Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 19 to June 25

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 169 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 173

NOMINAL INDEX

Aarur Tamilnadam v S Sankar and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 169

Sudha Sarveshkumar v Chief Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 170

Elephant G Rajendran v The Registrar General and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 171

Kannaian Naidu and others v Kamsala Ammal and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 172

V Sundararaj v. The Registrar General and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 173

REPORTS

Madras High Court Dismisses Suit Claiming Enthiran Movie Is Infringing Copy Of Story Published In 1996

Case Title: Aarur Tamilnadam v S Sankar and others

Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 169

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a civil suit claiming that the story of Enthiran movie is based on the story “Jugiba” originally written by writer Aarur Tamilnadan. The suit sought a declaration that "Enthiran" is the infringing copy "Jugiba" and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from distributing or screening the film.

Justice S Sounthar dismissed the plea by Aarur after noting that as per settled law, copyright cannot not be claimed over an idea or a concept.

Aarur claimed that the movie Enthiran is based on his novel and that the makers of the movie illegally stole his story. He sought damages to the tune of one crore rupees and for stopping the screening of the movie. In his support, he also produced letters written by readers claiming that the film was based on his story.

Madras High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Reopening Of Villupuram Temple Sealed Over Caste Conflict

Case Title: Sudha Sarveshkumar v Chief Secretary and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 170

The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a plea filed by a native of Villupuram to reopen the Sri Dharmaraja Draupadi Amman Temple sealed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

The temple, situated in Villupuram District, was sealed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on June 7 following a dispute over the entry of Scheduled Caste members into the temple.

When a plea regarding reopening of the temple came up before the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu, the court disposed of the same, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.

'No Elite Society Of Lawyers At Public Cost' : Madras High Court Directs Madras Bar Association To Give Membership Without Any Discrimination

Case Title: Elephant G Rajendran v The Registrar General and others

Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 171

The Madras High Court recently came down heavily on the Madras Bar Association, for its strict bye-laws making it difficult for an ordinary lawyer to become a member of the association. The court also directed the Association to pay five lakh rupees as compensation to Senior Advocate Elephant G Rajendran for denial of drinking water to his son in 2012 by a senior lawyer.

Justice SM Subramaniam noted that the bye-laws of the Association have been formulated in such a manner that ordinary Advocates find it difficult to get membership thus resulting in class discrimination. The court also noted that since the association was functioning inside the court premises and enjoying all the benefits including free electricity, such elitism could not be allowed in a public place using the money.

Observing that practicing lawyers cannot be deprived of access to drinking water merely on the ground of membership, the court added that the present case was regretful and that both bar and bench should avoid such trivial and unwarranted situations.

ALSO READ: 'Untouchability' Not Merely Caste-Based; Includes All Forms Of Social Exclusion Based On Idea That Certain Persons Are Inferior : Madras High Court

Wife As Homemaker Contributes To Husband's Acquisition Of Assets; Entitled To Equal Share In Properties : Madras High Court

Case Title: Kannaian Naidu and others v Kamsala Ammal and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 172

In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court recently held that a wife, who contributed to the acquisition of family assets by performing the household chores, would be entitled to an equal share in the properties, as she had indirectly contributed to its purchase.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that though there was no legislation at present that recognized the contribution made by the wife, the court could very well recognize the same. The Court added that the law does not prevent a Judge from recognizing the contributions.

The court agreed with the wife’s submission that she had contributed to the family by taking care of the household and the children. The court noted that the wife, though did not make direct financial contributions, had played a vital role in managing the household chores by looking after the children, cooking, cleaning and managing day-to-day affairs of the family without giving any inconvenience to the plaintiff abroad and moreover, she sacrificed her dreams and spent her entire life towards the family and children.

Madras High Court Quashes Notifications Inviting Applications For Appointment As Members To State, District Consumer Commissions

Case Title: V Sundararaj v. The Registrar General and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 173

The Madras High Court has set aside two notifications issued by Tamil Nadu's Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department inviting applications for appointment as Members in the District Consumer Redressal Commission and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, observing that the notifications were based on Rules already struck down by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.

The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai Bench noted that the notifications were based on Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of President and Member of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 which were already struck down on the date of the notification.

The court reiterated that once a Central Law or rule was held to be unconstitutional by a High Court, the same would stand effaced from the statute book in respect of the whole nation.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Plea In Madras High Court Challenges Continuation Of Senthil Balaji In Tamil Nadu Cabinet As Minister Without Portfolio

A plea has been moved in the Madras High Court challenging the continuation of Senthil Balaji in the Tamil Nadu cabinet as a Minister without portfolio.

Advocate ML Ravi, President of the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi, has challenged the Press Note issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu on June 16, according to which the government has transferred the portfolios that were allocated to Balaji but said that he would continue as a Minister without portfolio.

In his petition, Ravi pointed out that when the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu had sent a letter to the state Governor to reallocate the portfolios held by the Minister and to keep him as a Minister without portfolios, the Governor had not agreed to it. However, according to the plea, as per the Press Note issued by the Government, he still continues as a Minister without portfolio.

Ravi has argued that as per Article 164 of the Constitution, a Minister is to hold office at the pleasure of the Governor, but in the present case, the Government has gone against the will of the Governor.

Lawyer's Arrest By NIA: Will Hear 'Incriminating' Audio Clip, Says Madras High Court

Case Title: M Mohammed Abbas v State and others

Case No: Crl OP 12229 of 2023

The Madras High Court on Monday said that it’ll go through the incriminating audio clip and other materials relied on by the National Investigation Agency for arresting a Madurai-based lawyer Mohammad Abbas.

Abbas was one among the five arrested by the NIA in May this year in connection with a criminal conspiracy case related to the banned organization- Popular Front of India (PFI). As per the NIA, the arrests were made after conducting extensive searches and finding incriminating materials including sharp-edged weapons, digital devices, and documents.

Abbas has moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings against him which, according to him, are a result of some comments he had made on social media against the NIA.

The bench noted that it was not seeking the matter as protection to the Advocate but was only ensuring that the lawyers were not being intimidated by the agency.

Speaker Final Authority On Any Decision Regarding Live Telecast Of Assembly Proceedings: Tamil Nadu Govt To Madras High Court

Case Title: Vijayakanth v. Secretary and others

Case No: WP 37424 of 2015

The Tamil Nadu government has told the court that Under Article 122 of the Constitution, the speaker is empowered to take a decision on what part of the Legislative Assembly proceedings can be telecasted and the same cannot be questioned by the court.

Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram made the submissions before the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice P.D Audikesavulu in a plea moved by D. Jagadheeswaran, State president of Lok Satta Party and A. Vijayakant, leader of Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam seeking live telecast of proceedings of the house. S.P Velumani, chief whip of AIADMK party had also filed an impleading petition challenging the selective telecast.

The AG also said that the Speaker is the final authority to take a decision about the telecast of proceedings and this power under Article 122 of the Constitution cannot be questioned by the courts.

The court questioned why proceedings of the house cannot be shown at the end of the day after editing only the expunged remarks and sought to know whether a proposal for live telecast of speeches made during the zero hour was under consideration.

‘Fundamental And Statutory Rights Violated’: TN Minister Senthil Balaji's Family To Madras High Court In Habeas Corpus Plea Against ED Custody

Case Title: Megala v. The State

Case No: HCP/1021/2023

Challenging his arrest in a money laundering case by the Enforcement Directorate, the Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's family on Thursday argued before Madras High Court that there was a violation of Section 41 CrPC and Article 22 of the Constitution by the central agency.

The submission was made by Senior Advocate NR Elango before the bench of Justice Nisha Banu and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy during the hearing of habeas corpus petition filed by Balaji’s wife. While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, argued that the habeas corpus plea is not maintainable, Elango said the court has the discretion to entertain the case.

The matter has been posted to June 27 for arguments on behalf of Enforcement Directorate. Meanwhile, the SG also requested the court to consider the matter of exclusion of period of hospitalization from the custody period on the same day. The court agreed with the request to consider the issue.