Madras High Court Monthly Digest - June 2024 [Citations 228-265]

NOMINAL INDEX

Rakshika Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 228

Deivanayaki v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 229

J Rajkumar v The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 230

Antony Clement Rubin v M Vignesh, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 231

ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 232

Kanthavel and Others v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 233

A Kamala v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 234

Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 235

National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 236

Kesava Vinayagam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237

The President v The State Information Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238

MRF Ltd v Competition Commission of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 239

Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 240

Gurunathan v The Deputy Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 241

R Anushri v The Secretary TNPSC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 242

MM Karthikeyan v Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 243

High Court of Madras v PU Venkatesan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 244

R Mohanakrishnan v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 245

Kennel Club of India v The Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 246

Ashok Kumar v The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247

P Jayachandran v A Yesuranthinam (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248

Karthick Munusamy v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 249

State v P Ponnusamy, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 250

R Sasikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251

Tmt. Sabeena Beevi v The Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 252

K Paranthaman v The Secretary, TNPSC, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 253

V Sakthivel v The Revenue Divisional Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 254

M/s.Greenstar Fertilisers Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 255

Felix Jerald v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256

Indian Institute of Technology v The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 257

Rahul Gandhi v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 258

Gokul Abhimanyu v Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 259

B Anantha Lakshmi and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 260

S Shanmugasundaram v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 261

Dr. TV Swaminathan v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 262

S Chandan Babu v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 263

M/s. SRM Hotels Private Limited v The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 264

Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 265

REPORTS

Madras High Court Quashes Govt Order Giving Reservation To Transgender Persons As Most Backward Class Community, Says NALSA Judgment Not Implemented Properly

Case Title: Rakshika Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 228

The Madras High Court has struck down a Government Order issued by the Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes & Minorities Welfare (BCC) Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu including transgender persons under the Most Backward Class community for providing reservation.

Justice GK Ilanthraiyan noted that the State had failed to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Nalsa case properly. The court noted that by bringing transgender persons into the Most Backward Class community, the state was treating gender as a caste which was against the judgment of the Supreme Court. The court added that only horizontal reservation could be granted to the community for complying with the order of the Apex Court.

Duty Of Public Servant's Wife To Discourage Him From Taking Bribe: Madras High Court Refuses To Set Aside Conviction Of Sub-Inspector's Wife

Case Title: Deivanayaki v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 229

The Madras High Court has refused to set aside the conviction of the wife of a Sub-Inspector of Police accused of accumulating wealth disproportionate to his income.

Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that though the Public Servant was no more, his wife should face consequences under Section 109 read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court added that it was the duty of the wife to discourage her public servant husband from receiving bribes. The court remarked that corruption had pervaded to an unimaginable ratio and if homemakers also become party to corruption, there would be no end to it. The court thus observed that the appellant, whose life was a “bed of roses” with the ill-gotten money should face the consequences also.

“Medicare IsA Huge Business”: Madras High Court Calls For Uniform Liberal Approach While Dealing With Applications For Approval Of Organ Donation

Case Title: J Rajkumar v The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 230

The Madras High Court has called for taking a uniform liberal approach while dealing with applications for transplantation of Human organs.

Calling Medicare a huge business, Justice GR Swaminathan noted that while the applications from some hospitals were easily accepted, the applications from some hospitals were rejected. The court added that it was necessary to comply with the principles of natural justice as the rights of the patients were at stake.

Madras High Court Directs Govt To Consider Representation Seeking Regulation Of Pet Boarding Facilities Across State

Case Title: Antony Clement Rubin v M Vignesh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 231

The Madras High Court has directed the state government to consider a representation for regulating the Pet Boarding Facilities in the state.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq thus disposed of a plea field by Antony Clement Rubin, an animal rights activist. The court directed the State to consider Rubin's representation and pass orders on merit within eight weeks.

In his plea, Rubin highlighted that post Covid- there has been a substantial increase in the number of pet owners who would require pet boarding facilities for a number of reasons. He added that with the increase in demand for pet boarding facility, there was also an imperative demand that these facilities be governed by a separate set of rules and regulations to prevent the horrendous abuse of the animals.

Wife Merely Filing Dowry Demand Complaint Against Husband Not Cruelty Unless Shown That It Is False: Madras High Court

Case Title: ABC v XYZ

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 232

While denying relief to a husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, the Madras High Court has observed that a wife merely filing a complaint in the police station would not amount to cruelty, unless the husband proves that the complaint was a false dowry demand complaint.

Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel thus observed that they could not find fault with the conduct of the wife, filing a police complaint with the intention of living together with her husband.

The court further noted that there was no evidence available on record to show that the wife had committed cruelty. The court held that the husband had failed to establish “animus deserendi” of wife and thus, finding no fault with the order of the trial court, dismissed the appeal.

Govt Servants, Investigating Officers Expected To Discharge Duty And Ensure 'Truth Alone Triumphs': Madras High Court

Case Title: Kanthavel and Others v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 233

The Madras High Court recently remarked that an investigating officer is expected to conduct the investigation in a fair manner and find out the genuineness of a complaint.

Justice B. Pugalendhi remarked that the motto of the Government is Truth alone triumphs and thus, it is the responsibility of every government servant to ensure the same.

The court was hearing a plea for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated for illegally harvesting crops planted by the de facto complainant. The petitioner contended that the police had registered a case for a civil dispute. The court added that it expected the investigating officer to conduct the investigation in a fair manner by considering the evidence produced by the parties. The court thus disposed of the petition granting liberty to the investigating officer to conduct the investigation fairly by verifying the materials and completing the investigation as expeditiously as possible.

If Justice Swaminathan Was Affected By External Factors, He Should Have Recused: Third Judge On Split Verdict In Savukku Shankar Detention Case

Case Title: A Kamala v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 234

The Madras High Court on Thursday ruled that the split verdict passed concerning the detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar was without following the principles of natural justice granting fair opportunity. The court thus directed the matter to be heard afresh by the bench dealing with habeas corpus pleas.

The order was made by Justice G Jayachandran, the third judge appointed by the Acting Chief Justice following the split verdict. Justice Jayachandran noted that while the court was not bound by a hard and fast rule of granting 4 weeks to file counter, especially in cases dealing with detention orders, the authority needed to be given a reasonable opportunity to justify the detention order. He noted that the impugned order suffered from a violation of natural justice as the state was not allowed to file a counter.

The judge added that if Justice Swaminathan was affected by external factors, he should have recused himself from hearing the case, thereby not allowing a negative bias.

Seniors Extracting Work From Junior Lawyers Without Pay Violates Fundamental Rights: Madras HC Suggests Bar Council To Fix Minimum Stipend

Case Title: Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 235

The Madras High Court has suggested the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to fix a minimum stipend for engaging a junior lawyer to ensure his livelihood is protected.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that often, young lawyers were unable to survive due to meager payments from their senior lawyers. The court added that senior lawyers who extracted work from junior lawyers without paying them a minimum stipend were in fact exploiting the young lawyers and directly violating their fundamental rights, which the court could not allow.

The court added that one of the functions of the State Bar Council was to safeguard the rights, privileges, interest, and livelihoods of the advocates who have enrolled with great ambitions. The court observed that it could not permit the exploitation of young lawyers in any circumstance and thus directed the state to fix the minimum stipend.

Madras High Court Urges Parliament To Assess Efficiency Of IBC And Consider Recovery Percentage From Successful Resolution Processes

Case Title: National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 236

The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Seshasayee urged the Parliament to assess and evaluate the working efficiency of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') and questioned whether the Parliament has considered the general recovery percentage achieved from a successful corporate debtor resolution process.

The High Court observed that the issue is not what constitutes a statutory liability, but rather why the corporate debtor's liability should be distributed socially when the debtor likely did not share its profits with society during prosperous times, aside from legally mandated Corporate Social Responsibility.

Madras High Court Declines To Quash FIR Against BJP's Kesava Vinayagam, But Asks Police Not To Disturb Him

Case Title: Kesava Vinayagam v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237

The Madras High Court has refused to quash the FIR registered against Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) Organising Secretary Kesava Vinayagam in connection with the seizure of Rs.3.99 crore from a train for alleged bribing of voters during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.

Justice G Jayachandran observed that though the plea for quashing the FIR was not maintainable, the court needed to ensure that the person's liberty was protected. The court thus directed the investigating agency to seek the court's permission to summon Vinayagam, if they found any materials in connection with the case.

Co-Operative Societies Not Public Authorities, Not Bound By Right To Information Act: Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: The President v The State Information Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238

The Madras High Court has recently held that co-operative societies registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act do not fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act and thus are not bound by the Act.

Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan thus set aside an order passed by the State Information Commissioner directing Madhanam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society to furnish all information sought by a man under the RTI Act.

Entity Is Entitled To Know Status Under Which Its Presence Is Sought In Statutory Proceedings: Madras HC Sets Aside CCI Proceeding, Calls It Opaque

Case Title: MRF Ltd v Competition Commission of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 239

The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Competition Commission of India allowing an investigation to be carried out into a suspected rigging involving tyre manufacturer MRF Ltd.

Noting that MRF was not a “party” to the proceeding and yet the CCI allowed an investigation against MRF, Justice Anita Sumanth noted that an entity was entitled to know the status under which its presence and participation was sought in a statutory proceeding. The court noted that the applications and their consequences would vary depending on the status of a party in a proceeding and thus, unless a party was aware of the provision under which it was involved, it would not be able to pursue appropriate legal remedy.

Pay Rs.15Kto 20K To Junior Advocates As Monthly Stipend : Madras High Court Directs Advocates

Case Title: Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 240

The Madras High Court has asked advocates and senior advocates in the State rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to pay a monthly stipend of Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 to Junior Advocates engaged with them.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan thus modified an earlier direction that the court had issued on Wednesday (12^th June) asking the bar associations in the state to pay the monthly stipend. In its order released on Thursday, the court directed the Advocates to pay this amount.

The court thus fixed a minimum stipend of Rs. 20,000 for young lawyers practicing in Chennai, Madurai, and Coimbatore and a minimum stipend of Rs 15,000 for lawyers in other districts. The court added that the amounts were fixed by taking into account the basic cost of living and the expenditure costs prevalent in the state.

State Should Exercise Parens Patriae Jurisdiction For Mentally Disabled Without Family Support: Madras High Court

Case Title: Gurunathan v The Deputy Director and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 241

The Madras High Court has observed that the State is expected to take care of the mentally disabled persons who are without any family support. The court added that though Section 9(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act deals with a child with disability lacking family support, the provisions could be extended to even adults who are suffering from mental disability and are lacking family support.

Justice GR Swaminathan thus came to the rescue of a father, whose son was suffering from mental illness. The court directed the Deputy Director of Directorate of Public Health, The Chief Administrative Officer of Tamil Nadu Institute of Mental Health and the Dean of Tirunelveli Medical College to take appropriate steps to take the couple's son in their custody and provide lifelong medicare to him.

Madras High Court Directs State To Prescribe Separate Norms For Transgender Persons In Employment And Educational Avenues

Case Title: R Anushri v The Secretary TNPSC and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 242

The Madras High Court has directed the state government to prescribe separate norms for transgender persons in employment and educational avenues. The court added that transgender persons should not be clubbed under male or female categories and should instead be treated as a special category and the norms extended to other special categories should be extended to them.

Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan remarked that the state government was still confused about how to place transgender persons and perpetuating this confusion by placing transgender persons under the male or female category.

The court thus came to the rescue of a transwoman who wished to participate in the recruitment for a post included in Combined Civil Service Examination – II (Non-Interview Post). She had contended that by not including her under the special category, the TNPSC had denied her the opportunity to be considered.

Measurement Of Individual's Height Also Depends On Timing Of Measurement: Madras High Court

Case Title: MM Karthikeyan v Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 243

The Madras High Court has recently noted that the measurement of an individual's height also depends upon the measurement's timing and that the issue regarding height should be resolved by standards and principles laid down by the court.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing the plea of a man, who was rejected from the recruitment to the Assistant Conservator of Forest post as he fell short of the minimum prescribed height by 0.5 cm. The court directed the TNPSC to round off the height and declare him as having qualified with the minimum physical standards as far as height was concerned.

Madras High Court Sentences Man To 6 Months Imprisonment For Sending Letters To CJI Making Scandalous Remarks Against Judges

Case Title: High Court of Madras v PU Venkatesan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 244

The Madras High Court has held a former loco pilot guilty of committing criminal contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1971 by calling the judges criminals and sending letters to the Chief Justice of India making scandalous and reckless allegations against sitting judges of the High Court and a former judge of the Supreme Court.

Bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan deemed it appropriate to impose a maximum sentence on the man, PU Venkatesan, and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The court also directed the Inspector of Police to arrest the Venkatesan and present him before the jail authorities.

The court observed that Venkatesan's acts were contemptuous not only against the concerned judges but also the entire justice delivery system. The court also took note that Venkatesan had not shown any remorse for his actions and had rather challenged the judges to punish him.

