of death sentence, since no other sentence including life imprisonment will be adequate.
Case Title: B. Ramkumar Adityan v. The Chief Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
In a plea seeking directions to keep the TASMAC liquor shops closed during public holidays, the Madras High Court has criticized the practice of advocates filing public interest litigations for 'publicity'.
Case Title: R. Ganesan v. M/s. ASREC (India) Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
The Madras High Court, in a Bench comprising of Justice M. Duraiswamy and Justice Sathya Narayan Prasad in R. Ganesan v. M/s. ASREC (India) Limited has reiterated the legal position and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner due to non-exercise of alternate remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Case Title: Venkateswarane Sivadjy v. Alice Viala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
In a divorce proceeding characterised by questions on Conflict of Laws, Madras High Court has held that a suit filed for partition and separate possession of the property in India, as per Indian laws is maintainable and will not be barred by virtue of not approaching French Notary for liquidation under Article 1444 of the French Civil Code.
A Division Bench of Justice T. Raja and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarty was disposing of an appeal filed by the Husband under Section 96 of C.P.C r/w under Order 41 R 1 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree by Family Court, Pudukottai.
Case Title: G. Babu v. the District Collector & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
Madras High Court has ordered to pay compensation to the son of a deceased mother who was shot accidentally in a 'Shoot and Kill' stray dog hunt with the sanction of Eraiyur Panchayat.
A single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam has ordered the District Collector, Perambalur and the functionaries including the Eraiyur Panchayat President to pay Rs 5 laksh each as compensation to the petitioner son.
Case Title: Dalmia Refractories Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Madras High Court recently expressed its concern over long pendency of cases involving large scale revenue.
Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that cases of Income Tax, Customs, Excise, Mines and Minerals etc. must be disposed of quickly to prevent misuse of nation's property.
18. Madras High Court Strikes Down Women Reservation In Excess Of 50% For Chennai Corporation Polls
Case Title: R. Parthiban v. The Chief Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
In a plea against reservation in excess of 50 per cent for women in Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation, Madras High Court has held that reservation can only be based on the total number of seats in the Municipality and not on Zonal wise demarcation.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu has struck down the 2019 Government Notification which reserved 89 wards out of 200 wards for Women Candidates and another 16 seats for the Scheduled Caste Women, bringing the total tally to 105.
19. Sun TV Network Has Exclusive Broadcasting Rights Over 'Jilla' Movie: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/S Sun TV Network Ltd v. M/S Supergood Films Private Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Madras High Court has allowed a writ petition that sought a declaration of the exclusive copyright of Sun TV Network over the broadcast of 'Jilla' movie, while granting permanent injunction against the defendants from exhibiting/ exploiting the movie in a similar manner.
A single-judge bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the second defendant, United India Exporters, only had the right to exploit the theatrical release of the film outside India as per the agreement between them and Super Good Films Private Limited. It does not include the exclusive rights to make, sell or let out for their copies of the cinematographic film 'JILLA' and broadcast the said film through various mediums of broadcast and transmission outside India.
The court observed that Supergood Films, the producer and exclusive copyright owner of 'Jilla', have assigned the exclusive copyright in favour of the plaintiff Sun TV Network in respect of satellite television broadcast as early as 8th July 2013. The said agreement was entered into much before the theatrical release rights assigning agreement between Supergood Films and United India Exporters.
Case Title: P.Subbiah @ Subbian v. The District Collector, Theni & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has recently refused to quash the public auction of lease for fishing rights in Pappaiyampattikulam Kanmoi in Periyakulam while stating that it cannot sit in appeal and scrutinize as to whom the tender should be given.
The petitioner, the President of Pappaaianpatti Kanmoi Water Users Association, contended that Kanmoi is the water source for about 350 acres of land and about 7500 families are also dependent on it. In such a backdrop, grant of fishing rights have high chances of the lessee damaging the tank bunds and draining the water.
Justice C.V Karthikeyan observed that inviting tenders for public auction was done with specific clauses for safeguarding the irrigation requirements, without damaging the bund or draining the water for fishing.
Case Title: K. J Sumathy,W/o.Late K.S.Jagannathan & Ors v. The District Registrar, Dharmapuri Registration District & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
Madras High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award directing execution of sale deed of a third party's property, alien to the proceedings before the tribunal, after huge fraud came into light with respect to the transaction between the parties and the arbitral proceedings before the tribunal.
Case Title: Poompuhar Traditional Fishermen v. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Others.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
A plea filed by Poompuhar Traditional Fishermen challenging Rule 17(7) of the amended Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 1983, was dismissed by Madras High Court.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu observed that the restrictions imposed on the use of fishing gear, especially the ban on fishing by pair trawling or fishing with purse-seine net does not suffer from the vice of constitutional illegality.
Rule 17(7) was inserted by Government Order 36 dated 17th February, 2020. However, while dismissing the petition, the court observed that the prohibition was already in force by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.40 dated 25th March, 2000. The said G.O issued by the Animal Husbandry and Fishing (FS.V) Department, in accordance with Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, prohibited fishing, by pair trawling and using of Purse-Seine nets for fishing in order to protect various fish species. The prohibition on fishing gear permitted was not challenged for over two decades, the court noted.
Case Title: Dr.Parkaviyan R. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging Clause 29(c) of the Prospectus issued for filling up seats in Medical PG Courses, which allows even in-service candidates who offered their services in difficult terrains to compete for seats in the Unreserved Category, with the aid of additional weightage given to their marks.
Justice M. Dhandapani also pointed out that the petitioners have not challenged G.O. Ms. No.463 in and by which the incentive marks, that were awarded to in-service candidates were allowed to be counted while finalising the inter se merit of the candidates in the open category.
Case Title: S. Nithya v. The Secretary to the Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
Madras High Court has issued directions to streamline the functioning of Sports Organisations/ Associations/ National Sports Federations and its State Units/ National Olympic Association etc., including a mandate for an online registration system at all levels and laying down qualification requirements of functionaries at the helm of such Associations/ Federations.
A single-judge bench of Justice R. Mahadevan was adjudicating the grievance of a sportswoman who alleged favouritism and nepotism from the Tamil Nadu Athletics Association. Madras High Court has asked the competent Sports Authorities/ Federations to formulate an online registration system for all district level, state level and national level athletic championships, competitions, meets and events, similar to the model followed in the Federation Cup Athletics Championships immediately. The single-judge bench has instructed that the posts of President, Vice President and Secretary of every sports Association/Organisation/NSFs and its State Units, as well as important functionaries of such organisations, shall be held only by sportspersons.
25. 'TN Housing Board Empowered To Initiate Eviction If Allotment Rules Are Violated': Madras High Court
Case Title: Anna Nagar Club v. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, TNHB (Anna Nagar Division)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Anna Nagar Club to quash the letter of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) demanding rental arrears from it.
The club owed an amount equivalent to Rs. 52,25,960/- as on June 2016 as rental arrears. The rent was fixed at Rs. 20,000 per month for the Club which occupies seven grounds of lands in a prime location at Anna Nagar.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed that the Housing Board is owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu and any loss to the Board will be the loss to the revenue of the State. Therefore, the court noted that the petitioner club should pay the remaining rental arrears and further, the Housing Board must carry out an exercise fixing the rent in commensuration with the actual market rental value in that locality.
Case Title: Annamalai v. Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
While dismissing a petition challenging disconnection of electricity service in business premises, the Madras High Court has harshly criticized the revenue and electricity officials conniving with illegal occupants of water bodies and Government Puramboke lands.
Justice S.M Subramaniam opined that the case at hand is a classic example of connivance between occupants and concerned officials. Many revenue and electricity officers have thrown caution to the wind by allowing the encroachers to cast a legal colour on their illegal occupation by mutating revenue records and even granting them with electricity connections. The court also pointed out that this is usually done without examining the genuineness of the documents and the title to the land. The court has also suo motu impleaded the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai to identify the delinquent officials and to take appropriate departmental action against them.
Case Title: M.Sornam v. The Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
In a writ petition filed by the widow of a freedom fighter for grant of Family Freedom Fighters Monthly pension, Madras High Court set aside the rejection order by Freedom Figher Revenue Division (F.F.R) and directed the processing of Petitioner's application under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.
While allowing the plea of the petitioner wife, the court also made some stringent remarks about bureaucrats denying the freedom fighters pension on flimsy, technical grounds.
The single-judge bench of Justice C.V Karthikeyan was adjudicating a plea filed by the widow of E. Muthiya, a freedom fighter who was a Sepoy in the Indian National Army (INA) and served under the late lamented Nethaji Subhas Chandrabose. According to the wife's petition, her late husband was taken to detention in Burma (May 1945- July 1945) and incarcerated in Rangoon Central Jail (August 1945- July 1946) while he was retreating with the INA
28. Madras High Court Expunges 'Scathing' Remarks Against Actor Vijay In Entry Tax Case
Case Title: C. Joseph Vijay v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
In an appeal filed by Actor Vijay to remove the scathing remarks made by the single judge bench while dismissing his petition for tax exemption on a Rolls Royce Ghost Motor Car, Madras High Court has expunged the observations made by single judge bench in paras 3,4,7,8, 11 and 12 of the original order.
A Division Bench of Justices Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Mohammed Shaffiq allowed the writ appeal filed by Actor Vijay and disposed off the connected miscellaneous petition with no costs.
The actor was challenging the order passed by a single bench of Justice SM Subramaniam on July 13, dismissing a writ petition filed by Vijay in 2012. In the judgment, the single bench had made observations to the effect that one becomes a 'real hero' by promptly paying tax. The single bench had also taken a dig at the actor by saying that while his reel life characters were preaching tax compliance, in real life he was seeking exemption.
29. Madras High Court Refuses To Defer Urban Local Body Polls Amid Covid Third Wave
Case Title: Dr.M.Nakkeeran v. The State Election Commissioner & Ors. & Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court refused to postpone the urban local body polls likely to be notified by the State Election Commission before January 27, even though the petitioners vehemently opposed conducting elections in light of the third wave of the pandemic. The order was passed after hearing all the counsels appearing for the petitioners in a course of three days.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that it cannot go against the direction given to the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) by the apex court to abide by the constitutional mandate to conduct elections every five years. On 27th September 2021, Supreme Court had directed the TN SEC to notify the polls within four months based on the undertaking given by the Commission.
The court accepted the petitioners' contention that the High Court has vast powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the court observed: "...The question however would be, in the exercise of said jurisdiction, can we go against direction of the apex court? This is not a case here we have refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in reference to the bar under any statute, but to maintain judicial discipline and not to pass an order contrary to an apex court order".
Case Title: G.Sivarajaboopathi v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) quashed an FIR registered against a man over a Facebook post made by him against Late CDS General Bipin Rawat soon after his death in the helicopter crash on December 8, 2021.
The single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan condemned the act of the accused G.Sivarajaboopathi in harsh terms but quashed the FIR observing that the post did not amount to a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code.
The subject matter of the case was the post which said "it is disgrace to shed tears for "Dictator Bipin Rawat", the mercenary of the fascists". Based on a complaint, the Cyber Crime Police Station Nagercoil registered an FIR invoking Sections 153, 505(2) and 504 of IPC on December 15 against the author of the post and others who shared the post.
Case Title: Rt.Rev.Timothy Ravinder Dev Pradeep, The Bishop, CSI Coimbatore Diocese v. Rev.Charles Samraj.N & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
In civil revision petitions filed challenging an order passed by Coimbatore Principal District Munsiff, Madras High Court has held that the power to issue writ under Article 226 or Article 227 is subject to the court's discretion even when an alternative remedy is available. The alternative remedy in itself won't constitute a bar for the High Court to exercise its revisional powers under Article 227.
The court also made a clarification that the Registry shouldn't have queried about the maintainability of the revision petitions in light of alternative remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as against the order passed in the interim application by the Munsiff. Registry does not have such powers to raise objections on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure or under any other statute.
The single-judge bench of Justice R. Subramanian was considering the revision petitions arising out of an order granting temporary injunctions restraining administrative committee from taking any policy decisions on appointments, change of correspondents and carrying out the day-to-day affairs of CSI Diocese until the conduct of 34th CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council and interfering with the functions carried out by the current Presbyter and Chairman of the CIS All Souls' Church, Coimbatore.
Case Title: Meharaj v. The State Rep By Its Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
In a pertinent judgment, Madras High Court has answered i) whether the denial of conjugal rights to a convicted prisoner would be violative of Article 21 and, ii) whether the state can be directed to consider the request made by convict for emergency leave or ordinary leave for the said purpose.
Since the right of their spouses to have conjugal rights are also indirectly curtailed by such denial, Madras High Court has examined the scope of treating conjugal rights of a convict/ prisoner as a fundamental right, and in case there is such a right, whether it would be unconditional or subject to other restrictions. The court answered the above questions while deciding upon the propriety of directing the state to grant emergency leave or ordinary leave to a convict for the purpose of having a conjugal relationship with the spouse.
In a reference made by the Division Bench of High Court over the dilemma that there is no specific provision in Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, for availing leave to have conjugal relationship with the spouse, a three-judge bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice PD Audikesavalu and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana answered in the affirmative that prisoners/ convicts can claim such a right if there is a ground of 'extraordinary reason' and infertility treatment falls within the definition of 'extraordinary reasons' as envisaged in the Act.
The bench opined that the prayer of the petitioner to undergo infertility treatment when the convict and the spouse do not have a child in the wedlock forms 'extraordinary reason' under Rule 20 (vii) of 1982 Rules. However, the court made a clarification that if the couple had a child in the wedlock, then seeking leave for infertility treatment would not have been considered as an 'extraordinary reason'. The convict/ prisoner cannot seek leave over and over for the same ground in the category of 'extraordinary reason', the court added.
Case Title: Amica Financial Technologies Pvt.Ltd. v. Hip Bar Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
Madras High Court has recently refused to grant an interim injunction to Amica Financial Technologies, restraining the respondents including Hip Bar and Dreaming Technologies Pvt Ltd from undertaking any business in connection with the pre-paid instruments license (PPI License). While vacating the ex-parte order of status quo from December, 2021, the court observed that there is not even a semblance of prima facie case made out by the applicant for grant of interim injunction.
The matter pertains to the trade secrets, including business plans and objectives, in respect of the proposed PPI business by Amica which was allegedly shared with Hip Bar. The plaintiff/applicant submitted before the court that Dreaming Technologies Private Limited is in the process of acquiring Hip Bar.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh also discarded the request of the plaintiff to constitute a confidentiality club by noting that it cannot be done in a hasty manner merely based on the ipse dixit of the plaintiff. First of all, the Court must be satisfied based on materials and the plaintiff must necessarily lay a foundation before making such a request, the bench added. The plaintiff sought the constitution of confidentiality club for the reason that it cannot divulge the nature of trade secret either in the plaint or in the interim application for injunction; it further added that such an act would expose the sensitive confidential information to everyone and detrimentally affect the uniqueness of the business model followed by the applicant.
34. Madras High Court Issues Slew Of Directions To Remove Encroachments From Water Bodies
Case Title: K.K Ramesh v. the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors and Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
Issuing a slew of directions on top of the directions already in force, the Madras High Court has underscored that there will be no leniency towards waterbody encroachers and land grabbers.
The court has made it clear in a batch of writ petitions seeking directions to prevent widespread encroachment that- it won't allow the encroachers to peacefully enjoy the properties listed as water bodies on the 'Tamil Nilam' Website.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu has directed that no registering authority under the Registration Act, 1908, shall register any document pertaining to lands classified as water bodies in the revenue records as shown in the Tamil Nilam Website.
Additionally, the court made the following directions:
1) The registering authority must obtain a declaration from every such applicant seeking land registration, plan approval, electricity/ water connection or assessment of property tax that their lands are not situated in waterbodies.
2) Moreover, the authority allowing the requests in such applications should ensure that the property has not been identified as a waterbody by the State Government in Tamil Nilam Website. To ascertain the status of the land concerned, physical inspection at the property must also be carried out for ensuring the same and an office note about the same must be kept on record.
3) The court has also given an ultimatum to aiding/ abetting officials who circumvent law to facilitate encroachment of water bodies.
Case Title: M/s.CSCO LLC & Anr. v. M/s.Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
In a significant decision, the Madras High Court recently held that the mandatory time limit of 120 days to file a written statement in a commercial suit is not applicable to written statement to a counter-claim.
"... this Court holds that the Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, which fixes the maximum period for filing the written statement as 120 days and which was held to be mandatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. S. Chamankar Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., reported in 2019 (2) CTC 294, beyond which the right to file the written statement will stand forfeited, will not apply to a written statement filed by the plaintiffs for the counter claim made by the defendants and such cases will be governed only by the time period fixed by the Court under Order VIII Rule 6 A(3) of CPC".
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was considering if it would be prudent according to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and Madras High Court Original Side Rules to condone the delay of 563 days in filing the Written Statement of the Plaintiffs for a Counter Claim filed by Defendant.
Case Title: Palaniyappan & Ors. v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against protesters who assembled before a TASMAC Shop in 2017 and demanded that it must be shifted for the sake of young generation.
While quashing the FIR registered based on the complaint of Village Administrative Official and taken on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Justice K. Murali Shankar observed that the prosecution has failed to establish that the ingredients of the offences under which they were booked are made out.
The court, after placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu (2010), noted its findings that Section 195 Cr.P.C bars taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 I.P.C., except on a complaint in writing given by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
Case Title: M/s. Nag Leather Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Muzain Hides
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
The Madras High Court in a Bench comprising of Justice N. Sathish Kumar in M/s. Nag Leather Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Muzain Hides held that as long as a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is imposed, proceedings under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be initiated against the Corporate Debtor. These proceedings, however, can be initiated against natural persons as mentioned in Section 141. The Bench allowed the Petition and quashed proceedings under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Petitioner no. 1, who was the Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP under the Code.
Noting that the moratorium would apply only in respect of the Corporate Debtor, and not in respect of the directors/ management, the Court allowed the Respondent to proceed against Petitioners no. 2 and 3, them being natural persons.
Case Title: Muruganantham v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
Harshly criticising the investigation by the Tamil Nadu police into the suicide of Tanjavur girl student for ruling out the angle of alleged attempts of religious conversion to Christianity from her school, the Madras High Court on Monday ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the matter.
"...there is nothing inherently improbable in the allegation that there was an attempt at conversion. It could be true or false. The matter called for an investigation and not outright rejection", Justice GR Swaminathan observed while allowing the petition filed by the father of the deceased girl.
The girl, a Class 12 student of Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Michealpatti, had died on January 19 following an attempt to suicide. After her death, certain video clips of her recorded by a third party named Muthuvel emerged in social media, in which the girl had allegedly made statements about forcible conversion attempts.
Case Title: Dr. Ramu Manivannan v. The Chief Secretary & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Retd. Professor Ramu Manivannan seeking directions to the government of Tamil Nadu to extend the Pongal gift hampers to the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees residing outside the rehabilitation camps.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that those staying outside the camps without ration cards won't be entitled to the benefits sought and there is no illegality in the policy decision of the government.
40. Extramarital Affair May Amount To 'Mental Cruelty' U/s 498(A) IPC Depending On Facts & Circumstances Of Case: Madras High Court
Case Title: Nakkeeran @ JeroanPandy v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
In a pertinent judgment, Madras High Court has observed that extramarital affairs can cause grave mental trauma and mental health issues leading to serious consequences in the matrimony, and that in turn, would amount to mental cruelty under Section 498(A) IPC.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarty however added that when deciding whether a conduct amounted to cruelty, the Court has to look at the facts and circumstances of the case.
The observation was made while confirming the conviction of a husband accused of engaging in an extramarital relationship with another woman while the marriage with the respondent-wife was still valid.
In its order, the Bench noted that the evidence on record proves the existence of an extramarital relationship that has gone to the roots of the marriage and severely affected the mental health of the wife. This ultimately resulted in the wife leaving the matrimonial home.
Case Title: K.K Ramesh v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
In an appeal filed by Actor Vijay to remove the scathing remarks made by the single judge bench while dismissing his petition for tax exemption on a Rolls Royce Ghost Motor Car, Madras High Court has expunged the observations made by single judge bench in paras 3,4,7,8, 11 and 12 of the original order.
A Division Bench of Justices Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Mohammed Shaffiq allowed the writ appeal filed by Actor Vijay and disposed off the connected miscellaneous petition with no costs.
The actor was challenging the order passed by a single bench of Justice SM Subramaniam on July 13, dismissing a writ petition filed by Vijay in 2012. In the judgment, the single bench had made observations to the effect that one becomes a 'real hero' by promptly paying tax. The single bench had also taken a dig at the actor by saying that while his reel life characters were preaching tax compliance, in real life he was seeking exemption.
Case Title: Thanthai Periyar Tomato Traders Association v. Member Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Thanthai Periyar Tomato Traders Association seeking exclusive allocation of a specific area for loading/ unloading tomatoes from trucks in Koyambedu Market.
Noting that the Market Management Committee (MMC) has been accorded the power under the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996 to allot spaces for loading/ unloading perishables, the court observed that the Association cannot seek the right of usage merely on the ground that they have availed the land for the said purpose for some time.
Justice S.M Subramaniam was adjudicating the Association's plea for allocating the parking space inside the Market for their exclusive use.
It is pertinent to note that Justice R. Suresh Kumar had made an interim arrangement directing the Koyambedu Market Management Authority to allocate another area of one acre near Gate 14 for loading/ unloading, taking into account the soaring tomato prices last November.
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited & Anr. v. The Inspector General of Registration & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court has given some clarifications about the scope of rectification deed and whether the entering of the rectification deed for clarifying a fact would mean the existence of the same in the original sale deed.
The bench of Justice T. Raja and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarty was considering the appeal of Vodafone Idea Limited under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamps Act,1898 against the order of Inspector General of Registration.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Makkad Plastic Agencies, 2011 4 SCC 750 which observed that the meaning of 'rectification' under the Sales Tax Act would include 'removal of defects or imperfections', the High Court held that,
"...Whenever the rectification deed includes any additional property on which the duty is not charged, the rectification deed will be charged as if it were a sale deed as per Section 47-B of the Act. Thus, the scope of rectification deed may differ in every case. Rectification deed can be for rectification of mistake or on an inadvertent error or even clarifying the original document. Apart from correcting an error or removal of defect, Rectification deed can also remove 'imperfection' in the earlier document."
