Madras High Court Monthly Digest - November 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

M.Palanisamy v The Director of Town Panchayats, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 415

Aunestraja v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 416

B Vidyasagar v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 417

M/s Jaiswal Products v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 418

The Union of India v The Registrar, CAT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

M/S. Sivadarshini Papers Limited vs. M/S. Sunwin Papers, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

N Mahendra Babu v The Registrar General and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

LEGO Juris A/S v Gurumukh Singh and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

N.Jayamurugan Vs. M/s.Saravana Global Holdings Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

M/s.Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Airports Authority of India and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

M Vetri Selvan v Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 425

Edappadi K Palanisamy v Dhanapal, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 426

Pondicherry Institute Of Medical Sciences v The Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 427

Sujatha v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

P.Vasantha Kumar v Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

M Mangaiyarkarasi v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

Union of India v Abdul Razak and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

M Samudi v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 432

Union of India v. C.V.L. Annapurna, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 433

G.Kulanchiyappan v Vice Chancellor, IMU, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 434

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 435

The Triplicane Permanent Fund Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 436

Nalin Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 437

Lakshana Cotton Spinning Mills Limited v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

Vasumathi and Another v R Vasudevan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 439

Santhanaganesh v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 440

VP Nandhakumar v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 441

Bharathiya Janata Party v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 442

Kasthuri v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 443

ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 444

P.A.Ramasubramania Raja v. K.M.Sanjeevi Raja, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 445

EIH Associated Hotels Ltd vs. CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 446

Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 447

Byju Nizeth Paaul v The Directorate of Collegiate Education and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 448

IS Inbadurai v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 449

S. Nirmala & Ors. v. Shanthi Harikrishnan & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 450

D.Devasahayam v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 451

P Venkatesan v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 452

Dhanaraj v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 453

Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 454

Piyush Sethia v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 455

Church of South India v D Devasahayam and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 456

X v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 457

S.Saravanan v The Director General of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 458

A Suhail v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 459

S. Mohan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 460

X v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 461

R. v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 462

Kammavar Samuga Nala Sangam v. The District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 463

M/s. SPK and Co. v. The State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 464

REPORTS

Courts Can't Direct Promotions Outside Established Rules And Seniority Framework: Madras HC

Case Title: M.Palanisamy v The Director of Town Panchayats

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 415

The Court held that a Water Pump Operator's promotion to Sanitary Supervisor and subsequent reversion must be evaluated within the framework of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment Rules. Since the position of Water Pump Operator (that the petitioner undertakes) is not among the designated feeder posts (Public Health Workers, Sanitary Workers, or Scavengers) for promotion to Sanitary Maistry, the petitioner's initial promotion was irregular and the reversion was legally justified.

“Extreme Emergency Looms”: Madras High Court Issues Directions For Curbing Tobacco Use Among Children

Case Title: Aunestraja v The State and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 416

The Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to the Central Government, State Government and prosecuting agencies in an effort to curb the use of tobacco products among school kids.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there was an emergency considering the sudden surge of children using tobacco products and more specifically “Cool Lip” which in turn corrupted the body, mind, and soul of the children.

The court thus directed that the Central Government to issue further directions under Section 86 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 asking the States to ban “cool lip” which has already been classified as an unsafe food based on rules framed by the Central Government. The court added that the State Governments were bound to comply with the directions of the Central Government which were statutory in character.

Courts Must Strive To Remove Barriers Faced By Persons With Disabilities: Madras HC Dispenses Language Test For Speech & Hearing Impaired Engineer

Case Title: B Vidyasagar v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 417

The Madras High Court recently highlighted the court's duty to remove the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in their daily life.

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the barriers faced by persons with disabilities went beyond issues of accessibility and was deep rooted in prejudices and stereotypes in the society. The court added that persons with disabilities faced social, attitudinal, cultural, institutional, structural, legal and environmental barriers, which constitutional courts must, through their judgments, strive to remove.

Manufacturer Of Banned Tobacco Product Which Is 'Food' Can Be Prosecuted Under Food Safety And Standards Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s Jaiswal Products v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 418

The Madras High Court recently upheld the power of the Food Safety Officer to proceed with investigation for sale of banned tobacco products observing that tobacco, with or without any additive was a food product under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act.

In doing so the court said that the manufacturer was liable to explain the manner in which the product was cleared from the manufacturing unit which was in his exclusive knowledge.

A single judge bench of Justice G Jayachandran in its order also noted that the manufacturer of the banned tobacco was liable to face prosecution and could not claim that he had no knowledge how the product entered the banned place.

Chronic Vacancies And Essential Service Needs Justify Regularization Of Contract Employees Despite Article 320: Madras HC

Case Title: The Union of India v The Registrar, CAT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order directing the regularization of contract Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who had served in Puducherry for nearly two decades. Despite objections from UPSC regarding Article 320 requirements, the Court found that the unique circumstances—including chronic vacancies and essential service requirements—justified regularization. The Court distinguished this case from the Umadevi judgment, noting that the appointments were not “backdoor” entries but were based on sanctioned posts and urgent needs.

