Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 17 - June 23, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

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

Karthick Munusamy v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 249

State v P Ponnusamy, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 250

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

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

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

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

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

REPORT

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248

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

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

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

Case Title: Karthick Munusamy v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 249

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

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

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

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

Case Title: State v P Ponnusamy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 250

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

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

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

Case Title: R Sasikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 252

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

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

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

Case Title: K Paranthaman v The Secretary, TNPSC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 253

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

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

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

Case Title: V Sakthivel v The Revenue Divisional Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 254

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 255

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

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

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Madras High Court Issues Arrest Warrant Against Producer Of Arvind Swami Starrer “Bhaskar Oru Rascal” Over Unpaid Dues

Case Title: Arvind Swami v K Murugan Kumar

Case No: A 3281 of 2020 and EP 95515 of 2020 (Filing No)

The Madras High Court has issued an arrest warrant against K Murugan Kumar, proprietor of Harshini Movies and producer of Arvind Swami starrer Tamil movie “Bhaskar oru Rascal” in a case of non-payment of dues to the actor.

Justice P Velmurugan noted that the producer had not disclosed his assets despite a court order to do so in 2020. Though Murugan's counsel informed the court that he had disclosed his assets, the court issued an arrest warrant and adjourned the case to July 8.

Arvind Swami had approached the court in 2019 after Murugan failed to pay the remuneration dues and repay a loan taken from Arvind Swami.

Lawyers Are Performing Public Service, Can't Deny Them Funds: Madras High Court Asks State To Release Funds For Advocates Welfare Fund

Case Title: Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others

Case No: WP 17976 of 2019

The Madras High Court on Thursday remarked that lawyers were also performing public service similar to that of public servants and thus the Government should make sure that funds are allocated for Advocate's welfare schemes in a stipulated period.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan was hearing the petition for implementation and enforcement of the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act 2001 to the Puducherry Union. The court was previously informed that around 200 applications were pending for benefits under the Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund.

Kallakurichi Hooch Deaths | Govt Cannot Take Issue Lightly, It's About People's Lives: Madras HC Calls For Detailed Action Taken Report

Case Title: IS Inbadurai v The Chief Secretary and Others

Case No: WP 16519 of 2024

While hearing a petition seeking a CBI probe into the death of persons in Tamil Nadu's Kallakurichi after consuming illicit liquor, the Madras High Court remarked that the State Government could not take the issue of the sale and consumption of illicit arrack lightly as it affected the lives of the people.

The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu thus directed the State Government to submit a report detailing the steps taken to prevent such incidents and the action taken following the Kallakurichi tragedy.

The court was hearing a petition filed by I.S Inabudai, the legal wing Secretary of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. On Friday, Advocate D Selvam, appearing for Inbadurai argued that the state machinery had failed in tackling the sale and consumption of spurious liquor. He added that the entire system of Tamil Nadu including the police, revenue authorities, etc had failed which was evident from the preset incident in Kallakurichi.

Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Suo Moto Revisions Against Acquittal Of Former Ministers & Ex-CM O Paneerselvam In Corruption Cases

The Madras High Court on Thursday, reserved orders on the suo motu revision petitions against the discharge/acquittal of Minsters KKSSR Ramachandran, Thangam Thenarasu, and former TN CM O Paneerselvam.

Justice Anand Venkatesh reserved orders after hearing the DVAC and the Ministers in detail. In August, last year, the court had taken suo motu cognizance against the order of acquittal/discharge of the trial court in the corruption cases. The court had previously remarked that even if it decided to drop the suo motu cases, the intention was to send a message so that no one could take the court and the law for granted.