Case Title: C. Raghuraman
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
The Madras High Court has held that it can appoint a legal guardian for persons with intellectual disability under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865.
While appointing the petitioner, C. Raghuraman, as the legal guardian and manager of the properties of a relative with 60% mental disability, the bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose also cleared the air about the maintainability of petitions filed seeking the appointment of a legal guardian.
The confusion has been long persisting since the registry of Madras High Court was not entertaining such petitions ever since the single judge bench decision in G. Nithyanandam v. Tmt. D. Saritha & Ors (2013).
In the said case, Madras High Court had directed the petitioner to approach the District Collector under Section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 for appointment of a legal guardian. However, the above case was filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and not Clause 17 of Letters Patent.
Case Title: V. Subramanian & Ors. v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
Observing serious irregularities in the witness statements and police investigation, Madras High Court has acquitted five persons, out of which the first accused was convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of IPC.
The bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira noted that there are contradictions in the versions of prosecution witnesses with regards to the number of accused and the specific weapons used by the accused while attacking the deceased and other persons.
On top of that, the Police chose to investigate both cases separately though an FIR was registered against the deceased and a few prosecution witnesses by the accused in the same occurrence.
The court also came to the conclusion that the FIR Numbers in the cases of the accused and the prosecution was altered to render the prosecution undue advantage, projecting it as an FIR registered prior to that of accused persons' FIR. The FIR registered based on the complaint of accused was also suppressed by the investigating officers and the prosecution. Additionally, the court also took note of the delay of over six hours in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate even when the distance between the police station and the Magistrate's residence was under thirty minutes.
46. REPCO Bank: Madras High Court Holds Nominal/ Associates- B Class Members Ineligible To Vote/ Contest In Delegate Elections
Case Title: S.Anthonydoss v. Union of India & Ors & Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court has disposed of a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates challenging the election notice issued by the returning officer of Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank Ltd (REPCO Bank).
The grievance of the candidates was that the notice issued for elections to the post of delegates of the respondent society had B Class Nominal or Associate members as voters while only Ordinary A-Class Repatriate members are allowed to vote in terms of Section 26 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.
After referring to Section 25 of the 2002 Act that mentions about the persons eligible for becoming members of cooperative societies, the court noted that the subsequent Section 26 of the Act clearly remarks that nominal/ associate members can be admitted in a multi-state cooperative society if there is a corresponding provision in its bye-laws.
However, Section 26 is clear about such Nominal/ Associate members not being entitled to subscribe the shares of the society to have any such interest in the management including the right to vote, right to contest in elections or participate in the General Body Meeting etc.
47. Shut Down 'Bars' Attached To TASMAC Shops, Recall The Tender For Issuing Licenses: Madras High Court
Case Title: S. Jagannathan v. The Managing Director, TASMAC & Ors and Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
Madras High Court has recently held that Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) cannot endorse the 'bars' attached to the TASMAC Shops by issuing licenses to a section of bidders.
A single-judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan ruled that all the 'bars' attached to the respective TASMAC shops that currently enjoy a monopoly in the wholesale and retail sale of liquor should be shut down within six months.
The Madras High Court has also elaborately given reasons for its direction in the order by relying primarily on Sections 4 and 4A of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.
Section 4A of the Prohibition Act talks about Punishment for being found in a state of intoxication in a public place or for consuming liquor in a private when the person consuming alcohol is not permitted to do so.
The court observed that the power to grant a licence to run a bar can vest only with the licencing authority namely the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise. TASMAC is a mere "wholesale" and "retail" dealer and it cannot run a "Bar" by itself whether directly or indirectly, added the court. Sub Clause (1-A) and Section 17-C (1-B) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 which were inserted in the Prohibition Act via an amendment in 2003, merely allows TASMAC to do "wholesale" and "retail business". In 2003, Section 4(1) (j) and Section 4A was not amended and kept intact. Therefore, the newly inserted sections do not afford TASMAC a right to confer a privilege to 3rd parties to carry on the service of providing short snacks or collecting used liquor bottles within the allied premises used as a bar.
Case Title: Paulraj vs District Collector & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court in a recent judgment spoke about the need to show tolerance towards other religious practices.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a Hindu man challenging the permission granted by the Kanyakumari District Collector granted to construct a church, against which the petitioner complained of nuisance due to the use of loudspeakers throughout day and night.
The Court started its judgment by noting that in the Preamble to the Constitution of India, 'we the people' had resolved to constitute India as the Secular Republic. Reference was made to Article 15(1), which says that the State should not discriminate against anyone on the basis of factors like religion and Article 51A(e) as per which it is the Fundamental Duty of every citizen to promote harmony and brotherhood. The Fundamental Rights and Duties were sacrosanct and binding on courts, which adjudicate issues relating to religion.
Noting that the petitioner was a Hindu, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed: "One of the basic tenants to be followed by every Hindu is tolerance. Tolerance must be his own community or religion and in particular, to also to every other religious practice".
The Court noted that a temple was also located in the same residential area. Considering this, the Court spoke about the need to maintain tolerance and the importance of the ideal "unity in diversity".
Case Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. Secretary to Government & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
Shocked with the allegations about illegalities and frauds related to temple properties, the Madras High Court has held that the state should undertake immediate measures to prevent the looting of temples.
A single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam opined that the continuation of such large scale illegalities would mean that the HR & CE Department has failed in its duty under the Act (Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959). Thus, a change in policy decision may be required.
The court observed that such illegalities including illegal mining and fraudulent execution of documents cannot usually take place without the 'active or passive collusion' of Department officials. Those officials who have indulged in such corrupt practices must be proceeded against both under the Criminal law and the Government Servants Disciplinary Rules. The court has also categorically stated that the recovery of properties so lost alone would not be sufficient, the state would also have to recover the financial losses already accrued by the temple on account of its loss
Case Title: The Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 & Anr. v. Anuttam Academic Institutions Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
In a recent judgment, Madras High Court has held that a reasonable delay in communication of the order will not be counted as non-compliance of the limitation prescribed under Section 26(7) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Since the application of the limitation period is uninfluenced by such delay, the court has also clarified that the delay won't negate the validity of the order passed under Section 26(3) of the Act by adjudicating authority.
A Division Bench of Justices Mohammed Shaffiq and R. Mahadevan also held that the limitation period for filing an appeal against the order of adjudicating authority, i.e, 45 days, would be counted only from the date of receipt of the order impugned.
However, the court also underscored that the consideration of limitation period for filing an appeal against the adjudicating authority's order is independent from the consideration of the limitation period under Section 26(7) for ascertaining the validity of the adjudicating authority's order itself.
Relying on Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & others [(2010) 2 SCC 79], Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai and Others v. Saravana Spinning Mills (p) Ltd. [(2007) 7 SCC 298], Muthiah Chettiar v. I.T. Commissioner, Madras [AIR 1951 Mad 2004] and other case laws, the bench observed that,
"...in cases where 'the date of the order' and 'the date of receipt of the order' are separated by considerable time, it is only the date of receipt of the order, which would be material for the purpose of calculating the limitation for appeal and this factor cannot have any bearing on the validity of the orders impugned in the writ petition."
Case Title: R. Henry Paul v. the State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
Reiterating that the date of remand will be computed while considering an application for statutory bail, Madras High Court observed that the right to default bail is part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution, hence an indefeasible fundamental right.
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar was considering the plea by a POCSO accused, seeking directions to the Special Court For Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act to grant default bail on an application filed under Section 167(2) CrPC.
Case Title: The Mylapore Club v. The Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
In a dispute regarding payment of rent to Kapaleeswar temple by Mylapore Club, the Madras High Court has observed that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in a routine manner against a show-cause notice or demand notice issued by competent authorities.
The court also held that the Mylapore club will be bound to pay fair rent fixed under Section 34 (A) (1) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter 'Act') with regards to the temple land leased out to them
Justice S.M Subramaniam dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits and noted in the order that the club has the liberty to approach the competent authority in case of a dispute regarding the rental amount fixed as shown in the demand notice.
The court also reasoned that the power of judicial review under Article 226 has been provided to ensure whether the processes through which a competent authority takes a decision is in consonance with the applicable Acts and Rules. The writ jurisdiction is not meant to be invoked for show cause notices or demand notices by competent authorities.
Case Title: Susi Ganesan v. Leena Manimekalai & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court has refused to grant leave to film Director Susi Ganesan to appeal against the decision of a single bench which quashed the Regional Passport Office's order for impounding the passport of renowned filmmaker, poet and artist Leena Manimekalai.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there is no substance in Ganesan's plea, especially after the Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the single bench order.
Ganesan argued that Manimekalai's passport was impounded by the Regional Passport Office under Section 10(3) (e) of Passport Act, citing the pendency of criminal proceedings against her (that were initiated by Ganesan himself alleging defamation). He submitted that she did not avail the appellate remedy under Section 11 of the Passport Act and challenged the impoundment via a writ petition.
54. '10 Yrs Elapsed, CBI Couldn't Even Determine Motive, Unfortunate': Madras High Court Constitutes SIT To Probe Murder Of DMK Minister's Brother
Case Title: N. Ravichandran v. The Director of Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
In the ten-year-old gruesome murder case of K.N. Ramajayam in the heart of Trichy City, Madras High Court has ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team in the hopes that a logical conclusion will be reached about the culprit and the motive behind the murder. The deceased was the brother of DMK Minister KN Nehru.
A single-judge bench of Justice V. Bharathidasan pronounced the orders on a plea filed by N. Ravichandran, one of the brothers of the deceased, seeking transfer of investigation from Central Bureau of Investigation to Tamil Nadu State Police.
The Court however noted that the state police investigated the case for nearly five years, and therefore, retransferring the case to TN Police wouldn't be fruitful.
"...It is a very unfortunate situation. The fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, not restricted only to fair and speedy trial, it also guarantees fair and speedy investigation. The fair and speedy investigation would only lead to advancement of justice and instill confidence in the mind of the victim as well as public. A fair and speedy investigation only would take the case to its logical conclusion."
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Sudhir Cranes Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
The Madras High Court recently ruled that if the new grounds introduced by amendment do not change the character of the petition originally filed for setting aside the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the application for amendment in trial court can be allowed by the Court in its discretionary powers. However, principles of Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code do not apply to the application of amendment under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Justice S.S. Sundar analyzed the pleadings and noted that no new ground is added which is either outside the scope of the original Arbitral proceedings or without the factual background. The Court was unable to find any new ground for which no foundation is laid in the application for setting aside the award under Section 34.
In regard to the application of principles of Order VI Rule 17 CPC to an amendment application under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, the court ruled that it cannot be applied. But the court was of the view that some amount of discretion in the matter of amendment is still available with the Court and the Court cannot refuse unless the Court has reasons to believe that the amendment proposed are not legitimate or that the amendment is likely to take away the right accrued to the other side
Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretary To Government & Ors. & Other Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
Today, Madras High Court has heard a batch of writ petitions filed in public interest seeking various directions to the HR & CE Department for correcting the alleged lapses in the administration of temples.
One of the major issues was an allegation pertaining to the live telecast of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's speech from Kedarnath in 16 TN Temples on the occasion of dedicating the rebuilt samadhi of Adi Shankaracharya.
Narasimhan primarily contended that the respondents must be prevented from hosting gatherings that are of a political nature since the recognised religious practises and Agama Sastras prohibit such meetings.
On the issue of telecasting of the Prime Minister's speech, the court observed in the order that the materials produced point towards the following conclusion:
"The petitioner in person has referred to the last paragraph of the speech in which the Prime Minister has appreciated the efforts of Uttarakhand Government in controlling the pandemic as showcasing the political agenda prohibited under Sections 3-5 of the Act. We find that the Prime Minister's speech refers to religious issues and contributions of Adi Shankaracharya since the programme was for rededicating the statue. Referring to the last paragraph of the speech about 'devabhoomi' which is otherwise known as Uttarakhand, development of Chardham for promoting pilgrimage and development of other religious places are given along with the mention about controlling Covid-19. It cannot be said to be propagating the political propaganda", the court noted.
Case Title: Maridhas v. S.R.S Umari Shankar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has quashed a defamation case pending against YouTuber M. Maridhas for targeting Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) over the announcement urging its cadre to draw 'Kolams' as a form of Anti-CAA Protest.
Justice G.R Swaminathan quashed the case pending in the file of the Thootukudi Judicial Magistrate after observing that the complainant, S.R.S Umari Shankar, is not an aggrieved party and the continuation of the case would be an abuse of the legal process.
The origin of the case can be traced back to Advocate Gayathri Kanthadai who resorted to a novel form of Anti-CAA protest in Besant Nagar by drawing 'kolams' containing slogans. The Advocate was detained by the police that drew ire from the then opposition party, DMK. Later, the Tamil Nadu Police alleged that the detained advocate was associated with Pakistan based NGO "Bytes for all". Before that, DMK had urged the party members to imitate the Advocate's form of protest across Tamil Nadu. Afterwards, a video was uploaded by Maridhas in January, 2020, allegedly defaming DMK Party and Advocate Gayathri Kanthadai.
The complainant had previously submitted before the court that he was a party man and an office bearer of DMK.
"The petitioner (Maridhas) had only made imputations against Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai and DMK. No imputation has been made against DMK partymen as such. The complainant has not suffered any legal injury. His reputation has not in any way been lowered. The Party has not authorised the filing of the complaint. If the partymen or the members of DMK had been defamed, then as a member of a definite class of people, the respondent could have maintained the complaint. Such is not the case here. The complainant on his own has filed the complaint", the court clarified in the quashing order.
Case Title: S. Vasanthi v. M. Baggyalakshmi, Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
In a contempt petition filed against a Police Inspector alleging willful disobedience of the court order, Madras High Court observed that the police department is running with 90 per cent corruptive officers as on date.
Justice P. Velmurugan remarked that the Department is also plagued by police officials not having the required expertise to go forth with an investigation. According to the judge, only 10 per cent of the officers are 'honest and abled' but they alone cannot do all the investigation.
"...Though this Court finds that the capacity of the investigating officer is not up to the mark, and within her capacity she has investigated the case, the incapacity of the investigation officer cannot be treated as wilfully disobeying of the order of this Court. Unfortunately, as on date, the police department is running with 90% of the corruptive officers as well the officers not having adequate capacity to do the investigation and only 10% of the officers are honest and abled officers. The 10% of officials alone cannot do all the investigation."
Case Title: Prof. M.K Surappa v. The Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court has ordered the TN Higher Education Department to furnish a copy of the Justice P.Kalaiyarasan Inquiry Report to Professor M.K Surappa on the allegations levelled against him.
Directing the respondent department to make available a copy of the report to the former Anna University Vice Chancellor within fifteen days, Justice V. Parthiban noted that failure to furnish inquiry report to the petitioner at this stage would lead to 'travesty of justice, opposed to fair play and good conscience' and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Upon receipt of the report copy, the former VC can opt to submit his objections within four weeks.
"....From the conjoined reading of the case laws, the Courts have consistently ruled that there cannot be any slightest departure from complying with the principles of natural justice, namely furnishing of copy of the inquiry Report before the disciplinary authority forms an opinion on the inquiry Report. Such mandate in the opinion of this Court is the sublimest hallmark of fair play and good conscience in action consistent with the constitutional imperatives", the single bench observed.
Case Title: Dr. Elizabeth Rajan, Daughter of late Mr.Thanarajan v. The Inspector General Of Registration & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
Answering the question of whether a sale deed registered with a power of attorney that was executed in Malaysia is valid or not, Madras High Court has held that the notarial acts of notaries in the foreign countries can be given legal recognition by Indian Courts even in the absence of 'reciprocity' under Section 14 of the Notaries Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that once the original document of power of attorney executed and attested as given in Section 85 of the Evidence Act is produced, it is open to the court to presume that all the necessary requirements for the proper execution of Power of Attorney have been duly fulfilled.
"...Therefore, the purpose of Section 85 is to cut down recording of evidence for such matters like the due execution of Power of Attorney etc., in the present day international commerce. The words 'Notary Public' in Section 85 not only applies to Notaries appointed in India but also include the Notary Public of foreign countries. For raising the statutory presumption, Sections 57 and 85 do not require any recognition of notarial acts of the country or place, as the case may be where such Power of Attorney is executed or authenticated. In fact, there is nothing in the language of Section 14 which requires that only those notarial Acts which are declared as recognized by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette, are to be recognized in India", the court noted.
Case Title: A. Thilakam v. The Joint Director/ Appellate Authority & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
Madras High Court has recently observed that the second appeal under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 is not restricted to the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of appointment alone.
The single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam has categorically stated that the appeal remedy before the tribunal under Section 24 extends to any alteration of service conditions in Section 23 after exhausting the right to seek relief before the competent authority, i.e, the first appeal.
Under the Act, the competent authority includes the Joint Director of Elementary Education (Aided Schools) and the tribunal empowered is the respective jurisdictional Principal Sub Court.
"The language employed in Section 24 is that a teacher or other person or the educational agency are entitled to prefer the second appeal. Therefore, even in respect of minor punishment falling under Section 23(b), the educational agency or the teacher or other person may file a second appeal... The second appeal is not restricted with reference to the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of appointment alone...", the court observed.
Case Title: Vellore Institute of Technology, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Trustees v. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Anr. and Others.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a number of reassessment notices issued under the 1961 Income Tax Act by iterating that the Taxation Relaxation Act, 2020 only extends the period of limitation and not the application of repealed provisions in light of the amended provisions effective from 1st April, 2021.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu followed the previous judgments by Allahabad and Delhi High Courts and held that the procedure contemplated under the amended provisions from Sections 147-151 of the Act ought to have been followed for the issue of reassessment notices. The court underscored that Section 3(1) of the enabling act of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment Of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA, 2020) does not control the validity of amended reassessment provisions and there is not a saving clause in the amended Act to save the pre-existing provisions or defer the operation of substituted provisions.
63. TP Act Enables Oral Lease; Requirement Of Registered Agreement Under 2017 TN Act Not Of Universal Application: Madras High Court
Case Title: S. Muruganandam v. J. Jospeh & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
Answering a set of questions pertaining to the diverging scenarios that might occur in the eviction of tenants under Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, Madras High Court has held that legal recourse on oral tenancies after the commencement of the Act can be availed only through civil courts and not the rent courts under the new act.
Justice R. Subramanian observed that the civil revision petitions that have come up before him, since the rent courts rejected all of them by citing the issue of maintainability, can be broadly classified into six types. The rent courts deemed all of these petitions as not maintainable by observing that there is no registered written agreement of tenancy in all six cases.
The court observed that the requirement of a registered instrument of lease in order to enable creation of a landlord-tenant relationship as given in Section 4(2) of the New Act 'cannot be said to be universal in its application'.
"...Therefore, a suit or proceeding which falls outside the provisions of the New Act are not barred. The scope of a bar created under a special enactment was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Periyathambi Goundan v. The District Revenue Officer,Coimbatore and others, reported in 1980 (2) MLJ 89, wherein the Full Bench had held that the scope of the bar are interdict imposed by a provision of law must be strictly construed and the Court must ascertain the extent of the interdict imposed by the provision of the statute and limit the interdict to that extent alone."
64. 'All Is Not Well As Regards The Procedure Followed By NIT': Madras HC Sets Aside Appointment Of Asst Professor In Dept Of Architecture
Case Title: P. Dhanaseelan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
Pointing towards the opacity with regards to the selection process followed by the National Institute of Technology (Tiruchirapalli) for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture, the Madras High Court has directed the institute to issue a fresh call for filling the vacancies.
It has also set aside the appointment of one S. Amalan Sigmund Kaushik to the said post.
The bench of Dr Justice Anita Sumanth observed,
'all is not well as regards the method, methodology as well as procedure followed by NIT, in effecting appointments, at least with regard to the Department of Architecture'.
Case Title: Gnanaloussany Valmy v. The Registrar of Marriages
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Criticising an additional sub court in Pondicherry for issuing directions on making alterations in the marriage register without verifying the original documents, Madras High Court observed that courts cannot pass orders without proper enquiry and by solely relying upon the copies of the documents presented by the litigants.
The single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam was hearing the plea made by a french citizen to correct her name as well as her parents' names in the marriage register. She submitted that she wasn't conversant in English and noticed the error only when an application was made for her daughter's citizenship.
Case Title: P. Arumugam v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
Madras High Court has given a strict mandate not to affix posters of election candidates on the walls of public and private property without proper permission with regards to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Urban Local Body Polls.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has also warned the candidates who violate the provisions of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 of legal action including prosecution.
The bench has also directed Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) and Chennai Municipal Corporation to oversee that the court order is strictly complied with. It has also been directed that the candidates who flout the provisions of the Act and the Tamil Nadu SEC's circular dated 30th November, 2021, must be made to incur the costs of repainting the walls of public/ private property where such posters have been unlawfully affixed.
Case Title: Syed Ibrahim v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioners & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
Madras High Court has reprimanded BJP functionary Syed Ibrahim for deliberately suppressing material facts regarding a prohibitory order against campaigning in a sensitive area with regards to the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Body Polls.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the petitioner resorted to 'twist the facts' in the affidavit filed after the court demanded him to state whether a criminal case was registered against him for entering the sensitive area and whether an express notice was served on him.
Noting the conduct of the petitioner and his failure to file an affidavit as specified by the court, the bench also imposed Rs. 10,000/- as costs upon him.
Case Title: Mrs S. Sushma & Ors. v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
Madras High Court has termed the recent amendment to TN Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules,1964 by the inclusion of Rule 24-C, prohibiting police officers from harassing LGBTQIA+ persons, as a 'milestone' in the approach towards the persons belonging to the community.
The High Court has also accepted the standardised guidelines/ prospective glossary submitted by the state government for referring to LGBTQIA+ persons and instructed the press/ media to follow the glossary in letter and spirit.
A single-judge bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh made this observation while perusing the status reports filed by the State Government pursuant to a slew of guidelines issued in a judgment dated 7th June, 2021, to ensure the protection of LGBTQIA+ persons in consensual relationships, from police harassment.
69. Madras High Court Imposes Exemplary Costs For Unwarranted Litigation
Case Title: M/s.Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Ltd v. M/s.Spencer's Retail Private Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
Madras High Court has imposed exemplary costs on a company for unwarranted litigation while simultaneously holding that the company was entitled to the counterclaim filed. The amount of counterclaim ordered in favour of the defendant company has been set off from the exorbitant costs imposed by the court on the company.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh also observed that the problematic attitude of the defendant is clear from the initiation of unnecessary winding up proceedings against the plaintiff company and the evasive answers given by the authorised signatory of the defendant company in the course of evidence.