Arbitrator Nominated U/S 18(3) MSMED Act Erred In Deciding Merits After Finding Respondent Was Not MSME: Madras HC Upholds Setting Aside Of Award

Case Title: M/S. Sivadarshini Papers Limited vs. M/S. Sunwin Papers

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

The Madras High Coury bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan has held that an Arbitrator ought not to decide the case on merits after coming to a conclusion that the respondent was not a Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and therefore not entitled to invoke the machinery under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. The court upheld the setting aside of the award passed by the Arbitrator.

No Law Fixing Number Of Persons Who Can Accompany A Party In Court: Madras HC Rejects PIL To Limit Advocates Appearing For VIP Litigants

Case Title: N Mahendra Babu v The Registrar General and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

The Madras High court has dismissed a petition seeking to restrict the maximum number of advocates appearing and accompanying a VIP or VVIP litigant whenever they appear in subordinate courts.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that since there was no law fixing the number of persons who can appear and accompany a party in court, it could not direct the Registrar General to impose restrictions on the same. Thus, noting that the relief as prayed for could not be granted, the court dismissed the petition.

'Lego' A Well Known Mark: Madras High Court Cancels Hyderabad-Based Company's Registration In Confectionary Products

Case Title: LEGO Juris A/S v Gurumukh Singh and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

The Madras High Court recently cancelled the registration of a Hyderabad based company's trademark for its confectionary products which was similar to the trademark of famous toy company “Lego”.

Justice PB Balaji held that the company had almost identically adopted Lego's mark, including the style and the colour and had failed to give a satisfactory explanation to the close identity of the two marks. The court thus held that the company had a dishonest intention to use Lego's marks.

The court also noted that though the company claimed to have made a thorough search in the trade mark registry, the fact was that the company had made search only for traders dealing in confectionaries. The court thus noted that the company was conscious that there was a possibility of Lego being applied in other classes and the company's conduct exposed its malafide intention. The court also noted that the company's claim that it had used “Lego” mark honestly could not merit acceptance given that “Lego” had a global reputation and goodwill.

Award Must Not Be Set Aside On Ground Of Mere Erroneous Application Of Law Unless Patent Illegality Is Established U/S 34: Madras HC

Case Title: N.Jayamurugan Vs. M/s.Saravana Global Holdings Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited and within the contours of the ground specified under Section 34 of the Act. To put it otherwise, the award is not required to be set aside on the ground of mere erroneous application of law or by reappreciation of the evidence until and unless it suffers from patent illegality.

The court observed that under Section 25(3) a debtor can enter into an agreement in writing to pay the whole or part of a debt, which the creditor might have enforced but for the law of limitation, and suit can lie on a written promise to pay the barred debt as it is a valid contract. The reason for this provision is that the debt is not extinguished; only the remedy gets barred by passage of time, and this provision does not revive a dead right but merely resuscitates the remedy to enforce the right, which already exists.

Construction Of Contract's Terms Is Task Of Arbitrator, Cannot Be Interfered With U/S 34 Unless Construction Is Unreasonable: Madras HC

Case Title: M/s.Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Airports Authority of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an Arbitrator to decide unless the Arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do then only interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is justified.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Conferment Of Padma Vibhushan On Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

Case Title: M Vetri Selvan v Union of India and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 425

The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking to revoke the Padma Vibhushan Award conferred on Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed the plea noting that the court was satisfied that the norms for conferment of award was adhered to and thus the relief as sought for could not be granted.

Previously, the court had also expressed its doubts regarding the maintainability of the plea and had remarked that conferment of Padma award might not be within the scope of judicial review.

The petitioner had approached the court claiming that the award be revoked in light of the multiple criminal charges and court cases being faced by Jaggi Vasudev and his foundation. It was argued that the Padma Vibhushan, being the highest civilian honour in the country was awarded to persons with exceptional and distinguished service.

“Scandalous Allegations”: Madras High Court Awards ₹1.1 Crore Damages To Former CM Edappadi Palanisamy For Comments Linking Him To Kodanad Case

Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v Dhanapal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 426

The Madras High Court on Thursday awarded Rs. 1.1 Crore as compensation to former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palanisamy for comments made by one Dhanapal linking Palanisamy to the crimes that took place in Kodanadu Estate in 2017.

While decreeing the suit in favour of Palanisamy, Justice RMT Teekaa Raman said that the defendant, Dhanapal made the statements with the sole intention of lowering Palanisamy's image with the knowledge that the contents were per se false. The court also noted that the language used by Dhanapal clearly indicated that his intention was to malign Palanisamy and cast aspersions on his character.

