Madras High Court Monthly Digest: March 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

J Sheena v. TNPSC, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

M/s.Indralok Hotel Pvt. Ltd. versus The Greater Chennai Corporation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

Karthick v Registrar General, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

D Bright Joseph v Church of South India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

M Priya v Canara Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

V Boovalingam v Ponnamani and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

S Harikrishnan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 99

M/s.Sri Sasthaa Constructions Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 100

M/s.Saravana Selvarathnam Retails Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

The State v Muneeswaran and Others, 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 102

R Manibhyarathi v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

The Director General and Others v Narender Chauhan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

Suganya Jebi Sarojini v The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

Taeyang Metal India Private Limited vs DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

The Ramco Cements Limited vs ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

A Aashifa Begum v Khader Beevi and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

M/s.Sabari Alloys & Metals India Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 110

R Rajamani v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 111

Seva Bharathi TamilNadu v Surendar @ Naathikan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 112

J Ramesh Kumar v Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 113

Ankit Tiwari v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 114

Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple v Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115

K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116

Mohammed Ashik v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 117

Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan verses ACIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 118

Vijaykumar Versus The State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 119

M/s.LKS Gold House Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 120

A Rajasekaran v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 121

The Salem Urban Co-operative Bank limited Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS Ward), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

Gandhiyawati T Ramesh v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 123

Raji v Executive Magistrate and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 124

K Mariappan v The Government of Tamil Nadi and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 125

S Menaka v KSK Nepolian Socraties (batch case), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 126

K Nagomi v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 127

B Ramkumar Adityan v Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 128

M Kesavan v The Principal and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 129

The Government of Tamil Nadu v Dr.S.Vijay Vikraman, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 130

T.Senguttuvan v Ashokkumar K and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 131

Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 132

Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 133

Simon and Others v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 134

Srikaran V @ Murugan v The Director of Rehabilitation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 135

Tvl.Vardhan Infrastructure Versus The Special Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 136

Auro Logistics Ltd Versus The Assistant Director (SRO), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 137

Ezhilan v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 138

K Ramachandran v The District Educational Officer (Elementary Education), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 139

Netvantage Technologies Pvt Ltd v The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 140

M/s.Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 141

State of Tamil Nadu v MK Stalin, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142

REPORTS

Madras High Court Directs TNPSC To Cancel Provisional Selection List For 245 Civil Judges, Says Reservation Rules Not Followed

Case Title: J Sheena v. TNPSC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to cancel the provisional list for the recruitment of 245 civil judges in the State.

Asking the TNPSC to prepare a revised provisional list within two weeks, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that the impugned provisional list was prepared without applying Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conditions of Service Act 2016.

The court agreed with the petitioners and held that the methodology adopted by the Commission was in violation of the scope of Section 27(f) and the interpretation of the Apex Court. The court also said that this erroneous application had resulted in denial of opportunity to other candidates, who would have been otherwise eligible either under the general category or the reserved category.

Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act Mandates 15 days' Time To Be Provided To Property Tax Assessee To Respond To Notice: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Indralok Hotel Pvt. Ltd. versus The Greater Chennai Corporation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

The Madras High Court has held that Section 116A of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, mandates that 15 days' time should be provided to the property tax assessee to respond to the notice before action is taken.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has directed the respondent department to de-seal the restaurant.

The petitioner/assessee has assailed a demand notice that was affixed to the premises of the petitioner. The half-yearly property tax in respect of the Pride Hotel was fixed by the Taxation Appeals Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 11,63,702 with effect from the second half of 2006–07. The order was carried out on appeal by the Greater Chennai Corporation before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

AO's Classification Of Harpic And Lizol Under 28% GST Slab Rate Is Without Application Of Mind: Madras High Court

Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

The Madras High Court has held that Ao's classification of Harpic and Lizol under the 28% GST slab rate is without application of mind.

The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that when objections are raised, a duty is cast on the assessing authority to apply its mind to the objections and deal with each one of them. Failure to do so would vitiate the order of assessment on the ground of non-application of mind.

Courts Need To Strike Balance Between Individuals' Right To Be Forgotten And Citizens' Right To Know: Madras High Court

Case Title: Karthick v Registrar General

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

The Madras High Court recently emphasized that though the courts were expected to preserve data as a court of record, it was also required to strike a balance between the collection of such data and the protection of a person's personnel data.

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that while the courts were expected to possess data, it was the courts discretion to make such data publicly available and such a decision had to be taken consciously and carefully. the bench also observed that the courts could not be compelled to make any information publicly available under the RTI Act.

The court added that the open justice system has brought justice and dispensation of justice to the doorstep of citizens. However, the court added that privacy was an inalienable facet of the right to life and dignity, and thus the courts had to strike a balance between the concept of open justice and the privacy of the litigant. The court also noted that institutions committed to serving justice, the courts could not close their eyes to privacy concerns and a litigant's right to leave behind his past.