The bench went on to note that it was the plaintiff company that incurred costs for construction, obtaining permits etc. Even while selling the property, they accounted for the refundable security deposit paid to them by the defendant. However, the defendant did not incur any tangible costs/ expenses except the payment of security deposit.
Hence, in effect, though the counterclaim made by the defendant was allowed, it was set off completely against the exemplary cost against the defendant.
Case Title: B.Balamurugan v. The Chairman & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The High Court refused to entertain a PIL for strict implementation of medical fees determined by the Government against 50 per cent seats in Private Medical Colleges and Deemed Universities.
The petition filed by Advocate B. Balamurugan alleged that Private Medical Colleges were charging fees to the extent of Rs 7.5- 8 Lakhs when the National Medical Commission has already fixed the fees for Government Quota at Rs. 13,500/-. When the first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy enquired as to the source of his information, the petitioner counsel replied that he had made enquiries with a few private medical colleges which revealed that the National Medical Commission norms on fee fixation are often flouted by such colleges.
However, the bench noted that the petitioner has not impleaded any of the colleges indulging in such practises or any of the students aggrieved by such fees.
Case Title: S. Gunaraja v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Madras High Court has held that police cannot decide the working hours of eateries and restaurants under the guise of law and order problems. The court also observed that it is the bounden duty of police authorities to provide appropriate protection to the eatery shops/hotels/restaurants.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy pointed out that the police does not have the authority to shut down eatery shops/ restaurants by citing law and order problems when they are not accorded such powers after the amendment to Section 35 vide Chennai City Police (Amendment) Act, 2007.
The court also stated that the Preamble of the Indian Constitution guarantees a democratic republic and not a police state. The court made the above statement in the backdrop of police refusing eateries the permission to function even when they don't have the authority to regulate their timings, thereby depriving the fundamental rights of hotel owners and consumers of food. Such unlawful actions of the police fearing anti-social elements entering the eateries at night can only be equated to 'burning down your own house to get rid of a rat', the court added.
Case Title: Manimaran v. The Chief General Manager/ Reviewing Authority, Canara Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
Madras High Court has held that material aspects that were not considered by the Disciplinary Authority can be construed as 'new evidence' by the Reviewing Authority to exercise its power of review.
The court observed that the power of reviewing authority is not intended for mechanical exercise and aims at a clear application of mind. This would include whether the nature of charges have been already proved or not and whether the punishment imposed is in commensuration with the gravity of charges so proved or not proved. The Reviewing Authority shall also examine if all the material aspects ought to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority have been taken into account or not.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the course of action taken by the Authority is within the purview of Clause 18 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976, contrary to the arguments raised by the petitioner employee. According to the said provision, the authority can review the order when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review comes into light.
Case Title: Wasib Khan v. The State represented by its Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Chennai Range) & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
Madras High Court has recently reiterated that convict prisoners cannot be granted parole/leave under Tamil Nadu Suspension Of Sentence Rules, 1982 during the pendency of their appeal.
The Division Bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice R. Hemalatha held that the legal principle enunciated in K.M.Nanavati v. State of Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 112] ought to be followed and the executive power of State for grant of leave cannot be extended when it is the appellate court that can grant suspension of sentence and bail.
Case Title: Indic Collective Trust & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Indic Collective Trust and its President TR Ramesh challenging the appointment of executive officers to Hindu temples by the HR & CE Commissioner.
The Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the executive officers were not appointed pursuant to malpractice, maladministration, mismanagement or for any other reason given in Rule 3 of Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015. According to the court, the above rule has no application in the peculiar circumstances of the case and observed that Executive officers were appointed in the absence of nomination of trustees for 10-12 years.
The court also added that the mandate in Rule 3 about HR& CE Commissioner appointing Executive Officers for a period not exceeding five years won't be applicable either. The court also went on to note that the writ petition is also affected by the doctrine of laches.
75. 'State's Discretion': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea For Adopting NCERT Syllabus In Govt Schools
Case Title: P.A Josseph v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the state government to adopt the syllabus prescribed by NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) for all government schools in Tamil Nadu.
The Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the public interest litigation by stating that such discretion is vested with the state government and the court cannot interfere in it.
"Being a policy decision not shown as a violation of any constitutional/ statutory provision, the jurisdiction of this court is limited. It is upon the state government to choose the syllabus or provide its own syllabus. Therefore, the direction sought cannot be granted", the court observed.
Case Title: K.V Komarasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
Madras High Court has held that the appropriate government for grant of remission of sentence to a person convicted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is the state government and not the Union government.
A Division Bench of Justices P.N Prakash and R. Hemalatha concluded that the executive power of the Union, as well as the state, is offence-specific. In such a scenario, the determining factor would be the identification of the government that possess the executive power pertaining to such offence.
The court further clarified that the executive power of the Union does not extend to matters under the concurrent list according to Article 73 of the Indian Constitution. The source of power for enacting the SC/ST Act can be traced back to Entry I in List III ( Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule. That being the case, Section 435(2) of Cr. P.C wouldn't affect remission of sentence of those convicted under SC/ST Act, the court underscored after referring to Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan and Others (2016 7 SCC 1).
77. Should Temples Be Under Govt Control? Aren't Activists Justified In Arguing Govt Should Exercise Same Control Over Mosques & Churches? Madras HC Asks
Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Madras High Court has quashed two FIRs against temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan for allegedly posting defamatory social media posts about the Srirangam Temple administration (Srirangam Lord Ranganathaswamy Temple).
While quashing the FIRs, Justice G.R Swaminathan observed that Section 199 CrPC places a bar on the registration of an FIR for defamation. The court underscored that Section 199 mandates about the court not taking cognizance of the offences in Chapter XXI of IPC [ Defamation] unless there is a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.
"Should they (temples) continue to be under the thumb of the government? Should not the government professing to be secular treat all religious institutions on par?. Are not knowledgeable and committed activists like Shri.T.R.Ramesh justified in arguing that the government should exercise the same degree and level of control over temples as are exercised over churches and mosques?. Such questions and thoughts cross my mind because the petitioner before me is not only a passionate devotee but also an activist', the court said.\
Case Title: The Adhoc Board of Administrators, Nagore Dargah Interim Adhoc Administrators v. Muhalli Muthavalli & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
Taking suo motu cognisance of the misuse of funds belonging to Nagore Dargah, the Madras High Court has called upon the Ad Hoc Board of Administrators to show cause as to why they should not be discontinued/ substituted.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy came down heavily on the Board after observing that it has filed a writ appeal by 'misusing the position and funds of dargah'.
The court also added that the Adhoc Board of Administrators was appointed by the High Court in 2017 for a short period of four months. The appointment was made by the court to set straight the mismanagement of dargah's affairs. The said board of administrators consisted of Janab K.Allaudin, I.A.S., (Retired) and Janab S.F.Akbar, District Judge (Retired).
"Merely because the Adhoc Committee comprises a retired IAS Officer and a retired District Judge, they cannot be permitted to misuse the funds", the court observed in its order.
Case Title: South Indian Artistes Association rep. by its Former General Secretary v. The Registrar of Societies, South Chennai & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
A division bench of Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq on 23.02.2022 was passing orders on a batch of appeals with respect to an election for the office-bearers of the South Indian Artistes' Association.
Holding the elections to be valid and the Executive Committee to be within power, the court drew attention to Section 15(5) of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 which provides that the Executive Committee is eligible for reappointment. The act also provides in Section 86 that when the AGM has specifically allowed the existing committee members to continue, it would amount to reappointment in terms of Section 15(5), as there were no fresh elections on the date of convening of the AGM.
The AGM attended by more than 1500 members consented for extension of the term which would therefore come under the definition of reappointment. The association had treated the elected committee members as "Care-taker Committee" and therefore the actions taken by them cannot be deemed to be a nullity.
Case Title: M.Muthumadasamy v. The Accountant General and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
In a significant observation, the Madras High Court has recently said that it is time for the Constitutional Courts to ensure that the rights and duties are enforced in an equal manner. The Court also stressed that the Government should come out with a clear system with the enforceability of duties.
This assertion came from the Bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam as it held that if a public servant contracted a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife, then the second wife is not entitled to any service benefits, as the second marriage is void in the eye of law.
In its order, the Court also underscored that enforcement of duty is an integral part of the Constitution of India and that if performance of duties won't be insisted then an imbalance would be created and which would affect the democratic principles.
Case Title: K. Radha v. The Chief Educational Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
Slamming those in the teaching community that takes private tuition classes for remuneration and do other businesses, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to prevent government school teachers from flouting the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and Service Rules.
The court was deprecating the trend of teachers approaching the High Court even for transfer to a nearby place. The court also added that once they manage to get an interim order of stay, they continue staying in the same place for several years, which is detrimental to the rights of other employees and public administration.
Justice SM Subramaniam has also observed that the Teachers Associations in the state are illegally interfering in the affairs of the Education Department. The single-judge bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam has directed the Principal Secretary to constitute Special Teams at the District level to monitor and initiate disciplinary proceedings if teachers are involving themselves in private business/ tuition centres, other part-time employments etc.
Case Title: Saratha vs Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Madras High Court has held that clubbing Transgender persons who self-identified as females under the quota for women is unconstitutional. The Court also held that there can't be inter-se discrimination among transgender persons identifying themselves as "males" and "females".
"The decision of Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) to combine the TGs, who had opted for female category, along with the vacancies reserved for Women deprives equality to them which is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India," the Court said.
The Court also held that the failure to provide any kind of reservation for the Trans Gender persons in the male category and placing them on par with the general category candidates, is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) and unconstitutional. The Court held that such action defies the direction in the Supreme Court's NALSA judgment to provide reservation for transgender persons in public employment.
83. Madras High Court Quashes Order Shortening Validity Of Karti Chidambaram's Passport
Case Title: Karti P.Chidambaram v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
The Madras High Court has held that when an application is made for the renewal/ re-issue of a passport, the authority cannot shorten the duration or validity of the same without following Sections 7 and 10 of the Passports Act, 1967.
Holding thus, Justice M. Govindaraj directed the Passport Authority to re-issue a passport to Congress MP Karthi P. Chidambaram, which shall be valid for a period for which his passport was otherwise valid
After hearing both parties, the single bench noted that the order shortening the period of validity without following Section 10 or Section 7 of the Act and without recording suitable reasons is not sustainable in law.
Therefore, the court directed the passport office to reissue the passport with the existing period of validity or for 10 years as per Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization.
For reaching the said conclusion, the court extensively relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Narendra K.Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors. (2014).
Case Title: Kannan@ Mannanai Kannan & Ors. v. The State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
Observing that extraction of Section 161(3) of Cr. P.C statement in cross-examination cannot be construed as a substantive piece of evidence, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has set aside an order of trial court sentencing three murder accused to life sentence. The court iterated that substantive evidence is the evidence tendered by the witnesses on oath during criminal trial.
"...Therefore, mere repeating the statement contained in 161(3) Cr. P.C by the public prosecutor under the pretext of cross-examination of the witness who turned hostile can never be substantive evidence. It is relevant to note that the purpose of treating the witnesses hostile and cross-examination is to get some materials or to unearth truth from the witnesses", the court noted.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and N. Sathish Kumar pointed out that the witness statement under Section 161(3) CrPC were put to witnesses during cross examination with a conclusion that the witnesses who turned hostile gave false evidence to exonerate the accused persons.
Case Title: Irfan v. K.S Kumaran & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
Madras High Court has recently refused to entertain a motor accident claim in which the claimant, a minor, was found driving the motorcycle involved in the accident.
In a strongly-worded judgment, Justice S. Kannamal noted that the claimant who was a minor boy at the time of accident cannot demand compensation from the insurance company when he himself is a tortfeasor.
Though the bench agreed with the claimant's submission that Motor Vehicles Act is intended to be a 'benevolent legislation', it clarified that that in itself would not mean there is an ipso facto applicability in all the cases. In the light of clear insurance policy violation, the court noted that the insurance company is relieved from the responsibility of paying compensation. Therefore, the court upheld the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai that had rejected the claim in 2017.
Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
In a plea for a mandatory dress code to allow entry into temples, Madras High Court has observed that devotees are expected to enter the temple premises in proper dress code.
However, the Court also held that it cannot issue a general direction to all temples to put up signboards prescribing the dress code as suggested by the petitioner.
A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the court cannot 'thrust' opinions on the society. The bench also added that if the customary practice of a certain temple prescribes dress code for entry, then such temple can fix visible sign boards to ensure that dress code is followed and the temples can take regulatory measures to that effect.
"The devotees are expected to enter the temples in proper dress to maintain the sanctity of the temple. It is not for the Courts to venture into unchartered waters and thrust our opinions on society. It is the devotees who should realise that they are entering into a place of worship and they need to adhere to the customs in vogue at such temple, if any", the court observed while issuing directions.
Case Title: O. Selvam & Ors v. The Commissioner of School Education & Ors & Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
Madras High Court has recently iterated that when two posts carry equivalent scale of pay and are treated as equal categories under the Rules, the petitioners have no right to claim a particular post as a matter of right or choice.
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court underscored that when the service conditions are not infringed from and out of the administrative transfers effected, the Government employees have no right to claim a specific post as their choice.
Justice S M Subramaniam was hearing a plea made by petitioners who were initially appointed as B.T.Assistants (Bachelor of Teaching) and some others who were promoted as B.T. Assistants from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Petitioners belonging to both categories has passed the Deputy Inspector's Test and were qualified to be transferred and appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, an equivalent cadre carrying identical pay scale. Since they met the requirements under Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service, they were appointed as Deputy Inspectors.
The petitioners were challenging the 6th January notification by the Joint Director of School Education directing the District level Chief Educational Officers to make administrative transfers and accordingly post these Deputy Inspectors as B.T Assistants by 7th January.
Case Title: D.Balasubramanian v. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department & Ors and Prabhu Nambiappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
Madras High Court has observed that the temple car procession/ festival in Achiramavalli Amman Kovil at Jangamarajapuram cannot be allowed this year since it has the potential to stoke communal tension like in 2021.
The court was hearing two separate writ petitions filed in 2021 and 2022 about the conduct of the Temple/ Car Festival in the Trichy District .
In the common order, the single-judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan added that the reports submitted by the Tahsildar and Deputy Inspector of Police indicated that the temple/car festival was not conducted in a peaceful manner in 2021, which saw partial boycott and pelting of stones, injuring public and police.
Case Title: Immaculate College Of Education For Women v. Pondicherry University & Anr. and Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of writ appeals filed against the single judge bench order dated 05.01.2022 in favour of Pondicheryy University collecting University Development Fund paid by students from the Individual colleges.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the University can demand 'other charges' in addition to the fees stipulated in Section 27(e) Pondicherry University Act,1985. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal by saying that the demand notices issued to colleges for University Development Fund are not beyond the University's competency since it is covered by Section 5(20) of the Act.
"The appellant counsel referred to Section 27 of the Act by taking note of the subject matters mentioned therein with regards to ordinances and not the powers of the University under Section 5 of the Act", the court pointed out.
The single bench judgment in 2020 had dismissed the plea by the appellant colleges filed in 2010 which challenged the imposition of Rs 1000/- as University Development Fund.
Case Title: M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Deputy General Manager v. Rajeswari & Ors and Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
While upholding the additional compensation per Are granted by a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'Act') , Madras High Court has held that interest for Solatium is a mandatory component as per Section 28 of the Act.
The single Bench of Dr Justice G. Jayachandran was hearing a batch of appeal suits preferred by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) under Section 54 of the Act.
With respect to the interest that must be paid on Solatium, the court observed that there was an omission from the Reference Court since Section 28 of the Act [Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation] and Supreme Court Judgments mandate such interest even if the landowners have not preferred any cross objection or appeal for the interest portion on the solatium.
"...their right to seek interest to solatium in the appeal filed by the third party/Requisition Authority has to be entertained. The cardinal principle in land acquisition is, when a person is deprived of his Constitutional Right to hold property, he must be paid just and fair compensation. Therefore, when the statute prescribes interest to compensation at a particular rate (i.e) 9% p.a., from the date of award, till the date of possession plus one year and at the rate of 15% thereafter, the same has to be applied on the solatium also, as mandated under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894", the court underscored.
Case Title: P. Pugalenthi, Director, Prisoners Rights Forum v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
In a plea seeking direction upon the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to investigate the alleged scam in the supply of stationery articles by the officials of Madurai Central Prison, the Madras High Court has asked the petitioner to seek registration of FIR or to file a private complaint invoking Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed,
"The prayer has been made to direct the fourth respondent to cause investigation pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner without realizing that the investigation into the matter can be conducted by the Police or Anti-Corruption Department only after registration of the First Information Report."
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Director of Prisoners Rights Forum, P. Pugalenthi.
92. IIT-Madras Student Suicide: High Court Quashes FIR Against Protesters From Campus Front Of India
Case Title: Ashraf & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against some office bearers and members of 'Campus Front of India' who organised a protest in front of IIT-Madras seeking justice for a suicide victim.
Admittedly, the members assembled and protested for arresting the faculty implicated in the suicide note of Fathima Latheef, a first-year Humanities student who hung herself in a ceiling fan in her hostel room in November 2019.
The single bench of Justice A.D Jagadish Chandira observed that no act of violence has occurred during the protest and no untoward incident has taken place, which warrants the quashing of the FIR registered against the protesters.
While allowing the criminal original petition, the court noted as below:
"...admittedly, no violation is reported in this case and the protest has also not ended in any violence. Therefore, this Court, is of the considered view that further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2962 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai is liable to be quashed".
Case Title: T. Akshaya & Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
Madras High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ appeal challenging the laying of high tension transmission lines at Sevaganappalli in Krishnagiri, allegedly contravention of distance norms and disregard for potential health hazards.
The appellants argued that the sub-station would be supplying electricity solely to Exide Industries Limited while the State submitted that the project will be equally beneficial to the nearby villages that experience electricity deficit. Apart from challenging the grant of approval by pitting it against Article 14, the writ appellants/ petitioners further submitted that realigning the 110 KV DC lines or laying underground transmission lines like in Gujarat will be a plausible alternative.
About the alternatives proposed by the appellants, the court noted in the judgment that the 'Gujarat Model' cannot be imposed on the Respondent Authorities, especially when 24 towers have already been erected and transmission lines are being laid.
"A reference of Gujarat model has been given, but it cannot be imposed on the respondent authorities because they have wisdom to decide as to whether to go with underground transmission lines or overhead lines. This court cannot thrust the opinion of the appellants upon the respondents to go for underground transmission lines for the remaining towers...", the court noted.
Case Title: S. Meena & Anr. v. Sivakumar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
While dismissing an appeal suit filed by a woman claiming 1/7th share for herself and her son in the ancestral property of her deceased husband's family, Madras High Court has underscored that the factum of marriage cannot be inferred from a single photograph where both are seen together.
The single-judge bench of Justice G. Jayachandran added that though the courts should generally 'lean upon legitimacy and frown upon bastardy' [as laid down in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others] it can also not consider a deceased person as responsible for the birth of the minor appellant. Attempts made to obtain the property of a deceased person by claiming parentage must be equally frowned upon, the court remarked.
Before the bench, an appeal suit under Section 96 CPC was filed by submitting that the appellants are the widow and son of one late Sakthivel. They contended that they are the legal heirs of Sakthivel, and therefore, they are legally entitled to 1/7th share in the ancestral property jointly held by defendants who are the brothers, mother and father of the deceased Sakthivel.
"The factum of marriage and long cohabitation are not matters, which can be inferred through a single photograph, where a male and female are seen together. More so, when only the positive is filed without negative and the person, who took the photograph not examined. The Ex.A-1, the photograph is in colour and new...", the court said while clarifying that the photo and the CD that contains the photograph will not be admissible in evidence.
95. Madras HC Holds Execution Petition Over Beneficial Ownership Of Award Debtor In Shares Held Ostensibly By Third Parties Maintainable
Case Title: Pueblo Holdings Limited v. Emirates Trading Agency LLC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
Madras High Court has recently held that the execution petition filed by a company incorporated in the Republic of Marshall Islands, in pursuance of a foreign arbitral award in its favour, against another company with its registered office in Dubai is maintainable before it.
The single-judge bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has held that the consecutive third execution petition filed by Award Holder, Pueblo Holdings Limited, seeking the enforcement of the decree against UAE based Award Debtor, Emirates Trading Agency LLC, by attaching the assets held ostensibly by third parties in the prominently Chennai based ETA Group is maintainable.
Case Title: N. Rahul Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
Madras High Court has recently iterated that when two posts carry equivalent scale of pay and are treated as equal categories under the Rules, the petitioners have no right to claim a particular post as a matter of right or choice.
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court underscored that when the service conditions are not infringed from and out of the administrative transfers effected, the Government employees have no right to claim a specific post as their choice.
Justice S M Subramaniam was hearing a plea made by petitioners who were initially appointed as B.T.Assistants (Bachelor of Teaching) and some others who were promoted as B.T. Assistants from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Petitioners belonging to both categories has passed the Deputy Inspector's Test and were qualified to be transferred and appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, an equivalent cadre carrying identical pay scale. Since they met the requirements under Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service, they were appointed as Deputy Inspectors.
The petitioners were challenging the 6th January notification by the Joint Director of School Education directing the District level Chief Educational Officers to make administrative transfers and accordingly post these Deputy Inspectors as B.T Assistants by 7th January.
Case Title: Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Air Corporation Employees Union challenging Air India disinvestment, who feared that certain terms and conditions of service enjoyed by the employees under the erstwhile public sector management will be severely affected.
"Considering the fact that Air India Ltd prior to the disinvestment initiative was a sinking company, a fortuitous transformation has happened for their own good. In the opinion of this Court, various conditions of service under the SPA are the best that the Government could wrangle out from the fourth respondent towards ensuring protection of the employees' interest. Therefore, the employees conjecturing they have been treated unfairly and unjustly is misplaced and misconceived", Justice V. Parthiban observed.