On going through the contents of the video of Dhanapal's interview, the court was satisfied that Dhanapal had made scandalous allegations. The court also noted that Dhanapal had blackmailed Palanisamy to extract money as he was booked under a financial fraud case and was in dire need of money. Thus, the court was convinced that while making the statements, Dhanapal had a malice against Palanisamy.

Madras High Court Directs Pondicherry Institute Of Medical Sciences To Surrender 26 Seats For Failure To Comply With MCI Guidelines

Case Title: Pondicherry Institute Of Medical Sciences v The Government of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 427

The Madras high court recently directed the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences to forfeit 26 seats – 13 during the 2025-26 academic year and 13 during the 2026-27 academic year for failing to comply with the directions issued by the Medical Council of India during admissions in the year 2017-18.

Justice M. Dhandapani also directed the institute to pay Rs. 10 Lakh to the Spastics Society of Tamil Nadu and Rs. 10 Lakh to Adyar Cancer Institute within 2 weeks of the order. The court made it clear that no action would be taken against the students who had already been admitted and they shall be issued with the course completion certificate if not already issued.

Practise Of Deploying Uniformed Personnel Outside Police, Prison Authorities' Homes Not Done Away With: Madras HC Directs State To Enquire

Case Title: Sujatha v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

In a plea concerning condition of prisons, the Madras High Court while expressing its concern said, that despite several orders the practice of deploying "uniformed personnel" in the residences of higher police authorities and prison authorities has not been done away with.

In doing so the court called for stringent government action to ensure that the public servants are utilised only for public welfare and not to perform household works in the residences of the authorities, adding that deployment of uniformed personnel in the residences of the prison authorities is resulting in "dereliction of duty".

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman emphasized that police authorities and prison authorities were public servants who were paid decent salary from tax payer's money and they were expected to effectively perform their public duty. The bench added that the Government should take stringent action to ensure that public servants were utilized only for the welfare of the public and not to perform household works in the residence of officers.

Impossible To Impart Quality Education Without Filling Sanctioned Posts: Madras HC Forms Expert Committee To Monitor Recruitment In Govt Law Colleges

Case Title: P.Vasantha Kumar v Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

The Madras High Court has constituted an expert committee headed by retired High Court Judge V Bharathidasan to monitor the selection of Assistant Professors, Assistant Professors (pre-law) and Associate Professors in Government Law Colleges in Tamil Nadu.

Justice Battu Devanand remarked that it was impossible to impart quality legal education without filling up the sanctioned posts of the professors. The court added that by not filling the vacancies in a time-bound manner, the ultimate sufferers were the law students who's potential was lost due to the low quality of education and lack of proper teaching faculity.

The court thus constituted the committee headed by Justice (Retd) V Bharathidasan and Senior Advocate P Wilson and IAS (Retd) Mythili K Rajendran as members. The committee was to monitor the entire selection process including implementation of reservation rules. The committee was also asked to issue necessary instructions and guidelines to the Teachers recruitment Board to finalise and issue notification for recruitment to ensure that the notification is free from litigation.

Can't Expect Media To Verify If Each Advertisement Is Misleading: Madras HC Junks PIL To Prohibit Commercial Ads By Doctors, Hospitals

Case Title: M Mangaiyarkarasi v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

Dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking to prohibit television channels, newspapers, magazines, and radio channels from telecasting advertisements of doctors and hospitals to commercially promote medical practice, Madras High Court on Friday orally said it cannot expect the media to verify if each advertisement was misleading.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that if the advertisements by the doctors and hospitals were found to be in contravention of the rules framed by regulatory authorities, complaints could be made to the regulatory authority which could take appropriate action. The court added that it could not expect the media to verify if each advertisement was misleading but could only expect that channels do not advertise something which was detrimental to the general public.

NIA Act | High Courts Cannot Expand Scope Of Interpretation, Condone Delay Beyond Permissible Limit: Madras High Court

Case Title: Union of India v Abdul Razak and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

The Madras High Court recently held that the High Court was not empowered to condone the delay in filing an appeal under the National Investigating Agency Act 2008 beyond the permissible limit. As per Section 21 of the Act, an appeal has to be made within 30 days of the date of the order or judgment. The Section allows the High Courts to entertain an appeal even after expiry of 30 days but not beyond 90 days if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for delay.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that when there is no constitutional challenge to an enactment, the courts could not read down the provision differently than what the constitution had intended. The court added that the language employed in the provision under the NIA Act was unambiguous and thus the courts could not condone the delay beyond the permissible limits.

HR & CE Authorities Must Take Action On Complaints Of Encroachment, Not Put It In Cold Storage Making Deities Yearn For Due Share: Madras HC

Case Title: M Samudi v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 432

The Madras High Court recently stressed that when an application is received informing instances of encroachment of temple land, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment authorities were expected to look into the same and take immediate action.