Church Of South India Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Except When Discharging Functions Of The Clergy: Madras High Court

Case Title: D Bright Joseph v Church of South India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

The Madras High Court has recently observed that the Church of South India performs public functions when it is engaged in the running of schools, colleges, hospitals, etc and if any action taken by the CSI is detrimental to this public duty, a writ petition against the same would be maintainable.

The bench of Justice R Subramanian, Justice PT Asha, and Justice N Senthilkumar also emphasized that when the CSI was performing functions outside the above public duty, ie, when it was engaged in discharging the functions of the clergy, such functions would be outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Like Fulfilling Unwritten Will Of Deceased Govt Servant: Madras HC Says Granting Compassionate Employment Should Be Rule, Denying It An Exception

Case Title: M Priya v Canara Bank

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

The Madras High Court has held that while considering compassionate appointments, granting appointments should be the rule, and denying it should be an exception.

Justice RN Manjula observed that providing compassionate appointment was like fulfilling the unwritten will of the deceased government servant, and required an understanding of how the deceased employee would have wished his dependents to settle in life if he was alive. The court, thus, noted that the authorities needed to consider the applications with both sympathy and empathy.

The court further pointed out that while married daughters had crossed the first challenge of coming under the ambit of the compassionate scheme, they continued to face challenges and were expected to prove that they were depending on the income of the father. The court added that while married sons found it easier to continue living in the family home when married daughters chose to live in their parents' house, it raised eyebrows and was considered unusual.

Parks And Playgrounds Are Lungs Of City, Lands Earmarked Should Not Be Used For Anything Else: Madras High Court

Case Title: V Boovalingam v Ponnamani and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

The Madras High Court recently remarkes that parks and playgrounds are the lungs of a city and lands earmarked for constructing the same should not be used for any other purpose.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice P Dhanabal observed that as per Section 32(4) and Section 122 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules 2019, the building and use of land shall conform to the conditions imposed while sanctioning the land.

Madras High Court Deprecates Udhayanidhi Stalin's Comments Against 'Sanatana Dharma', Refuses To Direct His Removal As Minister

Case Title: T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

The Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to issue a writ of quo warranto against Tamil Nadu Ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin, Sekar Babu and MP A Raja to remove them from their posts because of the comments against Sanatana Dharma.

At the same time, Justice Anita Sumanth made critical remarks against the statements made by the Ministers and observed that those holding constitutional positions should not have made such divisive statements. The court added that Minister Udayanidhi Stalin's statement equating Sanatana Dharma to HIV, AIDS, Malaria etc was perverse and against the constitutional mandate.

The Court specifically criticised HR&CE Minister Sekar Babu for participating in a meeting for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma.

The court added that those holding constitutional positions should propound only constitutionalism and even if there were ideological differences between political leaders, any statement made publicly should be constructive and not destructive.

ALSO READ: Udhayanidhi Stalin's Comments Against 'Sanatana Dharma' Amount To Hate Against Specific Community : Madras High Court

Madras High Court Removes Observation In Judgment That Origin Of Caste System Is Less Than A Century Old

Discipline Is Of Paramount Consideration In Military Services, Lenient View Will Bring Organisational Disorder: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Harikrishnan v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 99

The Madras High Court recently observed that in military services, the paramount consideration was towards discipline and any lenient view would cause organisational disorder.

The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice N Senthilkumar was hearing a plea against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding a driver's removal from service and seeking to reinstate him with monetary benefits.

The court opined that the petitioner had not considered his employment seriously and a lenient view could not be taken in such cases. The court also observed that when such unauthorised absence was not viewed strictly, it could set a bad precedent.

The court also rejected the petitioner's submission that the authorities had not considered his explanation. The court observed that it was for the competent authority to decide whether the explanation was satisfactory and it was not for the court to substitute its views for the vires of the competent authority.

Madras High Court Directs AO To Allow Transitional Credit Of Purchase Tax Paid Under GST Act If Already Paid under VAT Act

Case Title: M/s.Sri Sasthaa Constructions Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 100

The Madras High Court has directed the Assessing Officer to allow transitional credit of purchase tax paid under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017, if the petitioner had paid “purchase tax” under Section 12(1) of the TNVAT Act.

The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the petitioner deserves a chance to defend the case as the impugned assessment order was passed during the period when the country was in semi-lockdown mode. If the VAT-TDS had indeed remained unutilized for discharging tax liability under the TNVAT Act, 2006, there should be a fresh adjustment of the amount out of the VAT-TDS towards the tax liability of the petitioner, and thereafter, ITC, which would have remained unutilized, ought to have been allowed to be transitioned under Section 140 of the Act or refunded to the petitioner under Section 54 of the TNGST Act, 2017 read with the TNVAT Act, 2006.