On the Petitioner's apprehension regarding alteration of service conditions, the Bench said,
"...Any decision concerning the service conditions would obviously be taken within the framework of the existing laws on the subject. In case of any infraction, deviation or violation of any existing laws, the employees always have a recourse to judicial mechanisms. This Court, therefore, need not assume any advisory role in emphasizing the sacrosanct legal position as every private or public entity is mandated to act in accordance with law."
Case Title: M/s. V.R.S. Traders Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Madras High Court has held that the DRC-01 notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act must be issued before passing the assessment order.
The single bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar has remitted the after back to the respondent/department for reconsideration and directed that the department to issue DRC-01 notice to the petitioner and after giving a fair opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/assessee, necessary orders shall be passed with regard to the assessment.
If any taxpayer has to pay tax, interest and penalty under sub-section (1) of section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act then, the authorised officer should first communicate the details of the tax, interest and penalty ascertained in Form GST DRC-01A to the taxpayer.
Case Title: D.S. Radhika v. The State Represented By Secretary to Government & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
Madras High Court has criticised the public servants who utilise mobile phones and cameras during office hours unnecessarily and directed the Government authorities to frame regulations in line with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.
Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench was hearing a plea made by a Superintendent in the Tiruchirapalli Regional Workshop (Health) who wanted a direction to revoke her suspension and quash the order passed by the Director, Tamil Nadu State Health Transport Department.
Since the respondent state authorities made a submission that most of the public servants are using mobile phones and cameras in government offices, the court wondered if the employees are performing their duties and responsibilities as expected of them.
"...If such indiscipline and misconduct are allowed to be continued, no doubt, they are committing the greatest sin to the public by getting tax payers' money as huge salary. Therefore, the Government is duty-bound to ensure that the public servants are not wandering with mobile phones inside the office during office hours and it is to be regulated in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973", the court underscored in the order.
Case Title: P. Kannan v. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Ors., D. Sekar v. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kancheepuram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
Madras High Court has held that Supreme Court has not laid down any absolute proposition of law that suspension of an employee cannot continue beyond three months in the absence of serving the charge sheet within that time, or if the charge-sheet is served without reasoned order of extension.
The full bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice V. Bharathidasan concluded that the apex court case relied on by the suspended employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015), would not apply and the order of suspension should be analysed based on the facts of each case, rules applicable and the gravity of charges etc.
101. Visible Collusion With Investigating Officer': Madras High Court Quashes Appointment Of Government Pleader Accused Of Giving Death Threats
Case Title: M.A.M Raja v. The Special Personal Assistant to Minister for Law & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
Concluding that there has been visible collusion between the investigating officer and an advocate who was accused in a criminal case, Madras High Court has set aside the appointment of the latter as a Government Pleader for a District Munsif Court in Periyakulam.
Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that constitutional courts have time and again repeated that public posts are to be filled up only with women and men of integrity and honesty. Therefore, the single judge bench expressed its strong disapproval about the conduct of the investigating officer and the respondent government pleader.
"To cover up the misdeeds, the Police has conducted a corrupt investigation and deleted the name of the sixth respondent from the charge sheet without assigning any reason", the court noted.
102 'Not A Flight Risk, No Concrete Evidence For Coercive Action': Madras High Court Quashes Look Out Circular Against Rahul Surana
Case Title: Rahul Surana v. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
Madras High Court has quashed a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Rahul Surana, son of the Managing Director of Surana Industries Limited.
Dr Justice Anita Sumanth opined that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on whose approval the Bureau of Immigration issued a LOC in December 2020 couldn't satisfy the settled parameters for issuing the same, let alone its extension.
Relying on Karthi P Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration (2018), the court observed that the respondent authorities have not placed any material justifying the extension of the Look Out Notice. The investigating agency only mentions prima facie materials and no concrete evidence has been placed to take coercive action in the nature of a Look Out Circular according to the court. The court also pointed out that there are no proceedings against Rahul Surana so as to implicate him in a criminal court or any other fora. Therefore, the court noted in the order as below:
"No material is placed before the Court in support of the bald assertion that the petitioner is a flight risk and as a consequence, there is no tangible material available, admittedly, to deny the petitioner of his Fundamental Right."
The court also referred to the submissions made by CBI that there are no ongoing investigations against him. The single-judge bench also took note of the fact that the petitioner has not evaded any summons demanding his appearance till date.
103. 'Temples May File A Civil Suit Or Invoke Provisions Of HR & CE Act To Evict Tenant': Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: M. Selvaraj v. Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Thirukkoil
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
Madras High Court has reiterated that it is open to the temples to avail the common law remedy by filing a regular suit or invoking Section 78 of the HR & CE Act for the eviction of a tenant.
The single bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the substantial question of law is no longer res integra in light of the judgment in A.N. Kumar v. Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam Thiruvannamalai & Ors. (2011). In the said case law, it was clarified that the bar under Section 108 of the HR & CE Act for instituting civil suits will not apply for eviction of the lessee without resorting to Section 78 of the Act.
Case Title: O. Panneerselvam v. P. Milany & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
Madras High Court has rejected an election petition filed for declaring the election of O. Panneerselvam from Bodinayakanur Legislative Assembly constituency as null and void. An application was filed by Panneerselvam before Madras High Court against the election petition filed by P. Milany, a voter in the constituency.
The election petition had alleged that the AIADMK Candidate and the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had suppressed material facts and failed to disclose the assets and liabilities of his wife, P. Vijayalakshmi, at the time of filing the nomination papers. On these grounds, the petitioner submitted that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 33 and 33A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the 'Act') r/w Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It was also added that the election of the former CM must be cancelled since the affidavit furnished in Form 26 did not contain the full particulars that must have been there.
Justice V. Bharathidasan noted that the principles laid down in Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi (2001) and Ram Sukh Vs. Dinesh Aggarwal (2009) would apply in the case at hand and noted in the order that the election petition does not disclose a cause of action regarding suppression of material particulars.
105. Madras High Court Issues Directions In Suo Motu Petition Regarding Motor Accident Fund Misappropriation
Case Title: Suo Motu W.P. No. 12935 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
While pronouncing orders in a Suo Motu writ petition, the Madras High Court bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice Abdul Quddhose made a series of directions to be followed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) in the state. The court also made suggestions to the Chief Justice and requests to the portfolio judges to issue appropriate directions to put in motion these suggestions.
The petition was for directing the respondents - Registrar General, Additional Registrar (Inspection) and State Bank of India to audit the motor accident cases funds in all districts, lodge criminal complaints against recalcitrant officials and monitor the investigation in the matters.
From the inputs received, the court was satisfied that practitioners in the MCOP jurisprudence operate in delineated specific turfs and would not brook encroachment by anyone.
It was also found that the practitioners were not alone in this misadventure and were assisted by court staff and sometimes even judicial officers.
"MCOP jurisprudence is a gold mine as well a mine field and attempts to clean the Augean stables earlier by various Benches of this Court had not yielded the desired results", the court observed.
106. Notice To Accused Not Necessary For Freezing Bank Account Under Section 102 CrPC: Madras High Court
Case Title: Kiruthika v. The State Represented By Inspector of Police & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea made by the wife of controversial PUBG gamer Madan seeking the defreezing of her bank account at Axis Bank Limited.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed that there are far-ranging allegations against both the accused, including misappropriation of funds collected in the name of Covid Relief and making revenue from the live streaming of PUBG gaming videos with obscene commentary and filthy language against women and teenage subscribers.
The court noted that the bank had acknowledged the freezing of the account of the accused to the police by a letter on 15th June, 2021. It was produced and submitted to the magistrate when Kiruthika was remanded on 16th June.
About informing the petitioner about the freezing of accounts, the court noted that there is no such mandate in the statutory provisions. Relying On Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat (2017), the court remarked that Section 102 Cr.P.C. does not stipulate issuance of any notice to the account holder. For the purpose of investigation, no notice to the suspect can be expected under law, the court added.
107. Court Cannot Act As Post Office To Collect And Exchange Information: Madras High Court
Case Title: S.P Muthu Raman v. The Joint Secretary & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
The Madras High Court bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing a petition for directing the Joint Secretary of Department of Personnel and Training and the Secretary of Department of Post to pass appropriate orders giving effect to the recommendations made by the Central Information Commission in 2013.
One of the recommendations made by the commission was to affix postal stamps on the RTI applications in the place of Indian Postal Order or Demand Draft.
The court however found no merits in the petition and dismissed the same. The court stated that the Commission has made only recommendations that cannot by any stretch be taken as a statute so as to give effect. It also stated that only after certain modifications are made in the statutory provisions that the recommendations can be challenged.
The court was also unsatisfied with the fact that the petitioner chose to sleep on these recommendations for almost nine years and has only now filed a petition. The petition is also silent regarding the reason for the delay. The court also highlighted the fact that the petitioner had not tried to find out as to what action was taken by the appropriate authority with regard to these recommendations.
Case Title: Dr. Esther, MBBS, DGO v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
Madras High Court has observed that the Governor alone can execrcise the power conferred for granting premature release of a prisoner under Article Article 161 of the Constitution, upon advice rendered by the State Cabinet.
A bench of Justices P.N. Prakash and A.A. Nakkiran refused to reconsider the plea made by Dr Esther, mother of the John David, convicted prisoner in the 1996 infamous murder of Pon Navarasu, for premature release. John David was the prime accused in the murder of Pon Navarasu, a first-year MBBS Student in Annamalai University and the son of Madras University's former Vice-Chancellor. The public outcry after the heinous murder paved way for the first state legislation criminalising ragging in educational institutions, i.e, Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997.
"The State Level Committee which is composed of the Inspector General of Prisons and the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Headquarters) can only recommend a case to the State Government and cannot exercise the power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Governor of the State would exercise the power under Article 161, ibid., on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Thus, the Cabinet has the authority to accept or reject the recommendation of the State Level Committee and accordingly, give their advice to the Governor."
The court also observed that it cannot interfere with the Government Order under Article 226 since it does have any powers under Article 142, like the Supreme Court.
Case Title: L. Ponnammal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court has dismissed a lea challenging the amendments brought in by the Finance Act 2021 and the subsequent amendments made in the LIC Act 1956 which provided for the disinvestment of the Life Insurance Corporation.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the challenge was made to the amendments by way of Article 110 of the constitution without challenging the certificate issued by the Speaker of the House. Further, the procedure for certifying the Finance Bill as a money bill have been duly complied with and therefore there is no constitutional illegality.
The court also highlighted that the word "only" used in the definition of Money Bill has to be read along with Article 110(1) (g) of the constitution which provides for any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in (a) to (f) of Article 110(1) and therefore should not be given a narrow meaning.
"The intrusion or inference to the implementation of a public interest policy by way of legislation should be eschewed, as it directly impacts the economic growth of the country and interference therein may have far reaching consequences, because the receipt of money into the Consolidated Fund of India is to be used for the development of the country." the court added.
Case Title: Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited & Anr. v. T. Mohan & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
in a matter pertaining to th ewinding up of Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited, the Madras High Court has ordered an absolute interim injunction on the deletion of certain properties, for which the employees of Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited are PoA holders, from the auction sale process.
The single-judge bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy also placed an interim stay of the confirmation of the sale in respect of the properties for a period of eight weeks. The court also noted there is insufficient evidence to apply Sections 536 and 537 of the Companies Act and set aside the registered sale deeds in summary proceedings.
The dispute arose when two persons alleged that they had purchased the properties from the original owners in bona fide transactions. The alleged purchasers had also placed a challenge against Maxworth's claim on the title to these properties on the basis of Power of Attorneys (PoAs).
"From the PoAs, it is evident that the agent was authorised to sell the lands and receive consideration. A few receipts in respect of payment of consideration are also on record. Pursuant thereto, two sale deeds dated 17.07.1996 are on record, which indicate that the lands were sold by Maxworth through the PoAs to its customers", the court inferred.
However, the court concluded that there aren't enough relevant documents to infer that the immovable properties whose alienation is challenged by Maxworth are actually the assets of Maxworth.
Case Title: P. Subburaj v. The Principal Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
The Madras High Court has tabled a proposition to frame a scheme for allotment of houses in public quota on rental basis.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and State Government to frame a scheme in consultation with the Tamil Nadu & Puducherry Bar Council for reserving a certain percentage of residential accommodations in public quota by giving preference to practicing young lawyers until a prescribed age. the court also recommended another alternative to consider the financial status of advocate and give them residential accommodation for a limited number of years on rental basis.
The court was considering a petition filed by a former President of District Consumer Redressal Forum who was still not able to own a house and was applying for allotment of residential accommodation under public quota which was initially rejected.
Relying on the judgement of T. Sornapandian & Others v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development (HB(2) HB5(2)) Department, Chennai & Others (2019), the court remarked that there are no hard and fast rule about to whom the residential accommodation should be allotted under 'public quota'.
The court also discussed the plight of young Advocates coming from irregular income group and also highlighted the vital role played by young practicing advocates in assisting court and rendering justice.
Case Title: Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam v. National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High court bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy recently dismissed for non prosecution, a plea challenging the NGT Office Order which mandated that Pan India matters should be heard by the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
The plea was filed to quash the Office Order issued by Registrar General of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directing that suo motu matters having pan-India or inter-state implications will be henceforth listed before the Principal Bench of at least three members.
Case Title: R.R Saravana Balagursamy v. The Superintendent of Police and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court has observed that instead of repeated orders of the Supreme Courts and the High Courts, the Police Department is not equipped with CCTV Cameras to store the footage for at least a period of one year. This defeats the purpose for which the cameras are installed. The court also suggested storage points for keeping the CCTV footage at least for a minimum period of one year.
Justice S.M Subramaniam also took note of the fact that a number of writ petitions are being filed seeking initiation of action against public servants including police officials and a solution should be found.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited v. A.C. Jagadeesann & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court has highlighted that the deceased/ injured in a motor accident claim must be a third party to maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Justice P.T. Asha noted that an application under Section 163A of the Act against the Insurance Company of the vehicle driven by the injured/ deceased himself/herself/themselves is liable to be disimissed.
The court also held that usually the claimant does not have to establish the negligence of the owner of the vehicle which resulted in death or permanent disablement However, when the claimant himself was driving the borrowed vehicle that was insured. In such an instance, he would step into the shoes of the owner of a vehicle.
Case Title: SC Raja Rajeshwari v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy of Madras High Court recently allowed petitions filed by two students of Madha Dental College seeking similar reliefs against the college - to direct the college to issue course completion certificate and to permit the students to complete their internship/receive certificate without fail.
The court, satisfied that the college had manipulated the attendance registers of the students to get orders in their favour, condemned the act of college and directed it to pay a penalty of Rs. 3 crore to the university. The university was directed to utilize this fund for the purpose of providing scholarship to the poor students those who are undergoing BDS/MDS course under any existing Scheme. In the absence of such schemes, the university was directed to frame new schemes.
The court had also directed the college to pay a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs each to the students for depriving their opportunity to become dentists and to refund the excess fee collected from them with interest at 18% p.a.
Case Title: S. Ganeshan v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Madras High Court has held that the bar under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act against recalling a child (minor victim) is not applicable after such victim attains majority.
Justice A.D Jagdish Chandra, while allowing the petitioner-accused's plea held that the victim is now 21 years old and she will not fall within the definition of "child" so as to invoke Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Section 33(5) of the Act only mandates that the child witness cannot be called repeatedly to testify in the Court.
The court also relied on decision of Apex Court in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. (2017) and noted that it is mandatory for a court under Section 311 CrpC to recall witnesses for further cross-examination if their evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. the court also highlighted that the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has to be balanced with the right of the accused.
Case Title: Krishnamoorthy v. State Represented by Inspector of Police & Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
Justice A.D Jagdish Chandira recently lamented on the current pace of environmental deterioration and opined that it is society's collective responsibility to leave the planet in a better shape for future generations.
The court was dealing with a batch of pleas made for return of seized vehicles involved in illegal sand mining cases. The court noted that these vehicles are used for similar offences once released. The court also noted that the perennial rivers that were carrying clean water have now been converted into drainage channels for carrying effluents. The court issued direction for the conclusion of confiscation proceedings already initiated within 6 months.
Case Title: Malliga v. P. Kumaran
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
Madras High Court has held that a Will cannot be admitted in evidence unless it complies with the conditions laid down in Section 68 of the Evidence Act, even if the execution of the document is expressly admitted or not specifically denied by the opposite party.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the mandate of calling at least one attesting witness for the purpose of proving execution cannot be diluted. the court further added that Section 68 only excepts examining an attesting witness for the proof of execution of any document that requires to be attested under law, not being a will, if its execution is not specifically denied by the person who appears to have executed the document.
119. Even If 'GOD' Encroaches Upon Public Space, Will Order Its Removal: Madras High Court
Case Title: Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil v. Pappayee & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
The Madras High Court has observed that "even if GOD encroaches upon public space, Courts will direct removal of such encroachments". The court stated that it is not concerned by 'who or in what name' the encroachment takes place and that public interest and rule of law must be safeguarded and upheld.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was hearing an appeal filed by temple against the order of lower court restraining it from putting up construction in Mariamman Koil Street.
The court was also critical of the stand taken by respondent Municipality who refused to interfere with the encroachments by stating that the Government was in control of the street since it was a puramboke land. The bench reiterated that such hyper technical pleas wouldn't whitewash the public wrong committed by the temple.
Case Title: K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
Justice V Parthiban of the Madras High Court has held that there is no cap on the number of deliveries for grant of maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act. The only differentiation is on the period of maternity benefit available. For a woman employee having less that two surviving children, the maximum period of benefit is 26 wees while for a woman having more than two surviving children, the benefit is restricted to 12 weeks.
Relying on Madras High Court judgment in N.Mohammed Mohideen & Anr vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Inspection) Chennai, (2008), the court observed that as long as Article 42 of the Constitution read with the provisions of the M.B. Act, 1961, is available, every female worker covered by the Act is entitled to claim maternity benefit without any ceiling on the number of deliveries made by them. The court also mentioned a High Court judgment in Ruksana v. State of Haryana (2011) and noted that Maternity Benefit Act would have an overriding effect over any service rules.
Case Title: State rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID v. A Sivakumar & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Madras High Court has directed the Magistrate to issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the absconding accused police officials who were evading arrest in an extortion case.
Justice A.D Jagdish Chandra, while passing the order also added that:
"As stated above, the accused in the case are evading arrest and the only course left open to the Investigating Officer to ensure their presence, would be to seek the Magistrate to invoke his power under Section 73 of Cr.P.C. and only thereafter can proceed with the other procedures of proclamation and attachment. In such an eventuality, there is no bar for the Magistrate to legitimately exercise his power under Section 73 of Cr.P.C for the person to be apprehended during investigation since the respondents are accused of Non-Bailable offence and are evading arrest"
Case Title: M/s.MNS Enterprises Versus The Additional Director General Directorate of GST Intelligence
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan refused to grant a refund of the amount lying in the assessee's electronic cash ledger on the grounds that there were serious allegations against the assessee for having an availed fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) in the electronic credit ledger on the strength of a bogus and fictitious input tax invoice for discharging GST liability with no supply.
The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and Others, in which it was held that when the law mandates a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in the aforesaid manner. Therefore, the amount that has been deposited into the Electronic Liability Register of the petitioner by the petitioner's customer or client cannot be ordered to be refunded directly. The deposit into the electronic cash ledger of the petitioner can be made not only by the petitioner, but also by any other person on behalf of the petitioner. This is evident from a reading of Section 49 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 86 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Case Title: M/s.Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asst Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
Madras High Court has held that the writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd challenging the Assessment Order for the year 2015-16 is not maintainable. The court also clarified that the current order only touches upon the maintainability of the writ petition in reference to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the objections thereupon, and not the merits of the case.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy concurred with the decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO (2002) and that when a notice under Section 148 of the Act is given, the proper course of action for the assessee is to file a return. The assessee can also seek reasons for issuing the notice. Then, the assessing authority should give reasons for reopening the assessment. When the reasons are received by the assessee, he can file his objections to the said notice. If that's done, then the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
Case Title: S.P. Velayutham Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
The Madras High Court has ruled that prosecution under Section 276C (2) of the Income Tax Act for wilfully attempting to evade payment of tax cannot be initiated against an assessee who merely defaults to pay tax on time under the Act.
The Single Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar held that in the absence of mens rea to avoid payment of tax, a "wilful attempt" to evade tax cannot be attributed to assessee in order to prosecute him under Section 276C (2).
The High Court held that wilful attempt to evade tax cannot be attributed to Assessee in order to prosecute him under Section 276C (2) for mere default on payment of tax in time. The Court added that to prosecute a person for penal action, the penal provisions have to be strictly construed. Also, the Court ruled that only when the circumstances and the conduct of the accused showed a wilful attempt to evade tax or the payment of tax, prosecution under Section 276C(2) could be launched. The Court added that the word "wilful attempt" could not be inferred merely on failure to pay tax in time in the absence of any intention, deliberate attempt or mens rea to avoid the payment of tax.
Case Title: Shri. Ahmed A.R.Buhari, S/o.Shri.Abdul Rahman Buhary Seyed v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
Madras High Court has refused to grant bail to Ahmed A.R Buhari, director and promoter of M/s Coastal Energen Private Limited (CEPL), accused of the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Justice G. Jayachandran noted that the principle of 'bail being the rule and jail being the exception' is not entirely applicable in special legislations like PMLA, NDPS Act etc. where 'Jail becomes the rule and bail becomes the exception' based on the gravity of offences committed.
"...Whether such classification is reasonable or not is the question primarily now subject matter pending before of the Apex Court. Till verdict is pronounced, as the Division Bench of this Court has observed in N.Umashankar & others -vs- The Assistant Director, Directorate ofEnforcement, Government of India, Chennai(2022)...., the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 found in the statute has to be held valid", the court clarified.
Case Title: Mr.G.Nagaiyan & Anr. v. Mr. K. Palanivel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
Madras High Court has evoked the 'doctrine of approbate and reprobate' to hold that a party cannot claim a right over a property when he had obtained another Decree from the competent Civil Court on the ground that no right or title was conveyed to him under the sale deed.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the defendant party claiming right over the schedule property cannot take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/ courts. The judge observed that the position is well settled by the Indian Courts and foreign courts as well.
Case Title: M. Gowrishankar v. The Deputy Manager (SME) & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
The Madras High Court has recently directed reinstatement of a workman, working with a bank and belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community, who was dismissed from service after an incident of hanging Dr. BR Ambedkar's photo in the Bank premises, without prior permission.
The bench of Justice M. Duraiswamy and Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad held that the Single Judge had wrongly interpreted that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had interfered with the punishment of removal from service solely on the ground of sympathy. The tribunal had in fact exercised power under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
The court also stated that the charges levelled against the appellant/workman will amount to a minor misconduct as per clause 7 of the Bank Settlement and warrants the punishment mentioned in the settlement. He did not face the charges of grave misconduct, which warrants the punishment of removal from service as contented by the bank.
Case Title: Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
Madras High Court has commuted the life sentence of three accused including a pastor involved in the acts of kidnapping, marrying and sexually assaulting a Class X Student.
Justices P.N Prakash and A. A Nakkiran took note of a particular submission by A2 and A3 that they were unaware of the age of the victim and genuinely believed her to be over 18 years. The court, however, observed that though the argument appears to be 'a little convincing' at the first blush, the cross-examination of the victim has revealed that she was in a school uniform when taken to the houses of accussed.
Life imprisonment imposed on Vijayakumar-A1 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act [Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault] was reduced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment, without any remission benefits. Life imprisonment imposed on Pastor Muniyandi-A2 and Joseph Raja-A3 under Section 6 R/w Section 17 of the POCSO Act was reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court also made it clear that the sentences imposed under IPC and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, along with the sentence of fine and the default clause imposed by the trial Court on all the appellants will remain unaltered.
Case Name: Cannou Parimala Rani @ Mary Rosay Parimala Rani v. Ilamathy and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Madras High Court has held that the rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question again.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh made the above remarks while considering a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC against a judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry confirming the Judgement and Decree passed by the Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry.
With respect to the rights of the purchasers pendente lite, the court observed that they cannot get any additional right than what their vendor possessed. Order 21 Rule 98(2) r/w Order 21 Rule 102 clearly bars a pendente lite transferee from resisting or obstructing the execution of a decree of the possession of the immoveable property.
The court further went on to impose compensatory cost for the false and vexatious claims and also for causing such a humongous delay in keeping the proceedings pending for more than four decades.
Case Title - A. Ganesan v. Javeed Hussain (died) and Ors.
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh disposed off a second appeal holding that the cause of action ceases to exist and no substantial question of law was involved.
The case was with respect to issuance of license by the corporation to run a flower shop. During the course of the appeal, the respondent had died and his legal heirs were impleaded.
The court identified that all the allegations of interference with possession and enjoyment of suit property were made against the first defendant in his individual capacity. The court then went on to analyse the principle of Actio personalis moritur cum persona.
In the present case, since licence was granted by the municipality specifically in the name of the first defendant to run flower business, the license comes to an end with the death of the allottee. Such a right is not heritable. Therefore, the allegation of the plaintiff confines itself to the first defendant and on his death, the cause of action automatically dies.
131.Madras High Court Directs Youth Involved In Illegal Bike Racing To Assist In Hospital's Trauma Ward
Case Title: L Praveen v. State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court has directed the accused in an illegal bike riding case to assist the ward boys in the trauma ward of Stanley Hospital, Chennai and to submit one page daily reports.
Justice G Jayachandran passed the above orders in a bail petition filed by the accused L. Praveen. The court also directed the accused to furnish security of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties along with other bail conditions.
The court also discussed the rash and negligent manner in which the youngsters were driving in the country and also how the pillion riders were also a part of this. However, the Court was of the view that detention of the Petitioner is not necessary and he may be enlarged on bail, subject to certain conditions.
132. Madras High Court Quashes Defamation Petition Against Edappadi Palanisamy And O Panneerselvam
Case Title: Edappadi K. Palanisamy and Anr v. Va Pugazhendi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court quashed the defamation proceedings against Edappadi K. Palanisamy and O. Panneerselvam on the file of Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar, while allowing the petition held that there was no material or reason to proceed against the petitioners, and that further continuation of proceeding is nothing but abuse of process of law.
The court was not satisfied with the submissions made by the respondents and held that the disciplinary actions are usually communicated to the party members through media and that the expulsion letters were issued in a usual format, the court allowed the petition and quashed the defamatory proceedings.
133.Madras High Court Quashes Suspension Of Former ABVP President Dr. Subbiah Shanmugham
Case Title: Dr. S. Subbiah v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by Secretary and anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed the order of suspension of former ABVP President Dr. Subbiah Shanmugham, Government Surgical Oncologist for alleged association with a political organisation.
The bench of Justice D. Krishnakumar further directed the Tamil Nadu Government to complete the departmental enquiry against Dr. Subbiah within a period of 12 weeks. The Court also directed Dr. Subbiah to extend cooperation to the enquiry proceedings.
Holding that the order was passed by an imcompetent authority, the court considered Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and stated that when the Act prescribes the particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body. It cannot be exercised by others unless it is delegated. The court further held that the respondents could not prove that the state had delegated the power to the Director to issue the suspension order.
134. Uncondonable Delay Cannot Be Condoned In A Routine Manner: Madras High Court
Case Title: T.Lakshmi v. M.Vasantha and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench held that the Law of Limitation is substantive and that the litigations and appeals are to be filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under the Statutes.
The court also held that the power of discretion is a double-edged weapon. And that the discretionary powers are to be exercised cautiously and uniformly so as to avoid any prejudice to either of the parties.
The court further added that condoning delay by imposing heavy costs compromises the legal principles and does not do justice to the parties.
Case Title: M. Ramasamy v. State represented by its chief secretary and anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
The Madras High Court has issued a series of directions for proper treatment of law officers, who play a pivotal role in defending both the case of the Government as well as the interest of the general public. The directions issued involve treating of law officers with due respect, disbursal of fees and special fee claimed by the Advocate General and Additional Advocate General for appearing in cases, revision of fee regularly, promptness in getting legal opinions on time, etc.
Justice M. Govindaraj observed that Law Officers of the State are cast with the onerous responsibilities to strike a balance between individual and the interest of other fellow citizens and also the interest of the State, its policies, welfare schemes etc.
The development comes in a writ petition filed by former AAG S. Ramasamy against denial of special fees claimed by him.
Case Title: G.Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
Madras High Court directed the Government of India to continue their efforts and to invoke any existing agreements for ensuring the the release of 68 fisherman laid up in the Srilankan jail.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing petitions filed for the release of Tamil Nadu fishermen, who were taken into custody with their boats by the Sri Lankan Navy and Coast Guard.
The court stated that it did not have any territorial jurisdiction over the matters of the foreign government and could only ask the government to continue their efforts. Thus it was directed to send copies of the order to the government so that necessary action may be taken.
Case Title: V. Vasanthakumar v. The Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The Madras High Court has declared Section 32(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as unconstitutional.
The writ petition was filed by Mr V Vasanthakumar, appearing in person challenging the validity of Section 9 and Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.
Section 32 of the Act deals with Qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and Members of appellate tribunal and subclause (2) states that in case of a Judicial Member, the person should have been a Member of the Indian Legal Service and has held the post of Additional Secretary or equivalent post in that Service
The court highlighted the importance of the concept of Separation of Powers and stated that the concept of independence of judiciary is a vital issue and for that emphasis is made that there should be separation of power. Prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, the adjudication was done by courts. Therefore, with the constitution of tribunal, they would be discharging the work earlier discharged by the courts.
Case Name: Kamala v. Murugesan and Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
The Madras High Court has held that publication to serve notice in the second appeal cannot be ordinarily issued by the appellate Court.
This is because parties to the suit participated in the trial proceedings and they have contested the appeal suit before the First Appellate court, while so, notice must be served to all the parties for the purpose of deciding the second appeal.
Justice S.M Subramaniam made the above orders in a petition filed to permit the petitioner to bring on record the proposed appellants as the legal heirs of the deceased second appellant. Seeing that the notice was not served yet and submission of the petitioner seeking paper publication, the court discussed in detail the state of affairs due to non production of proper addresses in the plaint.
The court directed the registry to ensure that all the necessary details are clearly mentioned in the plaint and interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) and to ensure that mobile numbers/phone numbers/ email addresses are mentioned and a copy of the self attested Aadhar card is enclosed.
Case Title: Major Frank Ralston Samuel Raj v Kezia Padmini Swarna Pandian
Citation: 2022 Live Law (Mad) 139
The Madras High reiterated that marriage can be dissolved by decree of divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party as after the solemnization of the marriage has not cooperated to consummate the marriage.
Justice K Kalyanasundaram and Justice V Sivagnanam were hearing an appeal filed by an army officer, Major Frank Ralston Samuel Raj. Observing that the marriage was beyond broken, the court stated that Continuance of the relationship for namesake is prolonging the agony and affliction would be a cruelty to both the parties.
The court drew attention to Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act 1869, marriage can be dissolved by decree of divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party as after the solemnization of the marriage not co-operated to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummate is entitled for divorce.
The court also relied on judgements were it was held that a spouse willfully avoiding another spouse to have sexual intercourse without sufficient reason, amounts to mental cruelty to such spouse.
140. Night Travel Ban In Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve; Madras High Court Issues Directions For Movement
Case Title: S.P Chockalingam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
While considering a series of petitions concerning movement of vehicles through the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve and the Government Notification prohibiting movement of all vehicles between 6 pm to 6 am, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy highlighted the fundamental duty for protection of animals. The court also considered in detail the particular nature of the area and the need for protection of the Reserve.
The court ordered a complete ban on the movement of vehicles having more than 12 wheels and weighing more that 16.8 tonnes at any time through these roads. Vehicles having below 10 wheels and weighing less that 16.8 tonnes have been permitted between 6 am to 6 pm. The transport buses, both public and private are free to ply between 6 am and 9 pm.
The court, while highlighting the freedom of movement under Article 19, also stated that in the present case the restrictions are imposed taking into account that the highway is passing through the core protected zone of the Tiger Reserve, as a thoroughfare through the eco-sensitive zone, Sanctuary and Reserve Forest.
141. Teachers Who Have Not Qualified TET Cannot Continue Service In Schools: Madras High Court
Case Title: K. Vasudevan v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
The court ruled that it is mandatory for the teachers, who did not possess the minimum qualification of pass in TET prior to RTE Act, 2009 to acquire the same within the period of nine years i.e., within 31.03.2019. Teachers who do not possess this minimum qualification are not entitled to continue their service or seek increment.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar were hearing petitions filed by a teacher to sanction annual increment to them in the B.T. Assistant posts as well as incentive increment for having acquired Post Graduation, without reference to passing of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) with all consequential and other attendant benefits.
The court held that the purpose of TET is to assess the teachers on whether they have the adequate teaching competency and a positive attitude towards teaching. It is made compulsory to bring national standards and benchmark for quality in the recruitment process and to lay special emphasis on teachers' quality.
Case Title: Ms Preethika C (Minor) v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Courses in Medicine, Dentistry, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy on preferential basis to students of Government Schools Act, 2020, which provided for 7.5% preference/reservation to the students of government schools in admission to undergraduate medical/dental courses.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Bharatha Chakaravarthy opined that the horizontal reservation was not against Article 14 and that the act does satisfy the doctrine of proportionality, the court examined that findings of the committee and observed the stark difference in the social background of students coming from government schools and those coming from CBSE and ICSE schools.
The court also held that the students of the State Government Schools are a 'socially and educationally backward class', therefore, the reservation in their favour is will be within the power of the State as contained in Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India.
The court also directed the State Government to review the reservation in a period of five years and to take steps to improve the standard of education imparted in the Government Schools so that the reservation may not be further extended beyond a period of five years.
Case Title: S. Sampoornam v. C.K Shanmugam
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 143
Justice N Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court has recently held that the Coparcenary rights are not taken away by the Hindu Succession Act 1956. In fact, it has been reiterated even after coming into force of the 2015 amendment.
The court was considering a second appeal filed by for claiming share in the ancestral property for the appellant himself and his three sisters, defendants 2 to 4 from his father, first defendant.
The court held that when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not in force, the old Hindu Mitakshara law was governing the field. Under the Mitakshara law whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of his parental ancestors up to three degrees above him, then his legal heirs upto three degrees below him, will get an equal right as co- parceners in that property.
144. Degree Of Certainty Must Be Arrived At Before A Fact Is Said To Be Proved: Madras High Court
Case Title: R. Selvaraj(died) and ors v Amutha and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
While considering a second appeal against the order of Sub Judge for enjoyment of suit schedule property, the Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, while passing the order focused on the importance of bringing certainty to a fact especially in civil matters.
The main question was regarding the admissibility of a document showing a family arrangement for enjoyment of property in a particular manner between the family of original owners of the property. The court highlighted that this document in question was never mentioned before even in the sale deeds also and was introduced for the first time during the pendency of the suit.
The court held that a degree of certainty must be arrived at for a fact to be proved. Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible, and it must only mean that such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion.
Case Title: Popular Front of India v. Haj Committee of India and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
The Madras High Court was recently considering the writ petitions filed by Popular Front of India challenging the guidelines framed by the Haj Committee for the year 2022 regarding embarkation points and to include Chennai Airport as one of the embarkation points for the Haj pilgrims.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy stated that if found appropriate, the Haj Committee may take a decision to make necessary amendments in the guidelines to include other embarkation points, keeping in mind the recommendations of the State Government and the number of persons who travel for the Haj from any of the embarkation points.
The court was not inclined to pass a definite order against the guidelines as they were issues in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and it was not for the courts to decide upon the policy guidelines of the Committee.
146. Counsel Has Professional Duty To Exercise The Right Of Re-Examination: Madras High Court
Case Title: B Amudha v K Rajendran(Died) and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
The Madras High Court recently observed that a counsel has a professional duty to exercise their right of re-examination for upholding the cause of their clients. Justice G.R Swaminathan noted that the sense and meaning of the answers given by the appellant in trial must have been brought out by re-examination by the counsel.
The court while highlighting the ambulatory nature of the onus of proof observed the following-
"There is a game involving passing the ball and when the music stops the person holding the ball is declared out. The ambulatory nature of onus of proof plays out likewise. The burden keeps shifting back and forth. In this case, the onus shifted from the appellant to the plaintiff who passed it back to her. If only re-examination had been done and the appellant had clarified that she became aware of the facts relating to the agreement only during trial and had reiterated her lack of knowledge about the prior contract before she paid her money to the first defendant, the burden would have once again shifted to the plaintiff."
Case Title: Dr. P. Vijayan v. The Union Of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
The Madras High Court has held that a past misconduct of the employee cannot be a reason for imposing a major penalty (under Indian Maritime University Teaching and Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Services) Rules), such as removal from service.
The bench of Justice C Saravanan was considering the petition filed by the former director of the Indian Maritime University, Dr. P Vijayan against the order of the Executive Council of the Indian Maritime University, dismissing him from services and imposing penalty of Rs. Rs. 22,65,469.
The court held that there was no scope for either suspending the Mr. Vijayan or imposing the penalty under the provisions of Chapter VII - The Conduct of the Employees of the University Teaching and Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules and therefore such suspension and imposition of penalty was unsustainable. With regard to using of perks and privileges unauthorizedly, the court held that the same could not be recovered from Mr. Vijayan as he was not an "employee" of the university.
148. All Auto Rickshaw Holders Should Have Operating Electronic Meters: Madras High Court
Case Title: S.V Ramamurthy v. The Secretary, Government of TN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
The Madras high court bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy recently considering a writ petition for implementation of the Government Order mandating installation of electronic meters in all auto rickshaws.
The court directed that all autorickshaws be fitted with electronic meters which should be operated while transporting passengers. The court also ordered that checks should be conducted by the Police and Transport Departments to find out as to whether the auto-rickshaw is being operated with meters or not, and for that, if any complaint is made, then immediate action should be taken on it.
The court also directed the State to revise the fares/rates of the auto-rickshaws, periodically, looking to the fluctuation of the rates of petrol/diesel. This system would take into account the fluctuations of the rates of petrol/diesel without evolving the long drawn process but by using the software in such a manner where the rates may be revised, thereby, upgraded the system/mechanism automatically on the meters.
149. Disputed Facts Cannot Be Adjudicated In Writ Proceedings: Madras High Court
Case Title: A Pitchaiah v. The Managing Director and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
The Madras High Court recently disposed of a writ petition filed by a workman for terminal and pensionary benefits observing that the appropriate authority to address his grievance was the labour court.
During the course of the hearing the court also discussed the present situation where the litigants directly approach the High Court under article 226 without exhausting the remedies provided under the statutes. The petitioners seek for a direction to direct the respondent to pay entire pensionary and service benefits. However, the High Courts powers are limited in such cases and these leads to multiplicity of proceedings. The court also opined that litigant should not be made to suffer by way of multiplicity of proceedings.
It was further observed that all writ petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution but its entertainability is to be decided with respect to the rights of the parties or its infringement. Therefore, the parties must be allowed to exhaust the alternate remedies provided under the statutes and service rules and then if they are further aggrieved, approach court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: S.Sakthivel & Anr v. The State rep. by the Food Safety Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
The Madras High Court has recently allowed a petition for quashing proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 observing that the Designated Officer had not sent his recommendations on the food sample within a period of 14 days, as mandated under Section 42 of the Act.
Justice K. Murali Shankar observed that the respondent had violated the "mandatory requirement" contemplated under Section 42 of the Act and therefore, the very launching of the complaint itself is not proper. The court also observed that when the authorities have not followed mandate, it is not reasonable to direct the petitioners to face the trial.
Sub-section 3 of Section 42 (Procedure for launching prosecution) states that the Food Analyst after receiving the sample from the Food Safety Officer shall analyse the sample and send the analysis report mentioning method of sampling and analysis within fourteen days to Designated Officer with a copy to Commissioner of Food Safety.
Case Title: Sivakumar v. A Radhakrishnan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
The Madras High Court has recently sentenced a litigant to undergo simple imprisonment for four weeks for filing false affidavit in Court, thereby attempting to interfere with the course of administration of justice, punishable under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice A.A Nakkiran passed the orders on a Contempt Petition filed under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 against A Radhakrishnan to prosecute him for his illegal activities. The petition was filed after obtaining the consent of the Advocate General.
The court also observed that contempt proceedings are between the court and the contemnor. Hence, motive, which is normally alleged in criminal cases for false implication, does not apply to contempt cases.
Case Title: M/S.Smart Roofing Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan has quashed the penalty under GST for a wrong declaration in an e-way bill as there was no intention of tax evasion. The court observed that there was only a technical breach committed by the petitioner and there was no intention to evade tax.
The court noted that the authorities were justified in detaining the goods inasmuch as there was a mistake in the E-way bill. However, the facts indicate that the consignor and the consignee are one and the same entity, namely, the Head Office and the Branch Office. In this case, the petitioner has a new place of business, but has not altered the GST registration. However, steps have been taken to ex post facto include the new place of business in the GST registration. The registration certificate was also amended.
Case Title: V. Senthilbalaji and Ors v. State rep. By Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
Justice A D Jagdish Chandra of the Madras High Court on Monday quashed the criminal proceedings instituted by Minister of Electricity of Tamil Nadu- V. Senthil Balaji and other DMK party members, for participating in protests against Farm Laws during the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020.
In the petition, Mr Balaji along with four others sought to quash the chargesheet filed before the Karur Judicial Magistrate for the alleged offences under Sections 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly) and 270 (Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) of IPC r/w. Section 4A(1a) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.
It was contented that the protest was for a public cause and apart from that there was no material evidence to show that the petitioners have committed offences as alleged. There was also no material to show that the petitioners were acting negligently to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life without following COVID 19 guidelines issued by the State.
Case Title: High Court of Madras v. R.D Santhana Krishnan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice A.A Nakkiran recently sentenced Mr. R.D Santhana Krishnan, a lawyer practicing in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puduchery to Simple Imprisonment for Two Weeks and a fine of Rs. 6000.
Mr R.D Santhana Krishnan was seen canoodling a lady, on 20.12.2021 while attending the virtual court proceedings. The video clipping of the said incident had gone viral and the court had taken suo moto cognizance of the issue. The court had charged Santhana Krishnan under Section 2 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Case Title: P. Vijayabharathy v. The District Collector-cum- District Magistrate and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
The Madras High Court has allowed a petition filed by a victim belonging to Scheduled Caste Community claiming compensation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016, for an offence committed against her in the year 2014.
While passing orders Justice G. Ilangovan observed that as per the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016, the victim is entitled for the relief and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Out of this, 50% of the amount must be disbursed soon-after the completion of the medical test. 25% must be disbursed at the time of filing the final report.
The court also observed that A beneficial piece of legislation must be interpreted in a purposive manner which would effectuate the object of the welfare legislation and the Court must always lean in favour of applying the beneficial measures that have been given to victims, even in cases where the incident had happened before 2016.
Case Title: Murugan @ Panni Murugan v. The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
The Madras High Court recently held that the scope of Section 427 CrPC is that, in respect of conviction to undergo the sentence of imprisonment passed on subsequent cases for the offence of same nature, the sentence shall run concurrently. The court also made it clear that it can exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and issue direction that the sentence imposed by the trial court shall run concurrently.
Justice G.K Ilanthiraiyan also relied on decisions of various high court where it was held that the inherent powers of the High Court is not in any way fettered by the provisions of Section 427(1) and it can be invoked at any stage even if there is no such order passed under Section 427(1) by the Trial Court or Appellate or Revisional Court and even though the conviction has become final.
Case Title: K.J Sumathy and Ors v. The Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Ors.
Citation: 2022 Live Law (Mad) 157
The Madras High Court has observed that in criminal proceedings, the legal heirs of the original complainant can apply for continuation of proceedings against the accused upon the death of the original complainant.
The court further quashed the order passed by the disciplinary committee of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry which had held that the legal heirs cannot step into the shoes of the original complainant and cannot carry on disciplinary proceedings against the advocates.
The bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice AA Nakkiran opined that the Disciplinary Committee was swayed by the fact that the proceedings before it were quasi-criminal, and the view that legal heirs of the complainant cannot be substituted in place of the original complainant amounts to woeful ignorance of the settled position in criminal law.
Case Title: I Nisha v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 158
Observing that there is a trend of delay in filing of the Final Report after the statutory time limit, the Madras High Court has directed the Police to file all final reports On-line. Such On-line filing of final reports by the Police, will be in compliance with the requirements of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019. The court further clarified that the mandatory period for filing the final report shall apply even in cases where the accused has already been detained. Further, the court also directed that the Judicial Magistrates / Criminal Courts shall not return the final reports for such non-enclosure of the reports which are listed out as Nos.(vii) to (x) & (xxix) of Sub Rule 7 of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice N Sathish Kumar further directed the Director General of Police to issue required Circulars to respective Police Stations to ensure compliance of the orders. The court further directed the registry to place the order before the Chief Justice to enable the Registry to issue appropriate circulars to the criminal courts.
159. Madras High Court Directs GST Dept. To Release Detained Vehicle On Payment Of 25% Of Penalty
Case Title: M/s.RKS Agencies Versus State Tax Officer-I
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar has directed the GST department to release the detained vehicle on the payment of 25% of the penalty.
The petitioner/assessee purchased cement from Andhra Pradesh, whereas, the petitioner has a branch office at Coimbatore, which is the destination where the purchased goods have to reach. When the goods were transported, the vehicle was intercepted by the respondent revenue squad, and they found that there was a violation in the invoice because the full address of the buyer was not mentioned.
The petitioner submitted that the absence of the full address of the buyer was not such a major offence or violation that the goods in question could not be detained by the department.
The department contended that the full address of the petitioner, being a buyer, had not been mentioned in the documents like invoices, etc.
Case Title: Madurai Kamraj University v. The Chairman, Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
The High Court of Madras has observed that S. 18 of the MSMED Act will override the arbitration clause between the parties. The Court observed that since S. 24 of the MSMED Act is a non-obstante clause, it gives overriding effect to the provisions of S. 15 -23 of the Act.
The Bench of Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayan and Justice P. Velmurgan observed that once a reference is filed before the MSME Council under S. 18 of the Act, the provisions of the arbitration clause must yield to the provisions contained under S. 18 of the Act.
161. Writ Petition Is Not Maintainable To Enforce The Arbitral Award: Madras High Court
Case Title: D. Nagarathinammal v. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
The High Court of Madras observed that a writ petition cannot be filed to enforce an arbitral award when an alternative remedy is available under S. 36 of the A&C Act.
The Single Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that the A&C Act is a complete code in itself and envisages minimum judicial intervention. If further observed that if the Courts are allowed to interfere beyond the permissible lines, then the efficacy of arbitration as an expeditious method of dispute resolution would be diminished.
162. TPO To Mandatorily Pass Order Determining Arm's Length Pricing Within 60 Days:Madras High Court
Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Saint Gobain India Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
The Madras High Court bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice J.Sathya Narayan Prasad has held that the transfer pricing officer (TPO) must mandatorily pass the order determining arm's length pricing within 60 days.
In the writ petition, the appellant/department has disputed the judge's order. The judge ruled that the TPO's decision or inability to issue an order within 60 days will have an influence on the order issued by the Assessing Officer, for which an outer time limit has been specified under Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act.
The court held that, as per the proviso to Section 92CA (3A), if the time limit for the TPO to pass an order is less than 60 days, then the remaining period shall be extended to 60 days. This implies that not only is the time frame mandatory, but also that the TPO has to pass an order within 60 days.
The court observed that when an order is passed on time, the procedures under 144C and 92CA(4) are to be followed. When the determination is not made in time, it cannot be relied upon by the assessing officer while concluding the assessment proceedings.
Case Title: Dr. S. Kothandaraman v. The Pro-Chancellor and connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Madras High court has held that the regulations prescribed by the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) are binding on all universities and institutions and these universities or institutions cannot prescribe rules on their own.
The bench of Justice V Parthiban was hearing two connected writ petitions filed by Dr. S Kothandaraman and Dr. A.V Raviprakash, Principal and Professor at the Pondicherry Engineering College against their forced retirement by the University. The university had prescribed the age of superannuation as 62 years as against the age of 65 years prescribed by AICTE.
The court held that the age of superannuation as prescribed under AICTE regulation is binding on the third respondent University and any other prescription of the age of superannuation repugnant to the AICTE regulation is to be held void and inoperative and it cannot be enforced in law.
CaseTitle: Chinnasami and Ors. v. Dhanasekaran
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
The Madras High Court recently observed that it is high time that the subordinate Courts come into grips with the fundamental principles of CPC and nip in the bud those suits which are not maintainable.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that there are sufficient provisions in CPC to undertake such an exercise and what is required is the awareness about the availability of such provisions and invoking the same in a pro-active manner.
The remarks were made while setting aside a decree passed by the lower Appellate Court with respect to schedule properties, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the order of the trial court was a nullity as it lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the court should not have even gone into the merits of the case. The court further stated that if the courts below had been careful enough and had dismissed the suit then and there, the suit which was instituted in 2008 would not have dragged on for 14 long years.
Case Title: Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer-I
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
The penalty imposed for mismatch of address in invoice and RC was quashed by the Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan on the grounds that there was a post facto alteration in GST registration.
The court noted that the address has been included in the petitioner's place of business in the GST Registration. Thus, there is a post facto inclusion of the address, which was mentioned in the tax invoice raised by the supplier and in the E-way Bill.
Case Title: M/s. Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Private Limited Versus Senior Intelligence Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has held that merely because an assessee has, under the stress of investigation, signed a statement admitting tax liability and having also made a few payments as per the statement, it cannot lead to self-assessment or self-ascertainment.
The court observed that the ascertainment contemplated under Section 74 (5) of the Income Tax Act is of the nature of self-assessment and amounts to a determination that is unconditional, and not one that is retracted. If such an ascertainment/self-assessment had been made, there would be no further proceedings contemplated, as Section 74 (6) states that with the ascertainment of demand in Section 74 (5), no proceedings for show cause under Section 74 (1) shall be issued.
167. Madras High Court Grants Bail To Godman SivaShankar Baba In POCSO Case
Case Title: Sivashankar Baba @ C.N. Sivasankaran v. State
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 167
The Madras High Court granted bail to self styled godman CN Siva Sankaran (commonly known as Siva Sankar Baba) accused under the POCSO act in various child sexual abuse cases. He has been accused of sexually harassing and misbehaving with the minor girl children studying in his school.
While granting the conditional bail, Justice G Jayachandran directed the accused to submit his passport and to co-operate with the investigation. The court further instructed the accused not to leave the state without giving prior information to the investigating officer. It was also directed that the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court shall also continue.
168. GST ITC Refund Can't Be Denied Even If Taxpayer Has Claimed Duty Drawback: Madras High Court
Case Title: Numinous Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 168
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Sarvanan has held that the refund of input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied even if the taxpayer has claimed duty drawback.
The court, while allowing the petition, directed the department to scrutinise the refund ITC claims filed by the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and other applicable rules and refund the ITC together with applicable interest under the provisions of the respective enactments, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Case Title: M/s.St. John CFS Part Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 169
The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Subramanian and Justice N.Sathish Kumar has held that the pre-deposit payment made by the parent company having a separate service tax registration amounts to proper compliance.
The court stated that, without a doubt, the Tribunal was correct in concluding that the deposit made by the parent company, which had a separate service tax registration, could not be considered proper compliance.At the same time, the order of the Tribunal imposing a condition has been complied with. The court found that the rigid view of the tribunal would only result in the appeal being thrown out on technical grounds, resulting in a denial of opportunity to the assessee.
The court directed the department to treat the payment made by the parent company as a payment made by the appellant company for the purposes of compliance with the interim order alone.
Case Title: Nallammal and another v. Sengoda Gounder and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Teeka Raman has held that the easement right cannot be created by the act of the parties themselves without any recital in the documents. The easement right is a statutory right and therefore has to be proved in a manner known to law.
The court was hearing a second appeal filed by one Nallammal for permanent injunction. The lower courts had passed orders against the appellant holding that the respondents herein (defendants in the suit) had a right of easement by necessity.
Case Title: M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. v. Harkhabhai Amarshibhai Vaghadiya
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 171
The High Court of Madras has held that manifest intention to arbitrate is a sine qua non for filing an application under S. 9 before the commencement of the arbitration. No interim relief can be granted if the intention to arbitrate is missing.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that manifest intention to arbitrate is a jurisdictional fact that must precede the application under S. 9 of the Act. It also held that Court would only appoint the receiver when the applicant is successful in demonstrating that the property is in imminent danger of waste.
Case Title: R Vijayagopal v. The Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
The Madras High Court has quashed the charge sheet on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Theni and the order of de-nova trial for altered charges against a lawyer who was accused of forging documents of surety.
The Madurai Bench of Justice G.R Swaminathan observed that the lawyer was merely discharging his professional service in connection with the furnishing of sureties. He had not fabricated or manufactured the documents in question. The sureties had come to the court and they brought the documents with them. The petitioner had only presented the same along with his memo of appearance. The court also observed how the prosecution never contested that the petitioner had conspired with the sureties in the tampering of documents. Thus, the lawyer cannot be faulted with penal liability.
Case Title: Thanikodi v. Parameswari and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
The Madras High Court has recently held that when a claim is presented under the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation even when the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving license. It added that amount may later be recovered from the owner of the vehicle.
The Madurai bench of Justice Teeka Raman made the above observations on an application filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, Thanikodi against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Peiyakulam. The Tribunal had held that the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay compensation and exonerated the insurance company and had awarded compensation.
The court applied the principle of pay and recovery and directed the insurance company to compensate the family of the deceased and later recover this amount from the owner of the vehicle in the manner known to law.
174. Ban Two-Finger Test On Rape Victims Forthwith:Madras High Court Directs State
Case Title: Rajivgandhi v. The State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to ban the practice of two finger test on victims of sexual offences by the medical professionals forthwith.
The bench of Justices R. Subramanian and N. Sathish Kumar issued this direction as it noted that the two finger test is being used in cases involving sexual offences, particularly, on minor victims even after the Supreme Court judgment which held that it violates the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.
The court was dealing with an appeal filed under Section 374(2) CrPC against an order of conviction and sentence under the POCSO Act. The accused, Rajivgandhi had been convicted for life sentence which would be till the end of the life time for the offences under Section 5(l) read with Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and 7 years rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 363 of IPC along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.
Case Title: S.M.D Mohamed Abdul Khader v. Muniswari
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
While setting aside the order of a lower court, the Madras High Court recently allowed an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to examine complainant's side of witnesses. Justice G.K Ilanthiraiyan sitting at Madurai observed,
"Accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent material namely by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself."
Case Title: Arjunan v. Arunachalam
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
The Madras High Court has recently held that while dealing with the aspect of "retrospective effect" under the Indian Registration Act, the courts shall not go by retrospective operations in simpliciter, as stated in the said Section, but consider all the attentive circumstances. These may relate to the purchase of stamp paper and the evidence of description, if any, presence of the executant and whether the executant, namely, the seller is a party defendant in the suit.
Only on a cumulative analysis of all attentive circumstances, a decision is to be rendered not by general presumption as stated by the provision alone, the bench of Justice Teekaa Raman observed.
Case Title: Rajasthani Marbles and Anr. v. Na.K. Kumar Son of N. Kuppurathinam, Arb. O.P. (Comm.Div) No. 73 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
The High Court of Madras has held that the arbitration clause contained in a partnership deed survives the termination of the deed. The Court held that the clause is an independent agreement and outlives the main contract in which it is incorporated.
The bench of Justice M Sundar reiterated that all the issues related to the arbitrability of the claims shall be decided by the arbitral tribunal unless it is a clear case of deadwood. The Court held that Section 11 of A&C Act does not permit elaborate pleadings on the claims.
The Court also held that a poor drafting of an arbitration clause shall not deprive a party of its right to refer its disputes to arbitration as long as the intention of the parties to arbitrate can be clearly gathered from the clause.
Case Title: K. Gopinath v. The Director of School Education Department and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
The Madras High Court bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice T.V Thamilselvi dismissed as withdrawn a petition filed for directing the Department of School Education to restrict the students from wearing dresses and accessories with religious significance to the schools and educational institutions.
The bench observed that since the issue is already pending before the Supreme Court, it is not in a position to consider it at this stage. The petition was filed by advocate K Gopinath, leader of Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu Versus Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
The Madras High Court bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice Mohhammed Shaffiq has held that any tax collected without authority would certainly amount to unjust enrichment and the assessees must claim a refund of the tax collected or retained by the state within three years from the date of their payments to the department.
The issue raised was whether the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" would apply in the absence of an express provision and whether "unjust enrichment" would apply to taxes paid on raw materials and captively consumed in the manufacture of finished goods within the state.
The court held that "unjust enrichment" means the retention of a benefit by a person that was unjust or inequitable. It occurs when a person retains money or benefits that, in justice, equity, and good conscience, belong to someone else. As a result, the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" states that no one can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the expense of another.
Case Title: The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Olympics Association v. S. Nithya and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu Olympic Association challenging a single judge order specifying that only sportsperson should be appointed as President or Vice President of the sports associations and organisations.
Coming down strongly on the appellants, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy highlighted the plight of sportspersons in the country. The court highlighted how worst facilities are given to sportspersons who represent the district, state and country and all the good facilities are given to politicians who accompany them and who have no connection to sports.
The court further asked why a person having any affiliation to a political party be appointed as the chairman, president or vice president of these organisations. When it is neither their profession or nor their expertise, what is the need for them to enter into this area, it asked.
Case Title: M Thamilselvi @ Meera Mithun v. The State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court bench of Justice G Jayachandran dismissed a plea for anticipatory bail filed by tamil actress Tamilselvi alias Meera Mithun, charged for making obscene and objectionable remarks against the Chief Minister MK Stalin in a whatsapp group chat with the makers of her upcoming film "Peiya Kaanom".
The court further directed the police department to arrest the actress and conduct an enquiry into the matter.
The actress, charged under Sections 294(b), 153, 504, 505(i) (b) and 506(i) of the IPC read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, had moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. The case was registered on a complaint filed by producer Surulivel against whom also she had made derogatory remarks.
Case Title: Sri Ram Samaj v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
The Madras High Court set aside the order of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department for taking over the administration of Ayodhya Mandapam and for appointing a "Fit Person" to look into the administration of the Samaj.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy further set aside the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the Ram Samaj citing alternative remedies.
The court directed the department to handover the administration of the Ayodhya Mandapam to the Samaj along with all the records. The court further gave liberty to the department to conduct a fresh enquiry and proceed in the manner afresh after following the due procedure of law.
Case Title: N. Karunanidhi v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras High Court bench of Justice V Parthiban has recently held that when a competent authority/government makes an appointment to an unsanctioned post and when the employee has been engaged in such public service project for long years, the Government cannot turn a blind eye to these employees and say that they have no right for regularisation.
The court also directed the State Government to formulate schemes for the regularisation of such employees.
184. Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Challenging Udhayanidhi Stalin's Victory
Case Title: Udayanithi Stalin v. R Premalatha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
Madras High Court on Thursday allowed a petition filed by Actor and Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni MLA Udayanidhi Stalin to reject an election petition filed by one R. Premalatha challenging his victory in the 2021 elections.
Justice V Bharatidasan while passing the orders observed that Udayanidhi Stalin had given details regarding the 22 criminal cases pending against him and that there was no material in the election petition to substantiate the allegations made against him.
The election peitioner had challenged the MLA's victory stating that he had not disclosed material information as per Form 26 of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. She further alleged that the MLA had colluded with the Presiding/section officer who was the MLA'S wife's teacher.
Case Title: Suresh Kumar Kankariya v. K Jigibai @Pushpammal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh recently observed that when the court makes adverse findings against a party, it need not file a cross-appeal or a cross-objection to the same where the decree is entirely in favour of such party.
Such adverse findings can be challenged in the appeal filed by the other party and the Court is entitled to decide the same, it added.
The right for filing a cross objection against an adverse finding provided under the amended Order XLI Rule 22 CPC is mandatory only when the decree is partly in favour of or partly against the party, the Court further held.
Case Title: M/s.Color Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s.Color Castle Owners Society
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
The High Court of Madras has held that the challenge proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act are summary in nature, therefore, the same shall be decided based on the record that was available with the arbitral tribunal and no additional document shall be permitted to be brought in at that stage unless absolutely warranted.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar further held that the court would not allow any additional document under Section 34 petition if there was nothing that prevented the petitioner from furnishing the same document before the arbitrator.
Case Title: Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research v. D Ganeshlan and Another
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 187
The Madras High Court bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq ordered compulsory retirement of an employee of Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research who had gained employment by submitting a fake SC community certificate.
The court also directed that the employee shall be eligible for only 40% of the pension benefits and not eligible for any other terminal benefits, such as gratuity, DCRG and the like, excluding the PF contribution, if any made by the employee.
The court also observed that though the employee was appointed only under the Open Category and further promotions were based on the merit, the initial appointment itself was void ab initio when it was based on a fake certificate produced by the employee concealing certain facts.
Case Title: Tvl.Asian Paints Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
The Madras High Court bench of Justice M. Dandapani has directed the GST department to release the detained goods on furnishing of the bank guarantee by Asian Paints.
The court permitted the petitioner to obtain and annex the bank guarantee within a period of one week along with the application/representation. If such a bank guarantee and application are made, the respondents are directed to release the detained goods to the petitioner within a period of one week.
189. Arbitral Award Not Hit By Adequacy Facet If Reasons Given Are Not Laconic: Madras High Court
Case Title: The Chief Engineer / Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways), Southern Railway and Anr. versus M/s. Progressive-Aliens
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award cannot be set aside on the ground of non-adequacy of reasons as long as the reasons given are not laconic.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar ruled that being 'tersely eloquent' is not alien to judgment writing.
The Court noted that Section 31 (3) of the A&C Act mandates that an arbitral award shall state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given or when it is a compromise arbitral award pursuant to a settlement under Section 30 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: S. David Leo v. The Principal Secretary to the Government and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
The Madras High Court has directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department to necessarily follow the procedures as contemplated in the Vigilance Manual in a constructive manner and for effective prevention of the menace of corruption.
The procedures contemplated in the Vigilance Manual are unambiguous and the constructive way of its implementation is of paramount important. Thus, the seventh respondent (DVAC) has to consider the implementation of the Vigilance Manual in its real spirit," Justice S.M Subramaniam observed.
The remarks were made while taking into account allegations pertaining to corruption in transfer and posting of teachers.
Case Title: A. Periyakaruppan v. The Principle Secretary to Government and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
The Madras High Court recently invoked the "parens patriae jurisdiction" and declared "Mother Nature" as a "Living Being" having a legal entity/ legal person / juristic person / juridical person / moral person / artificial person having the status of a legal person, with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person, in order to preserve and conserve them.
The Madurai bench of Justice S. Srimathy also observed that nature shall have fundamental rights/ legal rights and constitutional rights for its survival, safety and sustenance, and resurgence in order to maintain its status and also to promote its health and wellbeing. The court also directed the State Government and the Central Government to take appropriate steps to protect the mother earth in all possible ways.
Case Title: Agavai (Name Changed) v. The State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras High Court set aside the detention order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Thiruvallur against a 15 years old child in conflict with law, observing that the order was passed in a hasty manner without going into the genuineness of the matter.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandra also observed that a child offender should not be given punishment based on the kind of offense he/she has committed but should be given an individual treatment that is reformative in nature and which is based on his/her need, psychological and social background.
The court also opined that the parents, teachers, schools, community, and law enforcement agencies need to understand, prevent and reduce risk factors that may push children towards adopting behaviors that may harm them. The court further observed that no child is born criminal and it is his/her social factors that make them do acts against the law.
193. TET Not Mandatory For Teachers In Minority Institutions: Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: M.Ani v. The Government of Tamilnadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
The Madras High Court has reiterated that TET qualification cannot be made applicable to minority institutions. The bench of Justice V Parthiban further confirmed the legal position that the prescription of TET qualification in terms of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was not applicable to minority institutions.
In light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pramti Educational and Cultural Trust and Ors. v. Union of India and ors. (2014), the court ordered the educational institutions to grant appropriate annual increment and medical benefits to the petitioner teacher and refund of any amount recovered from the teacher merely on the ground that she has not cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).
Case Title: Hema Jwaalini and others v. The Commissioner of Police and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a criminal petition filed challenging the action taken by Police Authorities against the owners and manager of Willow & Spa and charging them under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), and 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira observed that the petition did not have any merits as the petitioners had suppressed material facts and had merely claimed that the respondent police had fabricated the case due to a cold war existing between them.
With respect to the search procedure to be followed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the court held that the procedures were directory and not mandatory and a mere violation of the same will not vitiate the entire proceedings.
Case Title: Nakshatra Bind A.K v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras High Court recently held that there was no illegality in the state government's decision promoting students and awarding secondary school marksheets, without awarding specific marks to each student, for the reason that the examinations could not be held due to Covid-19.
The court highlighted that the same is a policy decision and does not warrant any interference from the court.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was considering a writ appeal filed by a XIth standard student against the order of the single judge and to declare the Government Orders as illegal and arbitrary and to strike off the same.
Case Title: The Project Director (LA), NHAI versus T. Palanisamy and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Madras High Court has held that an arbitral award that does not provide for payment of mandatory statutory compensation with respect to the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 is perverse.
The Single Bench of Justice P.T. Asha held that an Arbitrator exercising jurisdiction under the National Highways Act has to be more vigilant in ensuring that the arbitral award is fair and that the land owner is compensated adequately as per his legal entitlement. The Court upheld the order of the District Judge that had set aside the arbitral award and had directed the competent authority to pay compensation to the land owner as provided under the statute.
Case Title: The Deputy Superintendent of Police v. The Deputy Director Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Deputy Director, UIDAI to furnish details of 35 Aadhaar Cards sought by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, "Q" Branch CID, Chennai City.
Justice G Jayachandran made the above order on a plea by the Deputy Superintendent following rejection of his request by the UIDAI, seeking information about the Aadhaar Card Numbers along with KYC documents submitted by the applicants of the concerned Aadhaar cards.
The relief sought by the petitioner was to direct the respondent to share the Aadhaar card information including the genuineness of the Aadhaar Cards, whether they were issued to the same person, and any updates from the date of issue to date done to these numbers(including name, address, date of birth and mobile number), and the details of the authorized person who can make/have made the corrections, the certified copied of the applications along with the KYC documents submitted by the applicants. The petitioner submitted that the same was necessary to complete the investigation with respect to a crime relating to fake Indian Passports possessed by Sri Lankan Nationals.