Justice M Dhandapani made the remarks after noting that due to inaction on the part of HR & CE officials, encroachers often enjoyed land to the detriment of the deity. The court emphasised that when an application was filed under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, the authorities were to take immediate steps and ensure that the encroachments are removed and the lawful owners are benefitted.

No Explicit Option For CPF Means Automatic Transition To GPF Scheme: Madras HC Upholds Pension Rights Of KV Teachers

Case Name: Union of India v. C.V.L. Annapurna

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 433

Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's orders granting pension rights under the General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme to retired Kendriya Vidyalaya teachers. The Court ruled that teachers who had not explicitly opted to remain under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme by January 31, 1989, were automatically entitled to GPF benefits as per the 1988 Government Office Memorandum. The Court rejected the argument that continuous receipt of CPF benefits implied a choice to remain in the CPF scheme, emphasizing that KVS's failure to implement the automatic transition couldn't prejudice the teachers' rights.

Long Service And Transparent Recruitment Merit Regularization Despite Absence Of Rules: Madras HC

Case Title: G.Kulanchiyappan v Vice Chancellor, IMU

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 434

Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Maritime University (IMU) to regularize the services of eight contractual employees. The Court ruled that their appointments, though irregular, were not illegal as they were made through a transparent recruitment process including public advertisement and interviews. The Court emphasized that the absence of recruitment rules until 2015 and the employees' decade-long unblemished service warranted regularization, particularly given IMU's prior regularization of seven similarly situated workshop employees.

Amount Received In Advance For Services To Be Treated As Income Of Assessee, Chargeable Under Income Tax: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 435

The Madras High Court ruled that any amount received in advance for services should be treated as the income of the assessee and is, therefore, subject to income tax.

The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “if “Accounting Standards” are properly applied by an assessee, the “accounting income” for the payment of income tax will be available. However, if an assessee fails to adopt “Accounting Standards” properly for computation of income, the discretion is vested with the Assessing Officer under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

[Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax] Assessee Liable For Tax On Proceeds From Sale Of Unredeemed Articles By Auctioneers: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Triplicane Permanent Fund Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 436

The Madras High Court stated that assessee is liable to tax on consideration received from sale of unredeemed articles by auctioneers.

The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “the levy of penalty under Section 12(3)(a), in the case of non-filing of returns, is, automatic. Admittedly, the assessee has not filed the returns and hence, the basis of assessment would be irrelevant.”

Cross-Examination Requests In Show Cause Proceedings Cannot Be Allowed Without A Reply From Noticee: Madras High Court

Case Title: Nalin Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 437

The Madras High Court stated that a request for cross-examination of a witness in a Show Cause proceeding cannot be allowed if no reply on merits has been provided by the noticee.

The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “………the question of entertaining an application for cross-examination of the witnesses without any reply on merits by a notice in a show cause proceeding is to be eschewed and should not to be allowed.”

The bench noted that the question of granting extensions under the first proviso to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 will arise only after the limitation for passing Order determining duty or interest, as the case may be, within the time stipulated under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 had expired.

Further, the bench stated that only after the period of six months or one year, as the case may be, the senior officer could extend the period by another six months or one year specified in Clause (a) and Clause (b) under the first proviso to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962. The second proviso to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, further contemplates abatement of the proceedings if after the extension period under the first proviso to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, no Orders are passed.

Recovery Action Against Company Directors Cannot Be Initiated If Status Of Assessee Is Non-Existent: Madras High Court

Case Title: Lakshana Cotton Spinning Mills Limited v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

The Madras High Court ruled that recovery actions against the directors of a company cannot be initiated if the status of the assessee is non-existent.

The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “while in the case of amalgamation, it is only the apparent and outer shell of the company which is destroyed…. However, in the case of dissolution, the entity wholly ceases to exist.”

Hindu Succession Act |2005 Amendment Giving Equal Rights To Daughter Resulted In Reducing Shares Of Mother & Widow: Madras High Court

Case Title: Vasumathi and Another v R Vasudevan and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 439

While discussing the 2005 amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, Justice N Seshasayee of the Madras High Court observed that while the amendment ensured that daughter's got a share in the ancestral property, it also took away the quantum of property that would otherwise vest with the widow and the mother of a deceased.

The court added that the effect of a notional partition was two fold. Firstly to interfere with the right of the surviving coparceners to succeed to the share of the deceased coparcenor by survivorship and secondly to reduce the combined holding to the extent of the property that became allottable to Class I female heirs.

Discussing the observations of the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma, the court added that the intent of the legislature while bringing in the 2005 amendment was to provide security and dignity to a certain class of female heirs of a deceased coparcener. The court observed that the notional partition under Section 6 of the Act engineered a vertical and horizontal division of ancestral property among the coparceners, as a vehicle to grant some right in the ancestral property to a class of female heirs.