CBDT's Digital Evidence Investigation Manual Is Mandatory For Income Tax Dept. While Conducting Searches, Seizing Electronic Evidence: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Saravana Selvarathnam Retails Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

The Madras High Court has held that it is mandatory for the income tax department to follow the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) while conducting searches and seizing electronic evidence.

The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the electronic data has been collected in.txt files in violation of the provisions of the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual. Though the procedures have not been followed while collecting the electronic data in.txt files, the data collected by the respondents can be relied upon only if the said data are supported by the corroborative evidence.

Magistrate Cannot Entertain Voluntary Surrender Of Accused When There Is No Jurisdiction To Try The Case: Madras High Court

Case Title: The State v Muneeswaran and Others

Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 102

The Madras High Court has directed the Judicial Magistrates to not accept the voluntary surrender petitions of accused persons when the Magistrate court does not have jurisdiction to try the case. The court made it clear that as per Section 167 of CrPC an accused had to be “forwarded” to the Magistrate by the police and only then the court could entertain a surrender petition filed by the accused.

Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that remand report and case diary are jurisdictional conditions for authorising detention under Section 167(2) as it allows the Magistrate to apply his mind anad effectively determine whether a case for remand is made out. Thus, in the court's opinion, when an accused voluntarily surrenders, the remand, based on only the FIR copy is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction.

“Water Bodies Can't Be Obliterated In Name Of Public Interest”: Madras HC Directs State To Open Website With Details Of Waterbodies Across TN

Case Title: R Manibhyarathi v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

While emphasizing the need to protect the fast-disappearing water bodies in the state of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court has directed the State government to open a dedicated website containing the details of all water bodies across the state, including their survey number, physical location, details of village, taluk, etc.

The Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi observed that water bodies belonged to the society and though their ownership technically existed with the government, it also belonged to other living beings and thus it was the duty of the officials to ensure that the quality of water was not affected in any manner. The court also made it clear that water bodies could not be obliterated in the name of public interest.

Reacting With 'Thumbs Up' Emoji To WhatsApp Message Informing Of Murder Does Not Amount To Celebrating The Murder: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Director General and Others v Narender Chauhan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of a single judge reinstating a police constable into the service who was dismissed from service for reacting with a “thumbs up” emoji to a message about the brutal murder of a superior officer.

The Madurai bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the thumbs-up signal was also an alternative for the word “OK” and sharing the same could not be considered as celebrating the brutal murder. The court also noted that the employee, who was not so conversant with WhatsApp had only meant to acknowledge that he had seen the message. Thus, noting that the employee did not have any antecedents, the court held his explanation to be believable.

High Court Reads Down Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar University's Ph.D. Admission Rule Which Mandated Two-Year LLM Degrees For Applicants

Case Title: Suganya Jebi Sarojini v The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

The Madras High Court has read down Regulation 3.1 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Ph.D. Regulations 2020, which prescribed the possession of a 2-year Master's Degree in law as the eligibility criteria for admission to the University's Full-Time Ph.D. program.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the University was bound by the University Grants Regulation (UGC) which had recognized the 1 year LLM program and the University could not knock off any qualification from eligibility. The court added that prescribing higher standards should only be in addition to the existing qualification and not in derogation of it.

Senthil Balaji Case: Madras High Court Refuses To Stay PMLA Trial In Cash For Jobs Scam

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

The Madras High Court has refused to stay the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against MLA and former Minister of Tamil Nadu Senthil Balaji in a case of cash-for-job scam.

Noting that it was too early to stay the trial, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan refused to grant any interim reliefs on the plea filed by the MLA and directed the Enforcement Directorate to file a counter to the plea by April 25^th.

When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Balaji contended that the trial in the money laundering case had to follow the trial in the predicate offence. He added that of Balaji was convicted in the ED trial and subsequently acquitted in the IPC offence, it would lead to manifest injustice. He also argued that deciding the money laundering case before the predicate offence would be like putting the cart before the horse.

Internal Arrangement W/r/t Transfer Of Assessment Proceedings Not Material For Ascertaining Limitation: Madras High Court

Case Title: Taeyang Metal India Private Limited vs DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

Finding that the period of one month expired on July 31, 2022, whereas the assessment order came to be issued on Mar 25, 2023, the Madras High Court Held the assessment order issued beyond time-limit specified in Sec.144C(13) as unsustainable.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that “the directions of the DRP were forwarded to the assessing officer, i.e. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi by uploading the same on 17.06.2022. Although learned senior standing counsel contends that the jurisdictional assessing officer received the directions only on 17.03.2023, for purposes of sub-section (13) of Section 144C, the date of receipt should be reckoned as the date of receipt by the National Faceless Assessment Centre on 17.06.2022”. (Para 7)

Any Order Passed By Referring To Sec 144(C)(1) Should Be Construed Only As Draft Assessment Order: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Ramco Cements Limited vs ITO

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

While dismissing assessee's petition, the Madras High Court held that the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent/ AO is only a draft assessment order in which case, the petitioner/ assessee should approach the appropriate forum and address their grievance in terms of Section 144 (C) of the Income Tax Act.

