Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 16 to December 22, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 479 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 488

NOMINAL INDEX

Amudha v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 479

K. Sundari v. C. A. R. P. Mari, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 480

KC Chandran and Others v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 481

Malliga (Died) and Others v. S Shanmugam (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 482

The Research Scholar v The Research Guide and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 483

B Stalin v The Registrar Genera, Madras HC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 484

Vignesh v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 485

Sr. Sagaya Mary v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 486

Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v RPD Workstations Private Limited and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 487

M Venkatesan v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 488

REPORT

Freedom Of Speech Not License To Transgress Limits Of Decency: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To AIADMK Women's Wing Leader

Case Title: Amudha v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 479

Dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by AIADMK's State Deputy Secretary of the Women's Wing- Amudha, the Madras High Court highlighted that though the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right of speech and expression however this right cannot be taken advantage of to cross the limits of decency.

While doing so, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira also noted that the petitioner had used derogatory statements against the former Chief Minister, present Chief Minister and his family members, uttering "unethical, filthy and unparliamentary" words.

NI Act | College Cannot Be Equated To A Company, Principal Not Vicariously Liable For Signing Cheque: Madras High Court

Case Title: K. Sundari v. C. A. R. P. Mari

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 480

The Madras High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against a Principal of a college under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments for signing a cheque that was returned for “insufficient funds”.

While doing so, Justice Anand Venkatesh held that the Principal had not signed the cheque in his individual capacity, and since a college could not be equated to a company, vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act would not come into effect in the present case.

The court explained that the concept of vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act could not be applied in cases that did not fall under the ambit of a Company or a Partnership firm. The court noted that the Principal was only an authorised signatory and had signed the cheque in connection with the liability of the college. Thus, the court was inclined to quash the case against the Principal.

Concealment Of Proceeds Of Crime An Offence Under PMLA, ED Need Not Establish Where The Money Eventually Went: Madras High Court

Case Title: KC Chandran and Others v Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 481

The Madras High Court recently held that since the concealment of proceeds of crime itself is an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Enforcement Directorate is not required to establish where the money eventually went.

A division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima added that the accused, who would have engineered the disappearance of the money, could not be exonerated from the charges merely because the proceeds of the crime had not been identified. The court thus underscored that it was enough if the prosecution established the generation of the proceeds of crime and the involvement of the accused in the process.

Hindu Succession Act Doesn't Disqualify Widows From Inheriting Deceased Husband's Property After Remarriage: Madras High Court

Case Title: Malliga (Died) and Others v. S Shanmugam (Died) and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 482

The Madras High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Hindu Succession Act that prohibits a widow from inheriting or taking share in the property of her deceased husband, upon remarriage.

The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that though the Hindu Remarriage Act, 1856 disqualified a widow from inheriting properties upon remarriage, this Act was repealed after the Hindu Succession Act came into effect. The bench further noted that as per the Hindu Succession Act, only the widow of a pre-deceased son or widow of a predeceased son of the predeceased son or widow of the brother was disqualified upon remarriage. However, by way of the 2005 amendment, even this provision was repealed.

Madras High Court Calls For SOPs, Practice Directions For Masking Names & Identities Of Victims Of Mental, Emotional And Sexual Harassment

Case Title: The Research Scholar v The Research Guide and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 483

The Madras High Court recently suggested bringing in Standard Operating procedures and Practice Directions to mask the name and identities of every victim of mental, emotional, and sexual harassment in all proceedings.

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Poornima observed that observed that the privacy of parties to a litigation should be respected and thus, in the best interest, such directions could be issued. The court suggested that when matters of such nature are filed, a practice direction could be issued ensuring that the name and identity are given in the original copy, which could be retained by the Registry in a sealed cover and the identity could be redacted in all other copies. Further, if there is a challenge to the identity of the party, a reference could be made to the original copy retained in the sealed cover.

Madras High Court Dismisses 2011 Plea To Restrain Retd Justice CS Karnan From Commenting On Judiciary In Media

Case Title: B Stalin v The Registrar Genera, Madras HC and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 484

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed in 2011 seeking to restrain retired high court judge Justice CS Karnanfrom making public statements, wither written or oral against constitutional authorities or any wing of the judiciary or advocates in public media.