Natural For Two Persons In Love To Hug & Kiss Each Other: Madras High Court Quashes Sexual Harassment Case Against Man

Case Title: Santhanaganesh v State and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 440

The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man under Section 354A IPC for allegedly committing sexual harassment on a girl.

Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that to constitute an offence of sexual harassment, a man must have committed physical contact and made advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. In the present case, the court noted that the love affair between the man and the woman was admitted and it was quite natural for two persons in love to hug and kiss each other.

Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Summons Issued To MD Of Manappuram Finance Ltd For Allegedly Auctioning Stolen Gold

Case Title: VP Nandhakumar v The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 441

The Madras High Court recently refused to quash a notice issued to the CEO and Managing Director of Manappuram Finance Limited for allegedly auctioning stolen gold.

Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench refused to quash the notice issued to VP Nandhakumar by the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 41 (A) of CrPC. The court added that the procedure under Section 41(A) was applicable to all persons and whatever his position, he had to appear before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation

The court agreed with the prosecution's submission and noted that whether Nandhakumar had knowledge or not was to be investigated by the CBI and presently the CBI had issued the summons only to collect materials from Nandhakumar. Thus, the court noted that he was duty bound to appear and to co-operate with the investigation.

Honouring Bharat Mata Is An Expression Of Love And Pride: Madras High Court Asks State To Return Bharatha Matha Statue Taken From BJP Office

Case Title: Bharathiya Janata Party v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 442

The Madras High Court recently asked the State to return a Bharatha Matha statue that was seized from the Bharathiya Janata Party's office in Virudhanagar East.

Though the authorities claimed to have removed the statue to maintain peace and harmony in the society, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that no person in their right mind would contend that the expression of one's patriotism would imperil the interest of the State or any community.

The court went on to add that the installation of the statue on a private property was deeply personal and symbolised the individual's reverence for the motherland. The court remarked that honouring Bharatha Matha by erecting a statue was an expression of love and pride and served as a reminder of the values and sacrifices associated with one's heritage. The court said that the statute was like a personal shrine that embodied hope, unity and respect for the land and invited ideals of freedom, resilience and cultural identity that Bharatha Matha represents.

Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Actress Kasthuri For Alleged 'Controversial Remarks' About Telugu Community

Case Title: Kasthuri v The State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 443

The Madras High Court on Thursday (November 14) denied anticipatory bail to South Indian actress Kasthuri for her alleged comments against the Telugu community in Tamil Nadu.

A single bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh, on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by the actress.

Speaking at a Brahmin meet in Chennai on November 3^rd, the South Indian actress had purportedly made comments against the Telugu community suggesting that the Telugu people, who had come to serve the courtesans of the Tamil Kings were now claiming to be of Tamil race. After widespread backlash, Kasthuri issued an apology stating that her comments were specific to some individuals and not against the Telugu community.

ALSO READ: Tendering Apology As A Matter Of Course To Escape Consequences Of Hate Speech Cannot Be Entertained: Madras High Court

Advocates Should Try To Resolve Matrimonial Disputes 'Without Adding Fuel To Fire': Madras High Court Suggests BCI To Form Guidelines

Case Title: ABC v XYZ

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 444

The Madras High Court recently suggested the Bar Council of India to formulate guidelines ensuring that Advocates resolve matrimonial disputes amicably without adding fuel to the fire.

The bench of Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that lawyers had an enormous social responsibility to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. The court added that legal professionals should ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents are not reflected in criminal complaints and must maintain the noble traditions of the profession.

The court thus suggested that advocates should follow ethical standards when parties solicit their advice and never misguide the parties. The court added that advocates should not give unprofessional advice to implicate persons who are not even remotely connected to the alleged occurrences. The advocates were also asked to advise the clients to not rope in unconnected persons and inform the clients about the legal consequences of giving false complaint against unconnected persons. The court suggested that in cases involving two individuals, especially a family, the advocates should try to advise for an amicable settlement as far as possible.

Opinion On Merits Destined To Remain In Sealed Cover Forever: Madras HC Observes As 46-Yr-Old Dispute Ends After Parties Reach Compromise

Case Title: P.A.Ramasubramania Raja v. K.M.Sanjeevi Raja

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 445

A 46 year old land dispute suit was recently disposed of by the Madras High Court after the parties informed the court that they have arrived at a compromise.

"Shocked" by the long pendency of the suit, the High Court had in July this year transferred the suit–earlier pending before the lower court, to itself by exercising powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution, after one of the parties approached the court challenging the order in an interlocutory application.

Justice Bharath Chakravarthy, on noting that there was a chance of settlement, gave another opportunity to the parties to come up with their options though the court had already prepared the judgement. Following this, the parties arrived at a settlement and filed a joint compromise memo before the court.