The Single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “Though the word “draft assessment” is missing, the provision under Section 144 (C) of the Income Tax Act is very much available and any order whatsoever in the form, in the event of the provisions by referring Section 144(C)(1) of the Act, it should be construed only as a draft assessment order. No deficiency or discrepancy could be found in the order for not mentioning the word “draft assessment order” and by virtue of which, it would not get abated”. (Para 12)

Grandparents Can't Be Denied Visitation Rights To Meet Child, Affectionate Relationship With Them Beneficial For Grandkids: Madras High Court

Case Title: A Aashifa Begum v Khader Beevi and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

The Madras High Court has recently emphasized that an affectionate relationship with grandparents is beneficial for a child's development.

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that in custody and guardianship matters, the child's welfare had to be given paramount consideration. The court further noted that there was a need to safeguard the fast-eroding family system in the country and to ensure that the child's overall development is taken care of in the right environment. The court was thus of the opinion that the courts should not deny reasonable access/ visitation rights to the grandparents.

AO Competent To Invoke Section 154 Jurisdiction If Glaring Mistake Of Fact/Law Is Committed While Passing Assessment Order: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Sabari Alloys & Metals India Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 110

The Madras High Court has held that the Assessing Officer is not incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if such officer had committed a glaring mistake of fact or law while passing the assessment order.

The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the meaning of the expression “error apparent on the face of record” is wider than the expression “mistake apparent from the record.”.

The court has held that if an AO has failed to do what is required under the law at the time of passing an assessment order and has passed an assessment order with such defects, such assessment orders can be rectified by the officer by exercising power under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is the effort of the assessing officer while exercising the power under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Presidential Order Of Scheduled Tribes List Can't Be Tinkered With By Court: Madras HC Dismisses Plea To Include Gudugudupukarar Caste In ST List

Case Title: R Rajamani v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 111

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea to include the Gudugudupukarar Caste in the Scheduled Tribe list under Article 342 of the Constitution.

Observing that the presidential order of the Scheduled Tribes list cannot be tinkered with by the court, the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy added that granting such relief will be beyond the purview of the court. The court further said that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes had the authority to see whether a particular tribe was under the parameters of Scheduled Tribe.

Law Does Not Give Absolute License To Youtubers And Social Media To Spoil Reputation Of Others: Madras High Court Awards Rs 50 Lakhs Damages

Case Title: Seva Bharathi TamilNadu v Surendar @ Naathikan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 112

The Madras High Court has recently observed that the court cannot shut its eyes to false statements circulated on social media to target and blackmail innocent persons.

The court observed that the law did not give any license to YouTubers and people on social media to spoil the reputation of others. The court thus directed a Youtuber to pay Rs. 50 Lakh as damages to Seva Bharathi for allegedly making derogatory statements linking the trust with the custodial death of Jayaraj and Bennix in 2020.

Justice N Satish Kumar further observed that no one could conduct interviews intruding on the privacy of others on the pretext of freedom of speech and expression. The court added that if such behaviors were condoned, every blackmailer would end up using social media to blackmail others by spreading false and unnecessary news.

"Leaders Shouldn't Be Stopped From Meeting People Who Elected Them": Madras HC Directs Coimbatore Police To Allow PM Modi's Road Show, Imposes Restrictions

Case Title: J Ramesh Kumar v Commissioner of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 113

The Madras High Court has directed the Coimbatore police to grant permission for conducting a 4 km road show in Coimbatore in connection with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the city on March 18, 2024. The court has however imposed some restrictions on the conduct of the roadshow. The district police authorities had denied permission for the road show earlier today.

Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the Assistant Commissioner to grant necessary permission and police protection upon reasonable condition. One such condition was to ensure that no flex boards were erected by the organizers during the roadshow. The court also directed the authorities to make sure that the roadshow is conducted in a smooth manner without giving rise to any law and order problems or cause security concerns for the Prime Minister.

While rejecting the State's objection to the conduct of a roadshow, the court pointed out that some hindrance to the free movement of people was unavoidable in such cases where a Political leader wished to interact with the people. The court added that this could not be a ground to deny permission and it was upon the police to find an alternative. The court highlighted that the leaders were elected by the people and thus should not be stopped from meeting them.