The court also held that the intention of the petitioners for obtaining the information was merely to ascertain whether the Aadhaar cards seized by them were genuine or not and if so, to ascertain on what basis these were issued to such Foreign Nationals. Thus, furnishing of such information does not amount to the disclosure of private details of any individuals but to determining the existence of such individuals, and as such is not prohibited by the Puttaswamy judgment.
198. Initiation Of Malicious Prosecution By Income Tax Dept. Abusing Power: Madras High Court
Case Title: Mrs. Noorjahan Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Madras High Court bench of Justice G. Jayachandran has held that the suppression of material facts, the intentional suggestion of falsehood and the non-application of mind go to show that there was a malicious prosecution initiated by the Income Tax department by abusing its power. The petitioners need not be forced to undergo the ordeal of a trial, which has no legs to stand on.
The two petitions were filed to quash the complaint on the ground that there was a lack of ingredients to prosecute the petitioners under section 276 C (2), besides suppression of fact and non-application of mind.
The court said that a "culpable mental state" which can be presumed under section 278E of the Income Tax Act would come into play only in a prosecution for any offence under the Income Tax Act when the offence requires a "culpable mental state" on the part of the accused. Section 278 E is really a rule of evidence regarding the existence of mens rea by drawing a presumption, though rebuttable. That does not mean that the presumption would be applied even in a case in which the basic requirements constituting the offence are not disclosed. In particular, when the tax is paid much before the process for prosecution is set into motion. The presumption can be applied only when the basic ingredient that would constitute any offence under the Act has been disclosed. Then only, the rule of evidence under section 278 E of the Act regarding the rebuttable presumption as to the existence of a culpable mental state on the part of the accused would come into play.
Case Title: Suresh Rajan v. The State rep. by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to an alleged Maoist on a condition that he shall swear an affidavit, stating that he owes faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and that he does not believe in the Maoist ideology or the ideology of the CPI(M). He shall also state that he does not believe in violence as an ideology and would do nothing to subvert the Constitution of India.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice AA Nakkiran in a criminal appeal preferred seeking to set aside the order of Special NIA Court refusing bail to the Appellant, Suresh Rajan.
Along with the above conditions, the court also directed the Rajan to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties (blood relatives of the petitioner) for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Court. He shall also furnish his permanent address and shall inform the trial Court and the respondent about any change in his address. He was also directed to appear before the Special Court daily at 10:30 A.M and mark his signature.
The Special Court was given the liberty to cancel his bail and remand him to custody if he adopts any dilatory tactics during the trial or if any other situation so warrants. If he absconds, a fresh FIR shall be registered against him under Section 229-A IPC
Case Title: Thirumalai and Others v. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.T Asha recently held that the benefit of exemption from payment of Court Fees can be claimed only before the Motor Accident Tribunals and not on appeals before the court.
Such exemption was at the discretion of the Judicial Officer and is available only before the Claims Tribunal.
The two issues that the court considered were whether the Provisions of Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 would apply to Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act without giving proof of indigent circumstances and whether the claimants who have obtained exemption can withdraw the amounts deposited without paying the Court Fees.
Case Title: Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College & Hospital v. The Government of Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
The Madras High court recently set aside the order of the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Government of Puducherry (GOP) cancelling the admissions of 778 students in the MBBS course on the ground that their admission to these course was made illegally, without following merit.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made the orders on a batch of writ petitions filed by the students and the colleges alleging that the order of the MCI was illegal, arbitrary and made without observing the principles of natural justice.
The court held that the order was made without considering the procedure of admission adopted by the colleges and that passing of such draconian directions was arbitrary. The court also observed that implementation of such directions would turn out to be disastrous for the students who were now pursuing their fifth year of the MBBS course. The court also observed that the students cannot be put in a disadvantage due to the inability of the concerned authorities to formulate a proper mechanism for admission.
Case Title: M/s.Srinivasa Stampings Versus The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan held that the taxpayer is liable to pay interest if there is a belated payment of tax declared in the returns filed.
As per Section 50 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, every person who is liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, but fails to pay the tax or any part thereof to the government within the period prescribed, shall, for the period for which the tax or any part thereof remains unpaid, pay, on his own, interest at such rate as may be notified by the government on the recommendations of the Council.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has also clarified on 26.8.2020 that no recovery of interest shall be made for the past in the light of the decision taken by the GST Council in its 39th meeting on delayed payment of GST.
The court noted that interest has been demanded on the net tax liability of the petitioner on account of belated payment of tax during the aforesaid period under Section 50(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Case Title: Lakshmi Ammal and Others v. Gejaraj (died) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh recently observed that an unregistered agreement for sale may be received as evidence for considering the relief of specific performance.
It was of the view that the inadmissibility of the unregistered document will only be with respect to the protection sought under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Even though the sale agreement was not registered, it can be acted upon as evidence for deciding the relief of specific performance.
The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth(Wright) Issar and Others (2018) wherein it was observed that a document is required to be registered, but if unregistered, can still be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
Case Title: Mrs. Noorjahan versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and M/s. AMK Solutions Private Ltd. & Ors. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court has quashed the complaints filed by the income tax department against the assessee for wilfully attempting to evade payment of tax under Section 276 C (2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of malicious prosecution, non-application of mind and abuse of power.
The Single Bench of Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran ruled that to invoke the deeming provision of Section 140A (3) to hold the assessee as an assessee in default, there should be a default in payment of tax in true sense. The Court added that the income tax department had malafidely supressed material facts regarding payment of tax by the assessee while issuing sanction for prosecution of the offence under Section 276 C (2).
Case Title: Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot Versus The State Tax Officer (Adjudication)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan has held that form GST DRC-16 merely attaches immovable properties. There was no attachment to any bank accounts. The assessee appeared to be interested in dragging on the proceeding, though it appeared to be in arrears of huge amounts of tax.
Case Title: Lakshmi Ammal (died) and Others v. Ammayi Ammal (died) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
Explaining the legal principle of Approbate and Reprobate, the Madras High Court has recently observed that the foundation of the law of election is that a person cannot accept and reject the same instrument.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that a person cannot be allowed to make a judicial or a quasi-judicial forum to act upon a document in order to get a favorable order and thereafter disown the document and continue to deal with the property. A competent Civil Court cannot give its approval for such dishonest conduct and sanctify such illegal act.
The court also discussed a recent decision where the court had similarly held that the party claiming right over the scheduled property cannot take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/ courts.
Case Titile: K. Murugan v. The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
The Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy recently observed that the employer shall follow the procedures in departmental proceedings including framing of charge, giving an opportunity to the employee, conducting a disciplinary enquiry and thereafter deciding the issue even with respect to temporary employees.
The court also found merit in the submission of the petitioner that even termination of a temporary employee must be by following due procedure of law. The court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Special Officer and the order passed by the Registrar. The court also directed that the Special Officer was entitled to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of issuing a charge and take a decision in accordance with law by either permitting the petitioner to rejoin duty or by placing him under suspension. The court also directed that the entire enquiry should be carried out within a period of three months from the receipt of the order copy.
Considering the nature of allegations that were levelled against the petitioner, the court chose not to award back wages and held that the same could be decided only after the outcome of the enquiry conducted by the Special Officer.
208. Transition Of ITC cannot Be Denied Merely For Technical Difficulties: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Vetrivel Explosives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Madras High Court held that in case the department is unable to permit the filing of TRAN-1 belatedly, they have to credit the corresponding amount in the electronic cash register provided that the credit remained unutilized on the cut-off date.
The single judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that since the input tax credit is equivalent to cash meant to be used for discharging the tax liability, the transition of the input tax credit cannot be restricted or denied merely because there were technical difficulties.
The court disposed of the writ petition, by directing the respondents to verify whether the petitioner had any input tax credit on the date of the accident. The monthly returns, which would have been filed for the months of October and November 2016, would show the quantum of unutilized input tax credit on input service tax and capital goods credit.
"If it existed on that day, I see no reason why such credit should not be allowed to the petitioner either by way of suitable credit entry in the electronic cash register of the petitioner or by way of a cash refund to the petitioner. I therefore direct the respondents to verify the same and allow such credit which remained unutilized on the date of accident in the regular returns filed by the petitioner," the court said.
Case Title: N. Sarojini v. The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
The Madras High Court has reiterated that a convicted prisoner has no fundamental or statutory right to be released prematurely. The court was considering a petition filed by the mother of a life convict Hariharan challenging the Government order rejecting his premature release.
The bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice A. A Nakkiran observed that once material is shown to exist, the Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of facts and such sufficiency of facts is beyond the ken of judicial review under Article 226.
The court also opined that while exercising the power under Article 161, the interest of the society at large and the family of the victims should also be considered.
Case Title: S. Mohankumar v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras High Court recently directed a lawyer, appearing for the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000 as exemplary costs in favour of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry finding that the petitioner had come to the court with unclean hands merely to abuse the judicial process of law.
Justice P. Velmurugan made the above orders after observing that the petitioner had submitted the representation to the authorities on 22.04.2022 and had approached the court on the same day without giving the authorities sufficient time and opportunity to consider his application.
Case Title: R Barathbaran (died) and others v. R. Nallathambi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Teeka Raman has held that it is not mandatory under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 to obtain both signature and thumb impression for a pro-note to be valid.
The court also opined that when the defendant had not denied the execution of the pro-note, the lower appellate court could not raise suspicion with regard to the execution of the note merely on the ground that the thumb impression of the defendant was not obtained.
The court also stated that when there is a statutory presumption is favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden is on the defendant to prove otherwise. The defendant cannot merely rebut the presumption by a bare explanation but only by proof. The court was of the opinion that the evidence of the defendant was not sufficient to discharge this onus of proof and that the approach of the lower appellate court in condemnable.
212. Consider Forming "TN Administrative Service": Madras High Court Tells State
Case Title: P. Anandhraj, Joint Director and Others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court has directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider forming of "Tamil Nadu Administrative Service" including all the Departments connected to the Revenue and General Administration, Implementation of State policies for development in General as has been done by the Kerala Government.
The bench of Justice M. Govindaraj further directed the Government to consider taking steps to treat all State Level Officers alike and provide equal opportunity to them by making an appropriate recommendation to the Central Government to bring them into Administrative Service. The state was further directed to constitute a Committee for the purpose of identifying the posts, which can be brought under the definition of Deputy Collector. The government is expected to initiate all these processes within a period of six months.
The bench made the above directions in a plea challenging the rejection of a request to include posts of Joint Director and Additional Director of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, in the "State Civil Service" by the Government of Tamil Nadu. All the writ petitioners belonged to the Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department.
Case Title: P.R Srinivasan v. The Commissioner, HR&CE and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the State has an obligation to provide basic amenities to the pilgrims whenever there is a large gathering of persons during festival times.
Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarika v. Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee (2018) the court held that it is the bounded duty of the government to make proper arrangements and to sanction amounts without fear of violation of the concept of secularism.
Justice GR Swaminathan held an emergent sitting and heard the case on Sunday, over a Whatsapp Video call from Nagercoil while the lawyers joined the call from Neelankarai and Anna Nagar. It was upon the plea moved by the Hereditary Trustee of the Arulmighu Abheeshta Varadarajaswamy Temple, Papparapatti Agraharam, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District urging that their village will face "divine wrath" if the proposed Rath festival is not held on the given date, i.e., May 16.
Case Title: G. Sendrayan v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court has held that if a decision taken by an erstwhile Government is good to the public and the society at large, the successive Government can very well continue the project, if it is yet to be completed or half way through, for which further financial support is required.
Justice R Suresh Kumar said,
"If the erstwhile or the previous Government has taken a decision for any project to be undertaken for the welfare of the people, for which heavy amount of Government exchequer has been already spent, while taking a review in respect of those decision, the successive Government must borne in mind that, such kind of huge spending from exchequer shall not be allowed to go a waste."
The Court stated if an elected Government has taken a policy decision, under which, a project is conceived and put into action, when a subsequent Government is elected by a democratic exercise, it is for the successive Government to review such policy decision, based on the policy under which they have given the election manifesto to the people who vote them to power and accordingly, the earlier decision taken by the erstwhile Government can very well be reviewed by the subsequent Government, ofcourse within the parameters or four corners of the Constitution.
Case Title: Nandha Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital represented by Chairman v. The Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy and Others & other connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
The Madras High Court recently upheld the right of the college management to fill up the vacant seats in the respective courses. Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation in a plea challenging the impugned orders of Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University against admissions made by the management of the colleges.
The court relied on Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, where the Apex Court upheld the right of management to admit students. The court had observed that the seats remaining vacant would amount to a "national waste of resources".
Case Title: Pranav Srinivasan v. The Government of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a foetus or embryo acquires the status of a 'minor child' for the purposes of Section 8 of the Indian Citizenship Act and hence, such an embryo acquires the citizenship of its parents.
It added that if the parents of such 'minor' renounce their citizenship while the child is in his mother's womb, the child will be entitled to seek resumption of his Indian citizenship in terms of Section 8(2) of the Act, upon attaining majority.
Justice Anita Sumanth made the observations in a plea challenging an order of the Government of India wherein an application for Resumption of Citizenship under Section 8 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was rejected and the petitioner was asked to apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f) (g) of the Act if he so desires.
Case Title: Ramasamy Gounder @ Senban (died) v. Chinnapillai @ Nallammal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that merely because a son has been added as a co-vendor in a sale deed would not give rise to the presumption that the property being dealt with is a family property.
The court further held that the burden of proof to prove that the property was a joint family property or was purchased from the surplus income from the ancestral properties was upon the person claiming so. The same shall not be assumed per se and has to be pleaded and proved through evidence.
The court opined merely because a property is described as an ancestral property in the recitals of the document, that by itself is not a conclusive proof as to what is stated therein, more particularly when there are other materials to show that properties concerned are not ancestral properties.
Case Title: Prakash A v. The State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras High Court on Thursday denied bail to an office assistant who was accused of stabbing a Judicial Officer. Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the issue had to be dealt with utmost seriousness as it had an impact on the institution at large.
The court opined that while granting bail, it was necessary to consider the seriousness of the allegations. Thus, the court was not inclined to grant bail.
However, the court directed the Committal court to commit the matter to the concerned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court was directed to conduct the proceedings on day to day basis and complete the case within a period of six weeks. The court further directed the Sessions Court to decide the case purely on merit and in accordance with law and that the present order should not have any bearing on the outcome of the case.
Case Title: Periammal v. Kamalam and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court has held that there is no bar under the Limitation Act on a plaintiff taking the plea of adverse possession in a suit for declaration of title and for the recovery of possession. Justice Teekaa Raman held that the age-old axiomatic of law that the plaintiff cannot raise the plea of adverse possession and that it can only be a defence of the defendant no longer holds the field.
The court also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others v. Manjit Kaur and others (2019) where the Supreme Court observed as below:
"Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by Plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in the case of infringement of any rights of a Plaintiff."
Case Title: Sanjay Simon and another v. KG Hospital and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court on Thursday granted relief to a 27 years old kidney patient, who claimed that he is in great pain and the Authorization Committee (Transplantation) has been sitting on his request to permit surgical transplant.
Justice SM Subramaniam directed the Authorisation Committee (Transplantation) to scrutinise the documents of the petitioner and take appropropriate decisions on merits in accordance with law. The Committee was directed to communicate the decision on the same day at about 7:00 pm
Case Title: Union of India versus J. Auuamar and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award rendered by the District Collector awarding a lower value to the land owners with respect to the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 without following the mandate of Section 3G (7) of the National Highways Act, is rendered mechanically.
The Bench, consisting of Justices R. Subramanian and N. Sathish Kumar, remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator for fixing the value of the land acquired under the National Highways Act afresh in terms of Section 3G (7) of the National Highways Act.
The Court held that the District Collectors who are nominated as Arbitrators by the Central Government are expected to follow the decisions of the higher Courts while deciding the compensation payable in lieu of the land acquired under the National Highways Act. The Court added that the District Collectors often do not devote the required attention and the arbitral awards are passed by them mechanically without adverting to the relevant provisions of the law.
Case Title: S.S.S Prahalathan v. The Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court bench of Justice SM Subramaniam has held that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted with proper permission to take up another Government appointment, where service qualifies. In such circumstances, the period of service in the previous employment shall be taken into consideration for calculating the pension benefits under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
The court agreed with the submission of the petitioner and was satisfied that the petitioner had obtained proper permission as contemplated under the Rules. The Board was aware that the petitioner had obtained permission and participated in the process of selection. Therefore, the resignation cannot be considered as an independent resignation and it is to be considered as consequential to the permission granted by the TWAD Board. Thus, it would not attract forfeiture of services under Rule 23, but falls under proviso to Rule 23(1) of the Rules.
Case Title: The Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co Ltd v. Kathamuthu and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court has held that the compensation for medical expenses is a matter of reimbursement and hence once the insurance company has chosen to compensate the victim of road accident for medical expenses, the same cannot be once again claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The bench of Justice Teeka Raman thus held that the amount paid to the hospital directly by the insurance company under a medical policy coverage shall be deducted by the Motor Accident Tribunal while calculating the compensation to the injured.
The court observed that what has not been paid by the original petitioner to the hospital cannot be granted as compensation in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the court deducted the amount already paid by the insurance company and directed the appellant company to pay the remaining along with compensation for disability, pain and suffering, permanent disability loss of income etc together with an interest of 7.5% per annum
Case Title: Amutha v. The Additional Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has expressed concern over the growing "trend" of filing writ petitions in High Court against the public officials, more specifically, Police officials, whenever a criminal case is registered against some persons.
A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed that this trend should not be encouraged and whenever any litigant faces ill-treatment in a Police Station, a representation should first be made to the Higher Officials. The Higher Officials shall accept the representation if there are grounds and shall conduct an enquiry.
Case Title: Ganapathy and others v. State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
Condemning the act of the Karaikudi Bar Association in passing a resolution stating that no one shall represent certain accused in a case, Justice K Murali Shankar of the Madras High Court held that such a resolution is illegal; and null and void and the same shall have no force of law. Even in instances where there has been an attack on advocates, the same should be condemned sternly and the attackers should be dealt with with iron hands. But even so, the bar association is not expected to pass such resolutions, violating the constitution and the law of the and declared by the Supreme Court.
The court observed that such resolutions are against professional ethics. Whenever a client was ready to pay the fee, if the lawyer was not engaged otherwise, it was his professional duty to not refuse a brief. It is against the great traditions of the Bar which has always stood up for defending persons accused of a crime. Such a resolution is, in fact, a disgrace to the legal community.
226. Delay In Deciding Custody Cases May Prolong Harassment Of Minor Children: Madras High Court
Case Title: C Shamilakumari v P Chandrasekar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court has observed that while dealing with matters relating to custody of minor children under the Guardians and Wards Act, the Courts have a duty to ensure that minor children are protected and their interests, vision and wishes are preserved to the maximum possible extent, giving them a better life.
A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and Sathya Narayana Prasad observed that matters of custody of minor children have to be decided expeditiously by the courts. If the decision of the court is delayed, it may lead to prolonged harassment of the minor children.
The court also observed that today's younger generation is wise and intelligent and can assess human behaviors. Hence, when the children are left in a lurch by the father and mother, the minor children have to be enquired and the veracity of the statement made by them has to be assessed in a proper manner to arrive at a conclusion in the interest of children.
227. Madras High Court Upholds Validity Of Section 6 Of The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006
Case Title: M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another with connected cases.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 227
The Madras High Court recently upheld the validity of amendments made to Section 6 of The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The court observed that in matters relating to tax, the interest of the State must be considered as against the interest of certain individuals. The court also discussed the power of the legislature in taking decisions with respect to tax
"The hardship that is caused to individuals seldom matters as validity of any fiscal enactment ought to be tested on the basis of generality of its operation and not on the basis of few individual cases"
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq also held that the assessment orders made under the Act could not be challenged in the writ petitions and should be challenged through the remedy of appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax act 2006.
Case Title: Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court recently observed that in matters of public employments, equal opportunities should be granted. Whenever a decision is taken with respect to recruitment, the competent authorities are bound to follow the recruitment rules in force by providing equal opportunities to all candidate. However, the court also observed that appointments can never be claimed as a matter of absolute right.
Justice SM Subramaniam was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by persons who took part in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Field Assistant (Trainee) in 2016.
Case Title: Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court recently observed that even though the courts had a duty to protect the rights of whistleblowers, the whistleblowers are expected to exercise their rights in the manner known to law and excess exercise or high handednedd can never be allowed.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad were considering a plea to enquire into the enhancement of the financial and social status of a whistleblower. The petitioner alleged that the whistleblower was filing petitions for initiation of action against officials of the Hindu Religioud and Charitable Endowments [HR&CE] Department and the temple authorities and in the process was acting excessively inside the temple premises and threatening officials and staff of the temple.
The court observed that rights of both the petitioner and the whistleblower is to be protected. While exercising the rights, If any excessiveness has been committed by any person, the authorities or the persons concerned are empowered to lodge a complaint before higher authorities and before the police authorities for taking appropriate actions in manner known to law. In the event of any such complaint the authorities are expected to act immediately by conducting an enquiry and by following the procedures.
Case Title: Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court rejected a writ petition seeking directions to the State Government not to demolish any temple which existed as on 15 August 1947. The petitioner had relied on the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 to state that the temples existing as on 15 August 1947 should not be demolished. However, the Court observed that the writ petition was filed with vague statements, without particulars about the temples.
"The vague statement of facts cannot be taken to be the basis for filing the writ petition or for its acceptance. Rather, it should be after proper research of the facts so as to bring the material on record to prove the statement of facts given in the writ petition. The petitioner has utterly failed to do so and filed the writ petition seeking directions without showing the name of the temples said to have been constructed on or before 15 August 1947 and suffered from the action of the nature indicated by the petitioner, without causing a notice or following the provisions the provisions of law", the Court observed.
Case Title: TR Ramanathan v. Tamil Nadu State Mental Health Authority and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
In a verdict emphasizing the right to dignity of mentally disabled persons, the Madras High Court held that they are entitled to have the assessment done at their residences for the purposes of getting disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.
A single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan issued the direction after taking note of the hardships underwent by a medically disabled person at a mental hospital when he was brought there for the purposes of medical assessment.
The bench observed as follows:
"The assessment process must be as simple as possible. It must not cause any difficulty or trauma or even the least burden to the individual concerned. I take judicial notice of the fact that bringing such persons to a congested place like the Government Hospital would trigger considerable stress and anxiety to them. One does not know what can trigger panic and anxiety. There are children who seeing an ordinary balloon will go berserk".
Case Title: NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd and Anr. v. TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Arb. O.P. (Comm. Div) Nos. 410 and 412 of 2021.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The High Court of Madras has held that more than one High Court can exercise jurisdiction for the recognition and enforcement of a part of arbitral award if the claims are decided for and against the parties thereto.
The Single Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the Court for the purpose of the enforcement of a foreign award would be the one within whose jurisdiction either the award debtor carries his business or its assets are located within its jurisdiction.
The Court held that as a corollary at least two High Courts can have jurisdiction if the arbitrator has allowed the claims of both the parties and each party would file an application for the enforcement of the award in the High Court where the assets of the other party are located.
Case Title: Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has observed that persons belonging to the same class cannot be discriminated against by creating an artificial class between them on the basis of date of retirement.
The order of Justice C Saravanan came as a relief to the retired employees of various State Transport Undertakings (STU) who had approached the Court seeking implementation of the recommendations of the VII Central Pay Commission and for revision of their pension.
The Court also observed that the State Transport Undertaking were part of the State Transport Department. Thus, there was an understanding that the salaries and pensions of the employees in STUs will be on par with their counterparts in Government Services. Thus, there was no reason to discriminate those employees who have retired earlier.
Case Title: Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court has observed that the pendency of a criminal case that is at the FIR stage is not a bar for the issuance of a passport. However, in cases where the final report has been filed, permission of the concerned Court has to be obtained for issuance of a Passport, it further said.
Justice GR Swaminathan further observed that such a requirement is applicable only when the concerned person wants to leave India and not when the person wants to come back to India.
Case Title: Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court came to the rescue of around 25 doctors by directing the respective medical colleges and the Directorate of Medical Education that they could not withhold the original education certificates collected at the time of admission, merely on the ground that the petitioners had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the bond for compulsory service.
"It is well settled that an Educational certificate is not a marketable commodity, therefore, there cannot be exercise of any lien in terms of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It has been held in catena of cases that management cannot retain the certificates of the students."
Case Title: SJ Suryah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court recently held that when an assessment order is quashed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on technical grounds, the same cannot be made a ground to evade criminal prosecution before the concerned court under the Income Tax Act.
Justice G Chandrasekharan was considering a plea filed by cine actor SJ Suryah for quashing the prosecutions against him before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I) Chennai, Alikulam Road on the ground that the Income Tax Appellate Authority had set aside the assessment order against him.
The court observed that the the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposed the appeals only on the ground of limitation and not on merits. From the complaint allegation it was clear that despite, giving notice, statutory notice as detailed in the complaint, petitioner has not filed return, paid advance tax and tax demanded, suppressed the real and true income by not filing the return in time. These matters had to be necessarily tried before the Court as the violations were liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Section 276 C (1), 276 C (2), 276 CC and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sahib v. Ramachandran and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently observed that trial courts should refrain from acting solely on memo filed by the counsel of the party conceding the substantive right of the party viz-a-viz the subject matter of the suit, or right of defence, for passing any non-adjudicatory decree or appealable orders.
Justice N Seshasayee observed that though there is not a complete ban on considering the memo filed by the counsel of the parties, what must be looked into is the effect that the memo and the consequential order will have on the rights of the parties.
The court also held that though a lawyer is authorized to act on behalf of his client through the Vakalatnama, there should be an express authority granted to him to enter into compromise and the same could not be implied.
Case Title: L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court bench of Justice M Nirmal Kumar recently dismissed a revision petition against the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Court Egmore dismissing a defamation complaint against the President and Secretary-General of the All India Yadav Maha Sabha. The petition was filed by one Nandagopal Yadav, who was suspended from the post of Vice President of the Sabha.
The court observed that nowhere in his sworn statement, the petitioner had stated that the imputation had directly or indirectly in the estimation of others lowered the moral or the intellectual character of the petitioner. Further no ingredient was made out for commission of the offence.
Case Title: K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
Justice M. S Ramesh of the Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of employees of Co-operative societies and directed the Chief Secretary, the Secretary (Co-operation), and the Registrar of Co-operative societies, Government of Puducherry to pass orders for disbursement of unpaid salaries, earned leave encashment, EPF Contributions, ESI benefits, and other admissible entailments, due to them for their respective services. The court directed the dues to be paid within three months from receipt of copy of the order.
The court held that even though Society cannot be Characterized as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a writ was maintainable to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the Society. In the present case, since there was a public duty upon the Government, the petition was maintainable.
Case Title: S Nalini v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
S. Nalini, who was one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, recently withdrew an application she had moved before the Madras High Court seeking emergency leave for her husband- Sridharan alias Murugan, another convict in the case.
When the matter came up before the bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice A D Jagadish Chandra on Monday, the prison officials informed the Court that Nalini's representation was rejected in light of the prison offences committed by her husband Murugan. The Superintendent had passed the aforesaid order in terms of Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
In light of the same, the petitioner decided to withdraw the present writ petition and challenge the order of rejection passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons before the appellate authority.
Case Title: P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever complaints are made to the Statutory Authorities, they are expected to act upon the same and not keep it pending indefinitely. The authorities are expected to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders in reasonable time.
Justice MS Ramesh of the Madurai Bench observed as follows:
"It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time."
Case Title: S Gopikrishnan v. Regional Officer, CBFC and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Mad) 242
A litigant on Wednesday withdrew his petition in Madras High Court seeking directions to the Central Board of Film Certification to telecast statutory warning with the words "Knives and Sickles used in this movie are made of paper and colour water is used as blood" in forthcoming films.
The plea was withdrawn after the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala warned of dismissing the plea with costs. The bench observed that the petition was moved merely for publicity and without any materials.
Highlighting that the certification by CBFC is appealable, the court suggested that in case the litigant had a complaint regarding the certification of certain movies, he could challenge the same before the appropriate authority.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Police v. C Duraisamy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court on Wednesday commuted the death sentence of Marudupandian to life imprisonment in the Kannagi-Murugesan Honour Killing case. Marudupandian is Kannagi's brother. The Court also confirmed the life sentence of others including Kannagi's father Duraisamy. Further, two convicts were acquitted of the offence.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice AA Nakkiran passed the orders on a reference made by the Special Court, Cuddalore. The convicts had also appealed against the order of the special court.
"There are no castes, dear child. Identifying persons on the basis of upper caste and lower caste is a sin." the court quoted these words of Mahakavi Subramanya Bharathiyar, and expressed deep anguish over the fact that even after almost a century of his demise, these lines of the Mahakavi seem to remain only in the primary school textbooks and nowhere else. The court also suggested common burial for Dalits and non Dalits in the countryside as a means of annihilation of caste in the country.
Case Title: P. Sukumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed one Sukumar for forming an Investigation Team under the head of a retired High Court Judge for inquiring into the alleged irregularities committed by the Election officer cum Revenue Divisional officer while conducting the elections to the Water User Association.
While dismissing the petition, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the petition was not one for public interest but was a "private interest litigation". The court also held that a direction for investigation by a retired Judge cannot be issued unless it is determined that the matter requires serious investigation or is of great public interest.
Case Title: State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai @ Duraimurugan and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madras High Court recently observed that social media intermediaries operating in India are governed by the Acts and Rules of the land. They have a duty to ascertain that videos are in accordance with the policies and guidelines. If these videos are found to be in violation, they have a duty to block such channels without insisting on FIRs or any Court orders.
"There is a contract between the intermediaries and the channels. In case of any violation of the conditions, it is the duty of the intermediaries to remove or block the channel as per the terms of their agreement...The intermediaries are not expected to insist for FIR or any court orders to remove the videos which are in violation of their guidelines. If it is not blocked or removed even after it was brought to their knowledge, the intermediaries are committing the offence under Section 69A (3) of the Information Technology Act."
Case Title: Northern Arc Capital Limited v Sambandh Finance Private Limited and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
While discussing extensively the scope of issuing summary judgments, the Madras High Court recently observed that suits cannot be summarily decreed at the instance of a plaintiff unless such plaintiff satisfies the court that the suit claim stands duly proved.
The two requirements for the grant of summary judgments under Rule 3 Order XIII-A CPC are that the applicant should establish that the counterparty has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim/succeeding the claim and that there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording oral evidence.
With reference to an application for summary judgment, Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy observed that both the parties are required to set out the grounds on which the application is being prosecuted or defended, along with all documents proposed to be relied upon for such purpose. The court also observed that even though the Rules stands so, the burden of proof is primarily on the applicant. Thus, the applicant had to establish that the counterparty had no real prospect of defending the claim or succeeding in the claim.
Case Title: K Arumugam v State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court recently quashed the FIR against a man, who tried to reconcile the differences between a couple through compromise, but was himself dragged into the embroil with the filing of a FIR against him by one of the spouse.
"It is a classical case, good samaritan turned into foe in the process of conciliation between the husband and wife," Justice G Ilangovan observed at the outset.
The court also observed that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC would not stand in the present case as the alleged offence had taken place in the house of the accused and not in a public place or in public view. The court also opined that the allegation made against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 1998 would not attract.
Case Title: A Shanmugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
While dismissing a Police Inspector's plea for retrospective promotion, the Madras High Court has observed that entertaining such belated claims will result in unsettling the settled position. The court reiterated that settled positions cannot be unsettled after a lapse of many years.
Finding the petition to be devoid of any merits, a bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed as follows:
"The employees, who have slept over their rights, cannot wake up one fine morning and knock the doors of the Court for the purpose of redressal of their grievances, which all are otherwise lapsed on account of efflux of time"
249.Smartha Brahmins Not A Religious Denomination, Madras High Court
Case Title: Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of Advaitha Philosophy through P.S Sundaram and others v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Smartha Brahmins were just a caste/community without any peculiarity specifically attributable to them that distinguished them from other Brahmins of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, they could not be identified as a religious denomination and were not entitled to benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench was considering an application made by some members belonging to the Smartha Brahmin community claiming minority status for an institution run by them. Observing that the appellants had failed to establish that they constitute a denomination as Smartha Brahmins in the state of Tamil Nadu, the court held that the suit was mainly filed only to wriggle out of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Act 1973 by invoking the benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution.
250. Order Of ITAT Is Based On Evidence, Findings Based On Facts, Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Appeal
Case Title: M/s Ankit Ispat Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a tax appeal observing that there were no substantial question of law arisen for consideration.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was based on the evidence adduced before the same. "Such well-considered findings of the appellate authorities do not warrant any interference at the hands of this court", it observed.
Case Title: M/s. Fenner (India) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directing the assessing officer to exclude the royalty income from the business profits for the purpose of calculation of deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad observed that the appellant could not produce concrete evidence to assert that the royalty income received from a subsidiary company was related to export business. Thus, the decision of the tribunal did not warrant any interference.
252. Period Of Limitation Under S.153 Of Income Tax Act Applies To Remand Proceedings: Madras HC
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr v. M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court recently observed that the period of limitation under the Sections 153 (2A) or 153 (3) was applicable even for remad proceedings before the Assessing Officer, Transfer Pricing Officer or the Dispute Resolution Panel. The entire proceedings had to be conducted within a period of 9 months as contemplated under Section 144C (12) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad further observed that in matters of transfer pricing, when the matter was remanded to the DRP, the Assessing Officer had to pass a denova draft and complete the entire proceedings within 12 months as otherwise the very purpose of extension would become meaningless.
Case Title: Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram and others v. Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of the Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and held that gold/silver ornaments that are worn in person and exceed Rs. 50,000 in value have to be declared before the Customs Authority.
Justice C Saravanan opined that the law was unambiguous in this regard. Though exemptions were provided under the Baggage Rules, 2016 it was limited to the extent permitted under the Rules. The court also opined that import of jewelry worth more than Rs. 50,000 could not be considered as bonafide baggage and could not be exempted from paying customs duty.
Case Title: S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by S. Nalini and RP Ravichandran, convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, seeking premature release.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the High Court did not have special powers that the Supreme Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution. Thus, it cannot order their release, like the Supreme Court did for Perarivalan, another convict in the assassination case. Hence the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
255. Gift Deed Not Effective When Possession Not Handed Over; Can Be Cancelled: Madras High Court
Case Title: S. Manjula v. G. Shoba and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Madras High Court recently upheld the cancellation of a gift deed after noting that the possession was not handed over and that the deed was not acted upon by the parties. Hence, the High Court agreed with the trial court's decree dismising a suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed.
The bench of Justice AA Nakkiran agreed with the finding of the court below that the possession was not handed over and the gift deed was not acted upon hence, it was not a valid gift deed.
Case Title: Tvt.LAF Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has held that Section 129 of the CGST Act provides for the detention and seizure of the vehicle upon condition that an order of detention/seizure shall be passed at the time of detention/seizure and duly served upon the person transporting the goods.
Case Title: Udhaya Kumar v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
While quashing criminal proceedings against a person who was arrayed as an accused during a raid of a Massage centre which was allegedly a brothel, the Madras High Court bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that merely because the petitioner was in the place, he could not be fastened with penal consequences.
The court opined that since there was no evidence to show that there was coercion by the petitioner on the sex workers to commit the act, he could not be penalised for his mere presence at the place.
Case Title: A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
While allowing an appeal by a father seeking custody of his minor child, the Madras High Court bench of Justice M.Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan, observed that the order of the single judge was passed without affording an opportunity to the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence.
"It is settled law that while deciding the Original Petition to appoint the guardian the courts should allow the party to let in oral and documentary evidences. In such view of the matter, on that ground alone, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.423 of2020 is liable to be set aside." the court observed.
Case Title: K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
While dismissing a petition for interim custody of Rs.10 lakhs seized in a job racketing case, the Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy expressed his displeasure at the way people were willing to pay huge sums of money for getting a job. He enunciated that public appointments were made through a selection procedure and could not be obtained by paying bribes. He highlighted that such persons did not realise that it took years of work to earn such salaries and gave no thought to the plight of persons who scored more marks than them.
260. No Prohibition For Issuance Of Legal Heirship Certificate To Class-II Legal Heirs: Madras High Court
Case Title: D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
While allowing a petition filed by a woman for issuing a legal heir certificate for her deceased brother, the Madras High Court bench of Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose reiterated that there was no bar to issuing a legal heir certificate to a class-II heir.
The court thus directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's application on merits and after affording her a fair hearing and after hearing any such other person that the respondent deems fit to inquire. The Tahsildar was also directed to pass the final orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Case Title: Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court recently allowed a petition filed by a Sanitation Inspector for quashing an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 25000 (highest under the Right to Information Act) for providing inadequate reply in an RTI Application.
The bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed that the petitioner was only providing reply upon the directions of the Municipal Commissioner and was himself not a designated Public Information Officer.
The court observed as under:
"This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was not designated as Public Information Officer and has not acted as in-charge Public Information Officer. In such circumstances, the information furnished by the petitioner is only based on the direction of the Municipal Commissioner that is the second respondent, without assigning any designation as in-charge Public Information Officer. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/-, as penalty, which is the maximum punishment that is prescribed under the Act is liable to be interfered and the impugned order is quashed. If any amount is recovered based on the impugned order, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner."
Case Title: B Nagaraj v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person who purchases a piece of land after the issuance of notification for its acquisition by the government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala dismissed the appeals filed by subsequent purchasers of a property, who were challenging the acquisition after twenty years. The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (2008 (9) SCC 177) which held that any purchase, after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is "void ab-initio" and thus, subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition proceedings.
Case Title: P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
While allowing a petition seeking police protection for the Executive Council and General Council Meeting of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) to be held on June 23, the Madras High Court observed that the State had a duty to provide necessary protection and to prevent any untoward incident in the form of violence.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar made the observations on a petition preferred by P Benjamin, District Secretary of Tiruvallur District and member of the AIADMK.
264. Orders Passed U/S 148 NI Act Are Interlocutory In Nature, Not Revisable: Madras High Court
Case Title: Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
While discussing the scope of revision in case of orders passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Madras High Court recently observed that such orders are interlocutory in nature and are outside the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
The bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a criminal revision petition against an order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai which in exercise of powers under Section 148 of the Act, suspended the order of imprisonment (till the disposal of appeal) for cheque dishonour, subject to a deposit of 15% of the cheque amount.
The court opined that the order for deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not a precondition for the appeal to be taken on file and therefore will not result in a final order deciding appeal. It was only a direction to deposit subject to the final outcome of the appeal and as such was only a matter of procedure. The court highlighted that such orders did not determine the rights of the parties. It was also observed that non passing of such order or accepting any application by the accused would not result in culmination of proceedings
Case Title: P Venkatachalam v. The Tahsildar (Batch)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
A three-judge bench of the Madras High Court recently decided upon the powers of a Tahsildar to issue a Legal Heirship Certificate in matters of intestate-succession for Class-II heirs.
The bench of Justice PN Prakash, Justice R Hemalatha, and Justice AA Nakkiran opined that the concept of heirship is determined through the various personal laws. Thus, the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the Tahsildar has no effect on the legal right of any party which was conferred to him/her under the personal laws.
The Court was of the opinion that the prefix "legal heir" used in the certificates issued by the Tahsildar is clearly a misnomer and that these are merely "relationship certificates" reflecting the opinion of the Tahsildar on the relationship of the applicant and the persons named therein with the deceased; They cannot alter the status of a legal heir which is conferred on an individual under his/her personal law.
Case Title: N Syamasundara Naidu v. V Dakshinamoorthy and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court recently set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate, wherein it was held that a Private Pleader, who was appointed by the complainant to assist the Public Prosecutor, could not conduct an independent prosecution under Section 301(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore had no locus standi to plead on behalf of the prosecution and conduct the case.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the order of the Magistrate was unsustainable since Section 301 of CrPC is not applicable to Magistrate Courts. Further, it observed that merely because the said application was not emanating from the Public Prosecutor/Police, is not a ground to throw it out.
267. Take Criminal Action Against Police Officials Receiving 'Mamool': Madras High Court
Case Title: K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
While dismissing a retired sub-Inspector's plea challenging the order of punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years, the Madras High Court expressed its concern over police officers taking bribes and thereby affecting the welfare of people.
Justice SM Subramaniam was of the view that whenever receiving bribes is traced out, criminal cases should be registered against the police officials. These offences had to be dealt with without showing any leniency or misplaced sympathy.
The court also observed that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution was to ensure that the process through which a decision was taken was in consonance with the rules in force and not the decision itself. In the present case, the court did not find any infirmity with reference to the quantum of punishment imposed.
Case Title: P Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
The Madras High court bench of Justice S.S.Sundar and Justice S. Srimathy recently set aside the order of the District Collector, Theni District wherein the Collector had adjudicated upon the genuineness of a community certificate based upon the report of an Anthropologist and the enquiry report of the Sub-collector.
The court observed that the fact that the District Collector has passed the impugned order without following the procedure as contemplated under the two Government Orders referred to above, is not in dispute
269. Deliberately Concealing The Income, Assessee Can Be Prosecuted: Madras High Court
Case Title: Dharampal R. Pandia versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court has ruled that an assessee can be prosecuted for willfully and deliberately concealing his income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time, even after the return belatedly submitted by the assessee is accepted by the revenue authorities on the basis of which an assessment order is passed.
The Single Bench of Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed that the concealment and suppression of income by the assessee came to light only after a survey operation was conducted and that the assessee had filed his return only after a statutory notice was issued to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Court held that the assessee had willfully and deliberately concealed his true income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time.
Case Title: Mohamed Jiyaputheen v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
The Madras High Court recently allowed the plea filed by a former District Judge seeking to amend an order for compulsory retirement as that of voluntary retirement.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the issue did not require adjudication on merits. The court noticed that the order of compulsory retirement was not being challenged and the prayer was limited to substituting the order of compulsory retirement with the order of voluntary retirement. As this prayer did not require any adjudication of merits, the court allowed the application.
Case Title: M/s.Progressive Stone Works Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
The Madras High Court has reiterated that a writ petition is not maintainable if an alternative statutory remedy was available to the taxpayer.
The single bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that there are a few exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. Firstly, where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question. Secondly, in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Thirdly, authorities have resorted to invoking the provisions that were repealed. Fourthly, when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice,
Case Title: Mahalakshmi v. The Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 272
Justice V. Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench recently directed the Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent Of Police and Inspector of Police of Sankarankovil Town Police Station, Tenkasi District and Inspector of Police, Rajapalam Police Station, Viruthunagar District to preserve the CCTV footages recorded on the 6th and 7th April in connection with an allegation of illegal detention against certain police officials after observing that the same was important to adjudicate the issue involved in the case.
273. Madras High Court Dismisses School's Plea Against Adjacent Opening Of Fuel Pump
Case Title: St. Mary's Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. .The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
The Madras High court recently dismissed a petition moved by a school challenging grant of NOC to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, for opening of a fuel pump adjacent to its building.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala opined that the contentions raised in the challenge were not maintainable. The court however directed HPCL to ensure that all the necessary safety measures were observed while operating the retail outlet and no inconvenience should be caused.
Case Title: Sunku Vasundhara v State Bank of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The High Court of Madras Bench comprising of Justice T. Raja and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, while adjudicating a writ petition filed in Sunku Vasundhara v State Bank of India, has held that when an effective and statutory remedy lies before the Appellate Authority i.e. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), aggrieved parties cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India for relief. The order was passed on 15.06.2022.
Case Title: Dinesh v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
Finding laches in the case of the prosecution, the Madras High Court recently set aside the order of conviction and sentence of a man who was accused of murdering his friend and burying his body, allegedly over the friend's refusal to perform homosexual activities with him.
The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira observed that since the prosecution case could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it was not safe to convict the man on the basis of an extra-judicial confession.
The bench further observed that the burden of proving facts within special knowledge does not shift on the accused by pressing into service Section 106 of the Evidence Act when the prosecution could not prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused.
Case Title: P.Sudha v. The Secretary and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court on Wednesday disposed of a writ petition seeking reservation for third gender in government jobs after it was informed by the Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram that the Government had already issued necessary orders way back in 2015, granting the benefit of reservation to the community and had brought Transgender persons under the category of "Most Backward Class" for reservation of seats in educational institutions and appointments in the services of the State.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala opined that no further directions were necessary and that the present writ petition was unnecessary.