Expenses Incurred For Payment Of Foreclosure Premium Of Loan Is Allowable As Business Expenditure U/S 37(1): Madras High Court

Case Title: EIH Associated Hotels Ltd vs. CIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 446

The Madras High Court recently ruled that the expenditure incurred for payment of foreclosure premium for restructuring loan and obtaining fresh loan at a lower rate of interest is allowable as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Such ruling came while dealing with a case where scrutiny proceedings were initiated, leading in revisional assessment u/s 263, based on the assumption that assessment order was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue Department, and resultant disallowance of payment of foreclosure premium as a business expenditure.

The Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan observed that “Though mere disagreement with the view taken by the AO would not be a sufficient ground for invoking power u/s 263, it is quite another matter if the conclusion of the authority is palpably erroneous or contrary to settled law or judgment of the superior Courts”.

Madras High Court Restrains Grant Of Award In M S Subbulakshmi's Name To Musician TM Krishna

Case Title: Music Academy v V Shrinivasan and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 447

The Madras High Court has restrained The Hindu from presenting the 'Sangita Kalanidhi Award' in the name of M S Subbulakshmi to musician T M Krishna.

The Court said that the Sangita Kalanidhi Award and cash prize can be granted to TM Krishna but not in the name of M S Subbulakshmi. Justice G Jayachandran passed the interim order in a suit filed by the grandson of M S Subbulakshmi saying that the conferment of the award was against her wish and mandate. While dismissing an application filed by the Music Academy challenging the suit moved by the grandson, the court also noted that Shrinivasan, Subbulakshmi's grandson had the locus to maintain the suit since he was a beneficiary of Subbulakshmi's will.

Madras High Court Suggests Bringing In Statutory Body To Regulate Church Properties, Seeks Centre's Stand

Case Title: Byju Nizeth Paaul v The Directorate of Collegiate Education and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 448

The Madras High Court has suggested bringing in a statutory body to regulate the affairs of the church and church properties, similar to the charitable endowments of Hindus and Muslims.

Justice N Satish Kumar noted that matters of trusts, trustees, charities and religious endowments and religious institutions fall under the Concurrent list and thus there was no bar for the Central Government or the State government to bring in a legislation to this effect.

The court added that a Statutory Board could be established to make the institutions more accountable and to regulate their affairs. The court also noted that while "charitable endowments of Hindus and Muslims are subject to statutory regulation" however no such comprehensive regulation exists for endowments of Christians; the only scrutiny/oversight over the affairs of these institutions is by way of a suitunder Section 92 CPC.

The court noted that of late, there was an increase in litigations related to church properties where the courts have observed mismanagement of church properties and its funds. The court added that since these institutions were involved in public functions in the form of educational institutions, hospitals etc and since their functioning would affect the public at large, it was necessary to protect and safeguard the assets and funds of the institutions.

Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy

Case Title: IS Inbadurai v The Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 449

The Madras High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a probe into the Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy that claimed the lives of around 67 persons after consuming illicit arrack.

A bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji directed the CBI to conduct the probe as expeditiously as possible and also directed the CB-CID to handover the case files and extend cooperation to the investigation. The orders were passed in a batch of petitions seeking a CBI inquiry into the incidents.

The petitioners had argued that the state machinery had failed in tackling the sale and consumption of spurious liquor. It was contended that hooch tragedy incidents were not new to the state and that the entire system of Tamil Nadu including the police, revenue authorities, etc had failed which was evident from the preset incident in Kallakurichi.

Validly Recorded Cross-Examination Evidence Can't Be Eschewed But Court Can Assess Its Probative Value During Final Evaluation Of Case: Madras HC

Case Title: S. Nirmala & Ors. v. Shanthi Harikrishnan & Ors., OSA.Nos.187 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 450

In a recent case, the Madras High Court dismissed the application to eschew the cross-examination evidence of a defendant witness from the proceedings.

The bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice A.D. Maria Clete noted that once cross-examination evidence is validly recorded under oath, it cannot be expunged from the proceedings, as the statutory provisions do not permit such an action.

“If a witness has been cross-examined under oath and an objection arises later concerning the interest of the party who cross-examined the witness, questioning its adverseness and the priority of cross-examination, the previously recorded evidence cannot be eschewed. However, the court should assess the probative value of such evidence in the final evaluation of the case.”, the court observed.

“Church Properties Being Swindled Against Tenets Of Bible” Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Sale Of Church Land To Private Persons

Case Title: D.Devasahayam v Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 451

The Madras High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a complaint and inquire into the sale of a church land to private persons. The land, which is originally a government land, was assigned to the church to be used for the welfare of destitute women and children.

Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Church of South India (CSI) had instead transferred the property to private persons for their own “selfish purpose” instead of working for the noble object for which the land was originally assigned. The court was thus satisfied that there were prima facie materials to warrant a CBI inquiry and thus directed the CBI to register the complaint and proceed accordingly.

The court added that the church had now become voiceless with the administrators muzzling the voice of those who question the illegal activities. The court thus observed that it was bound to protect the interest of the church under the parents patriae jurisdiction. The court observed that while the bishop and administrators of the church were duty bound to keep then property for dedicated purpose, the property was often swindled against the tenets of the bible.

“Serious Issue”: Madras High Court Orders Probe After IO Says She Didn't Investigate Case, Her Signatures Were Forged

Case Title: P Venkatesan v The Superintendent of Police and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 452

The Madras High Court recently ordered a de novo investigation into a case after the Investigation Officer informed the court that she had not investigated the case and her signature in the final report was forged.

After the unusual turn of events, Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the CBCID to take over the investigation. The court added that the investigation should not be limited to the issue of the case but also ascertain as to who prepared the earlier police report. Calling it a serious issue, the court added that after the truth comes to light, independent proceedings needed to be initiated.

[NDPS Act] Prima Facie Every Cell Of Magic Mushroom Contains Chemical, To Be Weighed Entirely To Ascertain Commercial Quantity: Madras HC

Case Title: Dhanaraj v The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 453

While hearing a bail plea under the NDPS Act, the Madras High Court recently noted that every cell of 'magic mushroom' contains psychotropic chemicals and hence the entire mushroom would have to be weighed to determine if the quantity confiscated is falling under commercial quantity.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus while dismissing a bail plea prima facie differed from the stand taken by the Karnataka High Court in Saeidi Mozdhdeh Ehsan v State of Karnataka wherein a single judge had opined that the quantity of the substance had to be taken to find out if the seized item fell within commercial quantity.

Differing with the Karnataka High Court, Justice Chakravarthy observed that the penal statutes had to be construed strictly without interpreting them to "aid the accused".

Section 303(2) BNS | FIR Can Be Registered Only After Getting Appropriate Order From Magistrate: Madras High Court

Case Title: Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 454

The Madras High Court recently observed that the offence under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a non-cognizable and bailable offence and an FIR could be filed for these offence only after getting appropriate orders from the Magistrate.

Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed an FIR filed against the man. Though the court noted that the FIR itself was not sustainable in law and thus the anticipatory bail was also not maintainable, the court thought it fit to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and interfere with the FIR.

'Father Stan Swamy Has Taken Efforts For Tribal Welfare' : Madras High Court Allows Installation Of His Statute In Private Land

Case Title: Piyush Sethia v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 455

The Madras High Court has allowed a man to install a stone pillar containing Father Stan Swamy's photo on his private land, honoring the work done by the latter for the Tribal persons.

Quashing a notice issued by the State authorities, Justice M Dhandapani remarked that Fr Stan Swamy had taken a lot of efforts for the welfare of the tribal persons. The court also noted that citizens had a right to install statues in their private property and the only restriction was that communal conflicts should not result from such erection. In the present case, the court opined that the notice was improper and thus was inclined to set aside the same.

Madras High Court Stays Single Judge Order Directing CBI Probe Into Alleged Illegal Sale Of Church Property

Case Title: Church of South India v D Devasahayam and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 456

A division bench of the Madras High Court has stayed a single judge order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe into the alleged illegal sale of a church property to private persons.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete stayed the order of Justice KK Ramakrishnan, on an appeal filed by the Church of South India. Since an argument was raised as to the maintainability of the appeal, the division bench made it clear that the interim order was subject to maintainability.

While ordering CBI probe, the Single Judge had noted that the CSI had illegally transferred the land which was originally a Government Land assigned to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission (ABCFM) to be used for the welfare of destitute women and children.

Juvenile Offenders Must Be Brought Back Into Mainstream Society: Madras HC Suggests Implementation Of Reformative Projects Across State

Case Title: X v The State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 457

Lamenting over the manner in which juvenile offenders were treated often pushing them into becoming future notorious criminals, the Madras High Court recently suggested that reformative projects be implemented across the State to ensure that juvenile offenders are brought back into the mainstream of the society.

The court said this while granting bail to a 19-year-old boy accused of theft of movable articles like machine motor and submersible motor worth Rs.45,000.

In doing so, Justice N Anand Venkatesh noted that even though the State had implemented reformative projects like Paravai and Pattam in Chennai, these projects needed to be spread across the State. The court emphasised that the system and the people had a duty to bring the juvenile offenders back to the mainstream society.

Executing Security Bond For Good Behaviour Under Section 109 CrPC Cannot Be Construed As Criminal Proceedings: Madras High Court

Case Title: S.Saravanan v The Director General of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 458

The Madras High Court recently observed that executing a bond for good behaviour could not be considered as a criminal proceeding and the same cannot be held against a person to deny him employment.