Madras High Court Denies Bail To Arrested ED Officer Ankit Tiwari, Cites Apex Court's Stay On Investigation

Case Title: Ankit Tiwari v The State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 114

The Madras High Court has dismissed the second bail petition filed by arrested Enforcement Directorate officer Ankit Tiwari. Ankit was arrested in December 2023 by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The DVAC had alleged that Ankit had demanded money from one Dr. Suresh Babu as a bribe to close the pending case against him.

Justice Dhandapani, while dismissing Tiwari's revision petition, observed that the court was bound to follow the ratio laid down by the Apex court and that its hands were tied from deciding the case on merits due to the reason that there was an interim stay by the Apex Court.

The court further observed that though the Supreme Court had permitted the High Court to consider the matter on merits, Tiwari would have been eligible for statutory bail only if the investigating agency had not filed the chargesheet within the stipulated time frame. In the present case, the court noted that the investigating agency was ready with the chargesheet on the 55^th day itself but its hands were tied due to the order of the Supreme Court. Thus, the court granted liberty to the parties to approach the Apex Court to clarify the order.

No One Can Alienate Or Create Encumbrance On Land Belonging To Deity; Laws Of Limitation & Adverse Possession Not Applicable: Madras High Court

Case Title: Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple v Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115

The Madras High Court has recently observed that no person can alienate or create encumbrance for land belonging to an idol or deity without following the due process of law. The court thus highlighted that the law of limitation or adverse possession does not apply to a land belonging to a deity, idol or temple.

Justice P Velmurugan made the observations in a plea filed by the Fit Person of Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal temple seeking directions to the concerned authorities to restore the patta of the temple land.

Tax Recovery Officer Cannot Declare Sale Made By Assessee In Favour Of 3rd Party As Void: Madras High Court

Case Title: K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116

The Madras High Court has held that a tax recovery officer cannot declare a sale made by the assessee in favour of a third party void if he finds that the property of the assessee was transferred by the assessee to a third party with an intention to defraud the revenue.

The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the Income Tax Department will have to file a suit in terms of Rule 11 (6) of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, though under Rule 11 (6) of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the party against whom an order of attachment is made has to institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right which he claims over the property in dispute, and subject to the result of such suit (if any), the order of the Tax Recovery Officer shall be conclusive.

Rash Driving | Criminal Jurisprudence Must Move Towards Reforming Teenagers Than Branding Them As Criminals: Madras High Court

Case Title: Mohammed Ashik v Inspector of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 117

The Madras High Court recently observed that while dealing with rash and negligent driving among youngsters, the aim of criminal jurisprudence must be towards reforming them and not branding the teenagers as criminals.

Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that instead of dumping the teenagers as criminals, they must be made to understand the consequences of reckless driving. The court thus suggested a conveyor belt-like system where the teenager indulging in reckless driving would get into the system and come out as a reformed person who no longer got involved in such reckless driving.

Wilful Failure To Furnish Return As Per Sec 139(1) Is Only Criterion For Initiation Of Prosecution U/s 276CC: Madras High Court

Case Title: Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan verses ACIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 118

The Madras High Court recently highlighted that provision of Section 278E of the Income tax Act brings in a statutory presumption regarding the existence of a culpable mental state.

Accordingly, the High Court refused to interfere in the criminal proceedings and relegated the petitioner/ taxpayer to the trial, while stating that the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the contrary and that can be done only at the time of the trial.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that “the only criterion for initiation of prosecution is that there must be a wilful failure to furnish returns as required under Section 139(1) of the Act and once that requisite is fulfilled, the statutory presumption under Section 278E starts operating and this provision brings in a statutory presumption with regard to the existence of a culpable mental state”. (Para 11)

Availment Of Lower ITC Than Amount Reflected In Auto-Populated GSTR 2A Return Is Clear Non-Application Of Mind, Madras High Court Quashes Assessment Order

Case Title: Vijaykumar Versus The State Tax Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 119

The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment order and held that the petitioner availed of a lower amount as ITC than the amount reflected in the auto-populated GSTR 2A return. The petitioner wrongly availed of ITC, which indicates non-application of mind.

The court quashed the assessment order, and the matter was remanded to the assessing officer for reconsideration. The petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the assessing officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.

Assessing Officers Are Not Governed By Strict Rules Of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 In Case Of Assessment Proceedings: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.LKS Gold House Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 120

The Madras High Court has held that assessing officers are not governed by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, before an assessee officer are not judicial proceedings. It is a quasi-judicial proceeding before a quasi-judicial officer. The provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872, particularly the special provisions relating to evidence relating to Sections 65A, 65B, and 66, are not relevant.

