Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 29 - August 4, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

Thejo Engineering Limited Versus The Deputy Director of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 291

Vipul Kumar Tulsian and anr vs M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 292

Larsen & Toubro Limited vs M/s.Texmo Pipes and Products Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 293

The Secretary, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly v P Sivakumar (batch cases), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 294

Deepak and Another v The Chief Educational Officer and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 295

Felix Jerald v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

Natraj v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 297

A Manikandan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 298

REPORT

Foreign Tax Credit Can't Be Denied In Spite Of Accepting Computation: Madras High Court

Case Title: Thejo Engineering Limited Versus The Deputy Director of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 291

The Madras High Court has held that the claim of foreign tax credit cannot be denied in spite of accepting the computation.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, on examining the company tax return and the activity statements, appears prima facie that the petitioner has remitted taxes through the Australian branch. It is clear that foreign tax credit in respect thereof was claimed by the petitioner by filing Form 67 with relevant annexures. On examining the intimation under Section 143(1) and the rectification order, the foreign tax credit was computed by the assessing officer, and the computation tallied with the foreign tax credit claim of the assessee. In spite of accepting the computation of the taxpayer, the tax credit relief was denied.

Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator & Non Service Of Notice :Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award

Case Title: Vipul Kumar Tulsian and anr vs M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 292

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has set aside an arbitral award where the opposite party proceeded with arbitration unilaterally and appointed the Arbitrator without any intimation to the claimants. Further, the claimants neither received notices of hearing nor appeared before the Tribunal, and consequently, the Arbitrator did not afford any opportunity to claimants to contest the matter.

Therefore, the bench held that such an arbitral award was against the public policy of India and violated the principles of natural justice.

Formal Contract Signature Not Required To Enforce Arbitration Clause If Parties Are Ad Idem: Madras High Court

Case Title: Larsen & Toubro Limited vs M/s.Texmo Pipes and Products Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 293

The Madras High Court division bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has held that if it is proved that if it is established that the parties are ad idem, a formal contract signature by the other party is not necessary to enforce the arbitration agreement.

The High Court noted that, to establish an arbitration agreement, there must be mutual consent between the parties. Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act allows an arbitration agreement to be derived from various forms of communication, including electronic means, as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act. This provision states that even without a formal contract, if parties are found to be ad idem, they cannot avoid liability under the agreement.

The High Court emphasized the importance of the parties' intentions in determining the existence of an arbitration agreement. It held that arbitration is fundamentally consensual and its enforcement relies on the parties' agreement to settle disputes through this mechanism.

Madras HC Revives Breach Of Privilege Notices Issued To CM Stalin & Other MLAs, Says Proceedings Didn't Lapse Merely Due To Change In Govt

Case Title: The Secretary, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly v P Sivakumar (batch cases)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 294

The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside a single judge order that quashed show cause notices issued to current CM MK Stalin and other MLAs from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party on the issue of breach of privilege while displaying gutka sachets inside the Tamil Nadu Legislative assembly in 2017.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan made it clear that issues such as breach of privilege could not be washed away with a new assembly. The court highlighted that such issues should be deliberated for the people's best interest.

Though it was argued that the breach of privilege proceedings lapse with the dissolution of the assembly, the court noted that if such a view was to be accepted, the purpose of granting privileges would become meaningless. The court highlighted that in such situations, the members may end up not taking the privileges seriously thus leading to utter chaos.

RTE Act Extends To Education From Kindergarten To 8th Standard Irrespective Of Child's Age, LKG & UKG Classes Covered Under Scheme: Madras HC

Case Title: Deepak and Another v The Chief Educational Officer and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 295

The Madras High Court recently observed that the LKG and UKG classes would be covered under the Right to Education scheme as the state is regularly reimbursing the expenses incurred by these classes in the schools.

Justice Anita Sumanth noted that the object of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act was to make education available for all children from pre-school till 8^th Standard and the same was paramount while understanding the Act. The court thus stated that the object of providing education would override any other technical concerns.

Madras High Court Grants Bail To Youtuber Felix Jerald In Savukku Shankar Case, Asks Him To Close His YouTube Channel

Case Title: Felix Jerald v The State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

The Madras High Court has granted bail to Youtuber Felix Jerald in a case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. The court however asked Jerald to close his YouTube channel “RedPix 24x7” in which the interview with Savukku Shankar was aired.

Justice TV Thamilselvi passed the orders on a petition filed by Jerald. Previously, when Jerald had moved a bail petition with respect to the case registered by the Cyber Police, the court had dismissed the petition noting that Jerald had provided a platform to Shankar for making the alleged defamatory statements.

Madras High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Former DGP For Allegedly Forwarding Offensive WhatsApp Message About MK Stalin

Case Title: Natraj v Inspector of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 297

The Madras High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against R Natraj, former DGP and ex-MLA for allegedly forwarding an offensive message about CM MK Stalin in a WhatsApp Group.

Justice G Jayachandran was inclined to quash the proceedings after Natraj expressed regret for his conduct and informed the court that he was willing to circulate the affidavit filed by him, expressing regret, in the WhatsApp group in which the offensive message was forwarded.

It was alleged that Natraj had forwarded a message in a WhatsApp group consisting of 73 members about a statement purported to have been made by MK Stalin. It was further alleged that the message was forwarded to create enmity and ill-will between the two groups.

1997 Melavalavu Massacre | Madras High Court Asks State To Revoke Remission Of Accused After He Was Accused Of Attacking Man

Case Title: A Manikandan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 298

The Madras High Court has asked the state authorities to revoke the remission order and restore the conviction and sentence imposed on Sekar, one of the accused in the 1997 Melavalavu Massacre after he was accused of attacking a man.

The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that though as per Clause 4 and 5 of the Bond Form No. 130 under Rule 341(8) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 puts a probation period of three years, it could not be assumed that after such period the life convict could indulge in any crime and that the authorities need not bother about the same.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

CBI Did Not Probe Thoothukudi Firing Incident Independently: Madras High Court

Case Title: Henri Tiphagne v The National Human Rights Commission and Others

Case No: WP(MD) 10526 of 2021

The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the Central Bureau of Investigation for its failure to bring to light the original culprits in the 2018 Thoothukudi Police Firing during the Anti-Sterlite protests.

The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar said that the agency had failed miserably and the fact that the agency had named only one inspector in its charge sheet would only lead to the conclusion that the agency was not acting independently.

The court added that there were serious lapses in the investigation conducted by the agency as it had not considered important events and had even failed to consider the findings of the Aruna Jagadeesan committee report. The court said that the investigating agency's report was unreliable and unrealistic.