Relying upon a previous order of the court, the bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that the purpose of such proceedings was to prevent commission of offence. Therefore, even though there is registration of FIR, the persons cannot be construed as accused.

Madras High Court Upholds 'Only Hindus' Condition For Appointment In Temple-Run Self-Financing College, Applies Article 16(5)

Case Title: A Suhail v State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 459

The Madras High Court recently held that a self-financing institution which is run by a temple would not come within the purview of Article 16(1) and Article 16(2) of the Constitution.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh thus observed that only Hindus would be eligible for appointment in such institutions as it is covered under Article 16(5) of the Constitution. The court highlighted that as per Section 10 of the Hindu religious and Charitable Endowment Act, only a person professing the Hindu religion could be appointed to the colleges and he shall cease to hold office when he ceases to profess the religion.

Magic Mushroom Per Se Not Narcotic Drug, Quantity Of Psylocybin Present Must Be Determined To Check Commercial Quantity: Madras High Court

Case Title: S. Mohan v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 460

The Madras High Court has held that magic mushroom per se does not satisfy the requirement of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance under Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

Justice Anand Venkatesh thus took a different stand than that taken by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy recently wherein Justice Chakravarthy had held that prima facie every cell of magic mushroom contained chemical and should be weighed entirely to determine the commercial quantity.

Justice Venkatesh on the other hand held that magic mushroom was not per se a contraband and can be considered a contraband only when it contains psilocybin. Thus, the court held that in the absence of any material to conclude the level of psylocybin, the court could not assume that the entire magic mushroom falls within the rigours of NDPS Act.

The court also added that magic mushroom was not a mixture of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance with a neutral substance and even if it was assumed to be a mixture, mushroom was a fungi and was a natural produce and thus could not be a mixture made through preparation as provided under the Act.

Madras High Court Directs State Govt To Frame Rules Under PoSH Act, Consider Bringing Separate Dept For Women Empowerment

Case Title: X v. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 461

The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to frame rules for the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (PoSH Act).

Justice RN Manjula noted that though it was not fair to assume that the State lacked intention to implement the Act, the presence of inherent indifference could not be denied.

In its 139-page order, the court also noted that all women welfare projects were entrusted with Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, which was also responsible for Child welfare. The court observed that since the department was already saddled with so many responsibilities, it could be difficult for them to monitor all the departments regarding implementation of Act. The court thus asked the State to conduct a study on the feasibility of having a separate department for women empowerment by, separate from the Social Welfare Department.

Enact Law With Severe Punishment For Child Sexual Abuse By Family Members: Madras HC Upholds Man's Conviction For Raping Stepdaughter

Case Title: R. v The State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 462

The Madras High Court recently asked the State Government to take "serious efforts" to enact laws imposing "severe punishments" in cases of sexual offences by family members or close friends involving children.

In doing so the court further said State should take measures for providing awareness programs and provide funds for opening protection homes for children to protect them from sexual offences. The court said so while noting that "in our country", number of children faced sexual assault by close relatives "viz., father, brother, uncle, grandfather or close family friends" and that studies had revealed that sexually abused children experience clinically significant symptoms in the affective, cognitive, physical, and behavioral domains.

The court made the observation while dismissing a man's appeal who was convicted and sentenced for sexually abused his step daughter and impregnated her. The court took note of the “shocking” news reports that as per the National crime Records Bureau, in 96% of the cases, the sexual abusers were known to the children. The court added that in most of these cases, the offenders took advantage of their dominating position and sexually abused the children under threat or coercion

“How Can A Funeral Procession Be Called Public Nuisance?”: Madras HC Dismisses Caste Association's Plea With Costs, Calls It Inhuman

Case Title: Kammavar Samuga Nala Sangam v. The District Collector

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 463

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Kammavar Samuga Nala Sangam seeking directions to the authorities to not allow private persons to conduct funeral procession march through their residential streets and not to create public nuisance. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the association.

Calling the association's approach “inhuman”, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete expressed its dissatisfaction. The court also observed that if such a plea was allowed it would possibly result in disharmony and chaos among the villagers.

Wondering how a funeral possession could be called a public nuisance, the court added that the association should aim to address the welfare measures of its members and should not degrade itself by filing such irresponsible petitions.

Limitation Period For Challenging Assessment Orders U/S 107 Of GST Act Begins From Date Of Rejection Of Rectification Application: Madras HC

Case Title: M/s. SPK and Co. v. The State Tax Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 464

The Madras High Court stated that limitation period for challenging assessment orders under section 107 of GST Act commences from the date of rejection of the rectification application filed under section 161.

The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “………the period of limitation for challenging the order of assessment shall start ticking from the date of rejection of the rectification application