POSH Act |Rape, Continuous Molestation & Harassment Are Continuing Misconduct, Fresh Cause Of Action Arises Every Day Till Redressal: Madras High Court

Case Title: R Mohanakrishnan v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 245

The Madras High Court has recently observed that an allegation of rape of continuous molestation and harassment, unlike a lewd inappropriate remark, is a continuing misconduct and every day till the situation is redressed, a fresh cause of action arises.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that in these instances, the injury did not end by forced physical intercourse but added up every day when the victim was made to remain silent and face the molester at the workplace. The court observed that this injury was further confounded by fear of victimization and thus would amount to continuous sexual harassment.

he court added that sexual harassment caused considerable harm to women and affected their physical and mental health. The court added that often, the mental deterioration included depression, self-doubt, withdrawal from employment, fear of being labeled as a troublemaker, spoiling the organization's reputation, etc. The court added that the victims also feared being blamed for the harassment and the victimization from the employer and society.

Ban On Ferocious Dogs | Process Should Be Transparent, Committee Should Be Made Known To Public To Prevent Future Challenges: Madras HC

Case Title: Kennel Club of India v The Union of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 246

While closing a plea filed by the Kennel Club Of India against the Central Government's notification banning the import of certain dogs by classifying them as ferocious and dangerous, the Madras High Court remarked that the process involved public policy and thus had to be transparent.

Justice Anitha Sumanth noted that the process of classifying the dogs is related to public policy and thus attempts should be made to make the whole process transparent. The court added that the committee, to be constituted by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying for classifying the dogs should be made known to the public, thus ensuring that there are no future challenges to thwart the process.

Marital Status Of Woman Cannot Be Determining Factor For Giving Up Her Child In Adoption: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ashok Kumar v The Inspector General of Registration and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247

The Madras High Court has observed that a woman's marital status should not be a determining factor while considering her child's adoption.

Justice GR Swaminathan observed the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 which mandates consent of the other parent would not apply when the mother/father of the child to be given in adoption is absent.

The court added that when the father was wholly indifferent to the minor's matter and the mother was exclusively in charge the father could be considered to be absent as was the present case.

Live-In Relationship With Married Man Cannot Be Treated As Relationship "In The Nature Of Marriage": Madras High Court

Case Title: P Jayachandran v A Yesuranthinam (Died) and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248

The Madras High Court has recently observed that a live-in relationship between a married man and an unmarried woman was not one "in the nature of marriage" giving rights to the parties. The court added that in the absence of any codified law, the live in partner could not seek any succession or inheritance of the property of the other part.

Justice RMT Teekaa Raman thus refused relief to a man who had entered into a live-in relationship with a woman despite being married. The court noted that a relationship in the nature of marriage required that the couple held themselves out in the society akin to spouses, voluntarily cohabited, must be of legal age to marry, and must be otherwise qualified to enter into marriage. The court noted that since the man's marriage with his wife still existed at the time of the live-in relationship, the live-in relationship could not be termed as one in the nature of marriage.

Madras High Court Grants Conditional Bail To Temple Priest Accused Of Sexually Harassing Devotee

Case Title: Karthick Munusamy v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 249

The Madras High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to Karthick Munusamy, temple priest of Kalikampal temple accused of raping and threatening of kill a woman devotee.

Justice TV Tamilselvi granted bail but directed Karthick to appear before the investigating officer regularly and cooperate with the investigation.

The case against Karthick was that while he was working as the Guru of the temple, he had befriended a woman devotee, who had moved to Chennai in search of work and later sexually harassed her after offering her spiked drink.

Dr Subbiah Murder | Trial Court Showed "Callous Attitude" In Failing To Appreciate Evidence, Disregarded Legal Proposition: Madras High Court

Case Title: State v P Ponnusamy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 250

While setting aside the conviction of all 9 accused in the infamous Dr. Subbiah murder case, the Madras High Court recently observed that the trial court had taken a callous approach in the case, by not appreciating the evidence before it and disregarding the settled legal proposition.

Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, and directed them to be released unless their presence was otherwise required for the case.

Employee Cannot Be Penalised For Appointing Authority's Failure To Follow Communal Rotation Guidelines: Madras High Court

Case Title: R Sasikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251

The Madras High Court recently set aside the order cancelling the appointment of a Jeep Driver who was wrongly appointed to a post earmarked for members from the Scheduled Castes community. (Arunthathiyars on Preferential Basis)

Justice RN Manjula held that the employee had not suppressed any material facts and he could not be penalized or made a scapegoat for the appointing authority's failure to follow the guidelines of communal rotation. Noting that the appointment was cancelled after 14 years, the court added that the Government was a model employer and could not adopt such atrocious practices.

[Preventive Detention] When Liberty Is Involved, Officers Are Expected To Show Sensitivity In Dealing With Representations: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tmt. Sabeena Beevi v The Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 252

The Madras High Court recently observed that detaining authority was expected to show sensitivity while dealing with representations relating to preventive detention. The court added that when there was unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority in forwarding representations to the sponsoring authority, the least safeguards guaranteed by the constitution were denied to the detenu.

The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that since preventive detention was a serious encroachment of one's personal liberty, it was necessary to ensure certain minimum safeguards for the protection of the person sought to be preventively detained.

Numerals Inserted In Provision For Illustrative Clarity, Cannot Override The Provision Itself: Madras HC Holds 1-Year PG Degree Valid For Recruitment

Case Title: K Paranthaman v The Secretary, TNPSC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 253

The Madras High Court recently observed that numeric illustrations inserted in a provision for clarity and as abundant caution could not add, modify or override the provision itself.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus ruled that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission could not hold a Master of Library and Information Science degree as an invalid degree merely because it was of one-year duration and the same would be a pedantic approach.

Biological Siblings Can't Claim Heirship Of Adopted Child; Adoption Severs Ties With Biological Family: Madras High Court

Case Title: V Sakthivel v The Revenue Divisional Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 254

The Madras High Court has recently observed that when a child is adopted, all ties of the child with his or her biological family is deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus noted that the biological family of the adopted child cannot be called the legal heirs of the adopted child and have a claim over the property inherited by him/her from the adoptive family.

ITC Wrongfully Availed But No Fraud/Misstatement Proven; Madras High Court Imposes Token Penalty

Case Title: M/s.Greenstar Fertilisers Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 255

The Madras High Court has imposed a token penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee instead of a higher penalty as the assessee wrongfully availed of the input tax credit (ITC), but the department could not prove fraud or misstatement on the part of the assessee.

The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the assessee reversed the ITC. Penalties under Section 74 deal with situations where credit is availed or utilized by reason of fraud or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts that was not proved by the department.

Journalists Should Conduct Themselves With Dignity: Madras High Court Refuses Bail To YouTuber Felix Jerald In Savukku Shankar Case

Case Title: Felix Jerald v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256

The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed the bail petition filed by Youtuber Felix Jerald in a case relating to the interview of Savukku Shankar in which Savukku made derogatory remarks against women police officers.

Justice TV Thamilselvi agreed with the prosecution that by interviewing Shankar, Jerald had provided a platform to the latter, to make such objectionable statements. The judge also pointed out that being a journalist, Jerald was expected to behave in a dignified manner and he could have edited out the derogatory portions of the interview before making it public.

Lacks Inventive Step: Madras High Court Denies Patent To IIT-Madras' Method Of Doping Potassium In Ammonium Perchlorate

Case Title: Indian Institute of Technology v The Controller of Patents & Designs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 257

The Madras High Court has affirmed an order passed by the Controller of Patents & designs rejecting the patent application filed by Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras's method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that there was no experimental data to show that the method had an economic significance. Further, the court also noted that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.

The court noted that the invention merely employed dissolution, filtration, heating, drying and reheating and the resultant product was also a mere variant of an already existing product. Thus, noting that a new reactant was not used while adopting the known process, the court conclude that the claimed invention was excluded from patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.

[False Promise To Marry] Court Must Ensure That Not Only Are 'Women Not Misused, But Equally That Law Is Not Misused Against Men': Madras HC

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 258

While setting aside a conviction in a sexual harassment case, the Madras High Court recently observed that when the victim already knew that the accused was a married man and father of a child, she could not allege that the consent was obtained on a false promise of marriage.

Justice M Dhandapani observed that while dealing with cases of such nature, the courts had a two-fold duty- firstly to see that women are not misused and secondly and equally that the law is not misused against the male folk. The court noted that though the courts had to give a soft touch to the evidence of the victims on the premise that women would not be the aggressors against males, it was also important to note that no innocent male was subjected to the vagaries of the women folk.

No Legal Right, Can't Say Fee Is Exorbitant: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Reduce Application Fee For AIBE

Case Title: Gokul Abhimanyu v Union of India and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 259

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking to reduce the application fee for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) conducted by the Bar Council of India.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice GR Swaminathan observed that unlike the enrolment fee prescribed under the Advocates Act, there was no statutory provision relating to the examination fee for the All India Bar Examination. In such a situation, the court noted that there was no legal right, for which a mandamus could be issued.

The court further noted that even in cases where there was no legal right, the court could interfere if it opined that the quantum of fee was exorbitant. In the present case however, the court noted that the application fee was Rs. 3,500/- which could not be called exorbitant.

No Person Should Be Denied Quality Medical Treatment On Economic Ground, State's Duty To Cater Heath Needs Of All: Madras High Court

Case Title: B Anantha Lakshmi and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 260

While dealing with a case relating to the bond period of PG Doctors, the Madras High Court stressed that a poor person, who is unable to afford paid treatment should not be treated differently.

The court added that while all medical services could not be rendered free of cost to the citizens, the goal of a welfare state must be to move towards affordable and easily accessible healthcare to all of its citizens.

Justice SM Subramaniam added that the postgraduate doctors' plea to count services rendered during the COVID-19 period under their bond policy was unsustainable. The court noted that during such an immense crisis, individuals from different wings of the government came forward and rendered invaluable services and to use this period of selfless service as a way of out-of-bond police was unjustifiable and unacceptable.

Madras High Court Permits Voter To Seek Records Of Disproportionate Assets Case Acquitting Social Welfare Minister Geetha Jeevan

Case Title: S Shanmugasundaram v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 261

The Madras High Court recently allowed a man to file a copy application seeking copies of a disproportionate asset case involving a politician which ended in the acquittal of the public servant. The man had sought copies of a case in which P Geetha Jeevan, the Minister for Social Welfare and Women Empowerment in Tamil Nadu was acquitted.

Justice G Jayachandran noted that when the case involved misconduct by a public servant who was elected in a democratic process, the voters should not be prevented from perusing the records and arriving at a conclusion on whether his representative was falsely prosecuted or had gained un-meritorious acquittal.

Campus Violence By Teachers Is A Very Serious Matter, Cannot Be Condoned By Receiving An Apology Letter: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr. TV Swaminathan v State and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 262

The Madras High Court recently observed that teachers protesting in colleges violently was a serious matter that could not be condoned merely by receiving an apology letter.

Justice G Jayachandran thus dismissed a petition seeking to quash a criminal case registered against the teaching staff of Pachaiyappa's Trust for protesting. The court added that bypassing the criminal law procedures by obtaining an apology letter for an act of violence inside the college campus was not in the interest of justice.

Madras High Court Directs TN Bar Council To Facilitate Elections For Egmore Court Advocate's Association

Case Title: S Chandan Babu v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 263

The Madras High Court recently directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to facilitate elections to the Efmore Court Advocate's Association (ECAA).

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan directed the State Bar Council to appoint an Election Commissioner and the required number of officers to assist the election commissioner in peacefully conducting the election as per the existing approved byelaws of ECAA. The court noted that the Bar Council was bound to take responsibility for conducting peaceful elections to the recognized bar associations and take appropriate disciplinary action in case of any unruly behavior.

The court also directed the Commissioner of Police to provide necessary police protection for the smooth conduct of the elections in the Association premises.

Govt Staff & Institutions Not Suited For Hospitality Industry As It Demands Courteous Treatment & Quick Responses For Customers: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. SRM Hotels Private Limited v The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 264

While setting aside the State Government's letter rejecting to renew a lease to SRM Hotels Private Limited, the Madras High Court observed that though the State claimed that the hotel could be managed by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation (TTDC), the Government staff and institutions were not suited for the hospitality industry which required courteous treatment from the staff.

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that one of the reasons for disinvestment and outsourcing in the hospitality industry was the State's inability to manage the industry. The court added that certain businesses should be run by private persons.

Tax Demand on Post Sale Discounts Received By Way Of Financial Credit Notes Not Tenable: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 265

The Madras High Court has quashed the order imposing tax demands on post-sale discounts received by way of financial credit notes on the ground that receiving a discount is not tenable in law.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that the assessing officer concluded that the taxable person is providing a service to the supplier while taking advantage of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier. This conclusion is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law.