The court held that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including court-martial. It does not apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not apply to a quasi-judicial proceeding before a quasi-judicial officer, such as an assessee officer under various tax laws or the appellate authority and tribunal under them.

Sankararaman Murder Case | Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Punishment Imposed On District Judge Who Held Conference Call With Accused

Case Title: A Rajasekaran v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 121

The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the removal of service of an Additional District Judge who was accused of engaging in a conference call with the accused in the Sankararaman murder case.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that a Judicial Officer was expected to maintain a high level of integrity and in the present case, the charges against the Judicial officer were proved. The court added that the charges were grave and touched upon the integrity and honesty of a Judicial officer. Thus, the court held that the punishment of removal from service was not disproportionate.

10% of Demand Already Paid By Assessee, Madras High Court Allows Cooperative Bank's Writ Appeal By Waiving 10% Pre-Deposit

Case Title: The Salem Urban Co-operative Bank limited Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS Ward)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

The Madras High Court has waived the condition of payment of a 10% pre-deposit as the 10% demand was already paid by the assessee.

The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq have observed that the single judge, while taking note of the financial hardship expressed by the assessee, modified CIT (TDS)'s order and permitted the assessee to deposit the amount in three instalments. The aggrieved assessee filed writ appeals, whereby the Division Bench waived the payment of the balance 10% of the pre-deposit and directed the disposal of the appeals on merits within eight weeks after hearing the assessee.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Allotment Of Lotus Symbol To Bharatiya Janata Party

Case Title: Gandhiyawati T Ramesh v The Chief Election Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 123

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by founder of Ahimsa Socialist Party, T Ramesh seeking to cancel the allotment of Lotus symbol to the Bharatiya Janata Party.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the plea and directed Ramesh to deposit Rs. 10,000, out of the 20,000 he had deposited as a pre-condition for proving bonafide, to the Tamil Nadu Legal Service Authority.

Ramesh submitted that the lotus being the national flower represented the entire Nation and thus allotting the lotus symbol to a political party was unjust. He also submitted that allotting a lotus symbol to a particular party was a disgrace to the national integrity. Ramesh had also argued that lotus was considered auspicious and sacred and played a central role in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.

Madras High Court Allows Daily Pooja At Villupuram Temple Sealed Over Caste Conflict But Precludes Devotees' Entry

Case Title: Raji v Executive Magistrate and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 124

The Madras High Court has paved way for performing daily Pooja at the Villupuram Draupathiamman temple which was sealed in June last year following caste related conflicts.

Noting that the temple has existed since centuries and not performing poojas will have an impact on the sentiments of the local villagers, Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE, Villupuram District to perform poojas in the temple. The court, however, directed that the temple will be opened only to allow the Poojari (priest) to enter the temple to perform pooja and no one else will be allowed inside the temple until further orders.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking 4% Reservation For PwD Candidates In Promotion To Post Of District Judge, Cites Non-Existence Of Service Rules

Case Title: K Mariappan v The Government of Tamil Nadi and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 125

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking reservation to a differently abled person for promotion to the post of District Judge per Section 34 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the present service rules only provided for providing 4% reservation in direct recruitments and not while considering promotions. Thus, in the absence of service rules, the court was not inclined to grant the relief prayed for.

The court also noted that the petitioner, K Mariappan, had already availed the benefit of the reservation during direct recruitment. The court thus noted that claiming the inadequate presence of Persons with Disabilities in the cadre of District Judges was unfounded and would only result in unjust acceleration of seniority.

S.24 Hindu Marriage Act | Interim Maintenance Order Is Interlocutory In Nature, Can Only Be Reviewed Not Appealed: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Menaka v KSK Nepolian Socraties (batch case)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 126

The Madras High Court on Thursday ruled that orders of interim maintenance passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are only interlocutory orders and thus, an appeal against such orders will not lie either under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi however added that a revision against the order of interim maintenance is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution irrespective of whether it was made by a regular civil court or a Family Court.

Stringent Provisions Of Detention Laws Misused In A Callous Manner, Authorities Should Refrain From Passing Careless Orders: Madras High Court

Case Title: K Nagomi v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 127

While setting aside the detention of a man under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act 14 of 1982, the Madras High Court expressed its discontentment with the manner in which the State was callously misusing detention orders.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan however refrained from passing deterrent orders against the State and hoped that the State would mend its approach and refrain from carelessly passing detention orders in the future.

“Can't Compel People To Vote”: Madras HC Dismisses Plea Seeking To Make Proof Of Voting Mandatory For Availing Paid Leave On Poll Day

Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v Secretary and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 128

The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking to make proof of voting mandatory for availing paid leave on polling days in the upcoming elections.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that though every person had a duty to cast a vote, no one could compel a person to vote if he chose not to exercise his right.

The court was hearing a plea by Advocate Ramkumar Adityan. Adityan had sought directions to the Ministry of Personnel and Training, Labour Welfare & Skill Development Department, and the Chief Election Commissioner to make it mandatory to submit necessary proof of voting to avail of paid holiday on the poll day if the employee was a voter in the constituency where a general or bye-election was to be held.

Educational Institutions Can't Claim Lien Over Student's Certificate, Withhold It On Account Of Pending Dues: Madras High Court

Case Title: M Kesavan v The Principal and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 129

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that educational institutions cannot withhold the educational certificates of students with respect to pending dues. The court underlined that educational institutions cannot claim lien over the student's certificates.

Justice Anita Sumanth directed the Principal of Cheran College of Pharmacy to return the original Transfer Certificate, mark sheet of X and XII to a former student. The court also gave liberty to the college to take appropriate measures to recover the monetary outstanding in the manner known to law.

The court was hearing a plea filed by one M Kesavan, a former student of Cheran College seeking directions to the college to return his original transfer certificate and mark sheets of X and XII standards to enable him to secure admission to the School of Agriculture and Animal Science.

Development Of Indian Medicine Like 'Siddha' Will Benefit Mankind But Not Much Attention Given After Independence: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Government of Tamil Nadu v Dr.S.Vijay Vikraman

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 130

The Madras High Court recently stressed the need to have clinical trials in Indian Medicine enabling it to get the required audience at international levels. The court added that the development of Indian Medicine like Siddha will not only benefit mankind but also take the pride of the country to the entire world.

The remarks were made by a bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice B Pugalendhi while hearing a plea by the Government of Tamil Nadu to lift a prohibition order and to allow the demolition of the old Government Siddha Medical College at Palayamkottai. The State had proposed to establish a University for Indian Medicine at Chennai in 30 acres of land.

While the bench lauded the State's efforts to bring in a legislature viz, Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical University Act 2022, it suggested that the State should reconsider its decision to establish the new University in Chennai. The court added that the State should consider setting up the University in the Western Ghats where the Siddha system of medicine originated and where the system could reach its glory.

2021 TN Assembly Elections | Madras High Court Orders Recounting Of 605 Rejected Postal Ballot Votes In Krishnagiri Constituency

Case Title: T.Senguttuvan v Ashokkumar K and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 131

The Madras High Court has ordered the recounting of 605 postal ballot votes which were rejected without assigning proper reasons in the Krishnagiri constituency during the 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.

Justice PT Asha directed the Registrar General of Madras High Court to name any of the Registrars to supervise the counting of the postal ballot votes and submit a report on the reasons recorded for rejecting the postal ballot votes, whether reasons were recorded on each postal ballot/cover and whether the number of votes rejected under each head detailed in Form 20 tallied with the number of votes rejected under the respective heads.

Hostel Service Constitutes 'Residential Dwelling Unit' For Girl Students And Working Women, Will Be Exempt From GST: Madras High Court

Case Title: Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 132

The Madras High Court has recently ruled that Hostel services providing welling to girl students and working women will be exempt from the GST regime as they are residential dwelling units for the girl students and working women.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stressed the work “residential dwelling” referred to in Entry 12 of the Exemption Notification No. 12 of 2017 would include hostel facilities also. While noting that residential dwelling varies from person to person, the court added as far as hostellers were concerned, after their avocation, they stay, sleep, eat, wash etc in the hostel rooms alone thus making it their residential dwelling.

[Accidents During Funeral Processions] DGP Informs Madras HC Of Preventive Steps Taken, Court Closes Suo Motu Plea

Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 133

The Madras High Court recently disposed of a suo motu plea the court had taken up in light of untoward incidents taking place during funeral processions in the state of Tamil Nadu.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy closed the suo moto writ petition after the Director General of Police informed it of the instructions given to all the SDOs and SHOs for preventing untoward incidents.

The court had taken suo motu cognizance based on a letter it had received from one Anbu Selval regarding an unfortunate incident that took place because of throwing garland during the funeral procession.

Public Assembling, Demonstrating Against Police Not An Offence When There Is No Prohibitory Order Under S.144 CrPC: Madras High Court

Case Title: Simon and Others v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 134

The Madras High Court has recently observed that when there is no prohibitory order existing under S. 144 CrPC, there was no illegality in a few people assembling and demonstrating against the police and the same would not constitute an offense.

Justice M Dhandapani of the Madurai bench made the observation in a plea seeking to quash the FIR registered against a group of men who were demonstrating against the police inaction in a matter of the death of one Silambarasan due to police brutality.

[Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case] Issued Documents For Convicts To Travel Back To Sri Lanka: Sri Lankan High Commission Tells Madras High Court

Case Title: Srikaran V @ Murugan v The Director of Rehabilitation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 135

The Sri Lankan High Commission has informed the Madras High Court that temporary travel documents have been issued to Balasundaram Robert Payas, Mr. Vetrivel Srikaran, and Mr. Shanmugalingam Jeyakumar, convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case allowing them to be deported to Sri Lanka.

The submission was made before the bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu. The court was dealing with a plea filed by Srikaran seeking directions to the Director of Rehabilitation to issue a photo ID card to him allowing him to apply for travel documents.

In Absence Of Notification For Cross-Empowerment, Action Taken By Counterparts Are Without Jurisdiction: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tvl.Vardhan Infrastructure Versus The Special Secretary

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 136

The Madras High Court has held that in the absence of notification for cross-empowerment, action taken by counterparts was without jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the manner in which the provisions have been designed is to ensure that there is no cross-interference by the counterparts. The only exception provided is under Section 6 of the respective GST enactment. Therefore, in the absence of a notification for cross-empowerment, the actions taken by the respondents are without jurisdiction. Officers under the State or Central Tax Administration, as the case may be, cannot usurp the power of investigation or adjudication of an assessee who is not assigned to them.

Inquiry To Be Continued By Adjudicating Authority As Per Notification In Vogue And Not Under Superseded Notification: Madras High Court

Case Title: Auro Logistics Ltd Versus The Assistant Director (SRO)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 137

The Madras High Court has held that the inquiry will have to be continued by the adjudicating authority as per the notification in vogue and not by the adjudicating authority under the superseded notification.

The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy has observed that the phrase “except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession...” would mean that whatever acts are done till the date of issuance of the notification superseding the earlier notification are saved.

The court held that the show cause notice issued under Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2000 before the issuance of the notification dated September 27, 2018 was saved. The proceedings cannot proceed before the person who was an adjudicating authority under the notification has already been superseded. The inquiry will have to be continued by the adjudicating authority as per the notification in vogue and not by the adjudicating authority under the superseded notification.

Lok Sabha Election 2024 : Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Questioning Gap Between Date of Polling and Date of Counting

Case Title: Ezhilan v The Chief Election Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 138

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea questioning the gap between the date of polling and the date of counting in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the plea does not espouse any public cause and that the court could not issue directions to the Election Commission of India regarding the manner of conducting elections.

No Bar On Department Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings For Grave Misconduct Even If Not Connected With Discharge Of Duty: Madras HC

Case Title: K Ramachandran v The District Educational Officer (Elementary Education)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 139

The Madras High Court has recently observed that there was no bar on a department for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee for grave misconduct even if the misconduct was not in connection with the discharge of duty.

The Madurai bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice C Kumarappan made the observations on a plea filed by one Ramachandran questioning the charge memo.

District Registrars Are Quasi-Judicial Authorities, Can't Cancel Sale Deed By Conducting Summary Proceedings: Madras High Court

Case Title: Netvantage Technologies Pvt Ltd v The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 140

The Madras High Court has recently observed that the Registering Authorities or the District Registrars are quasi-judicial authorities and are not empowered to cancel Sale Deeds through summary proceedings.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that the District Registrar only had powers to form an opinion regarding errors, omissions or violations during the course of registration or violations of procedures under the Act. The bench noted that for cancelling Sale Deeds, a trial was warranted which could only be undertaken by a Civil court and not the Registrar.

The court further added that though the Registrars had power to refuse registration of documents if found to be fraudulent, this power was limited. The court noted that while conducting a summary enquiry, if the District Registrar found that there was a prima facie proof to establish fraud or impersonation, only then the document could be cancelled. Thus, if there was any iota of doubt on the prima facie case, the District Registrar was not empowered to adjudicate the issue on merits and was bound to relegate the parties to the civil court.

Bank Account Can't Be Frozen Under UAPA Without Order Of Central Govt Under S.7(1) : Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 141

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range and ordered de-freezing the bank account of Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust after finding that the trust's account was frozen under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act without conducting proper inquiry.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that as per Section 7(1) of the UAPA while passing a prohibitory order, an inquiry had to be conducted. The court noted that in the present case, no such inquiry had been conducted. Thus, the court found the order violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

'Can't Compel Party To Continue Case When It Wants To Abandon Claim': Madras High Court Allows Govt To Withdraw Cases Against CM MK Stalin

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v MK Stalin

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142

The Madras High Court recently allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to withdraw cases that the state had filed against CM MK Stalin. The cases were initiated in 2019 when the AIADMK party was in power. The case relates to the alleged irregularities in the construction of Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex.

While allowing the State's request to withdraw the case the bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the court could not compel a party to pursue the case when the party itself wanted to abandon the case without reserving any rights