A division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that the prayer in the plea south to restrain a sitting Judge of the High Court was impermissible in law.

Noting that the plea had been listed with regard to its maintainability the court said that under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, no court shall entertain any proceeding against a Judge for any act thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial function.

Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Stabbing Doctor For Alleged Poor Treatment Of Mother

Case Title: Vignesh v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 485

The Madras High Court on Tuesday granted bail to Vignesh, accused of stabbing a doctor at the Kalaignar Centenary Super Speciality Hospital in Guindy, Chennai in November this year.

Considering the period of incarceration, the materials and the arguments, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira was inclined to grant conditional bail to Vignesh. The court thus ordered him to be released upon executing a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties. The court also directed Vignesh to stay at Vellore and report before the Inspector of Police, Sathavachari Police Station every day until further orders.

Thanjavur Schoolgirl Suicide | HC Declines To Quash Abetment Case Against Hostel Warden, Says Religious Conversion Allegations Should've Been Avoided

Case Title: Sr. Sagaya Mary v The State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 486

The Madras High Court has refused to quash the chargesheet filed against Sister Sagaya Mary, hostel warden of St. Michael's Girls Hostel attached to the Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Thanjavur for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 12^th Standard Student.

In January 2022, a 12th Standard girl of the Sacred Heart School attempted to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. Though the girl was taken to the hospital, she died during treatment. In her dying declaration, she stated that the hostel warden had tortured her mentally by making her do additional work in the hostel and not allowing her to study properly.

Though the warden contended that she had never intended the child to commit suicide, Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench noted that the warden's intention, whether good or bad, had to be looked into at the time of trial. The court also added that other points raised by the warden also could be considered at the time of trial and the case was not fit to be quashed.

While an attempt was made to bring in a forcible religious conversion angle to the issue, the CBI had ruled out the same. The court appreciated the CBI for bringing out the truth in an honest manner and noted that there was no ground to suspect the allegations of conversion. The court added that the allegations of conversion should have been avoided by those responsible and lamented that the damage already done could not be repaired.

Lenovo Is Exclusive Proprietor Of “THINK” Family Of Marks: Madras HC Orders Removal Of Trademark Registration For “THINBOOK” Laptop

Case Title: Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v RPD Workstations Private Limited and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 487

While hearing a plea moved by computer manufacturer Lenovo protection of its "THINK" Family of Marks, the Madras High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration given to a Hyderabad based company for its “THINBOOK” mark finding it deceptive.

Justice Abdul Quddhose opined that the petitioner, Lenovo, who had been using the THINK family of marks had obtained a distinctiveness in the field. The court thus ruled that Lenovo was the exclusive proprietor of the mark and continued usage of a similar mark by the respondent company would create confusion in the minds of the people.

The court, on perusing the materials, was convinced that Lenovo had gained a reputation in India and abroad in respect of products – Laptops, Notebooks, iPad etc by using the THINK family of marks. The court added that the respondent company had misrepresented the Registry and the Registry, by total non-application of mind had registered the trademark.

Thus, noting that Lenovo had satisfied the requirements of Section 57 of the Act, the court was inclined to grant the relief and ordered accordingly.

Offence Under PMLA Is Standalone, Can't Have Joint Trial With Predicate Offence Even If Both Are Before Same Court: Madras HC

Case Title: M Venkatesan v Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 488

The Madras High Court has clarified that the trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is distinct and different from the trial of the predicate offence and thus the accused cannot seek for a simultaneous or joint trial even if both are pending before the same court.

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that since the procedures contemplated under the PMLA for trial are different, there was no question of joint or simultaneous trial. The court also added that there was no impediment for the special court to continue the trial even if the trial for a predicate offence was pending.

The court noted that as per Explanation (i) to Section 44 of the PMLA, the jurisdiction of the Special Court, while dealing with the offence under the Act shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the Scheduled offence and the trial in both the sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial.