Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 25 - December 1, 2024
Upasana Sajeev
2 Dec 2024 3:30 PM IST
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 451 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
NOMINAL INDEX
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
REPORT
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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………...”
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking directions to the Home Ministry to either set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or to direct the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other appropriate investigation agency to investigate into the corruption charges levelled against Indian businessman Gautam Adani and his indictment by United States Department of Justice in Eastern District of New York in corruption case.
The plea, filed by Advocate and Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi President ML Ravi stated that Adani was indicted along with other businessmen and Power Distribution Companies of many Indian States including Tamil Nadu for the offence of participating in a scheme to bribe the Indian Government officials to ensure the execution of lucrative solar energy supply contracts with the Indian entities.
Ravi argued that while a foreign country has exposed the corruption which occurred in India, the Indian investigation agencies are still silent and are acting like mere spectators which is an insult to the entire country and its 140 crore citizens.
Case Title: Wunderbar Films Private Limited v Tarc Solutions LLP and Others
Case No: A 6184 of 2024
Actor Dhanush's film production company Wunderbar Films has approached the Madras High Court against actor Nayanthara, her husband and director Vignesh Sivan, their production company Rowdy Pictures Private Limited, Los Gatos Production Services India LLB over the use of video clippings from the movie "Naanum Rowdy Dhaan" for the Netflix documentary "Nayanthara: Beyind the Fairytale" without necessary permission. Dhanush's Wunderbar Films had produced the movie Naanum Rowdy Dhaan.
Dhanush had moved an application to sue Los Gatos Production Services India LLP, an Indian entity based out of Mumbai through which Netflix operates its investments in India. Since the company is based out of Mumbai, Dhanush had moved an application under Section 12 of the Letter Patent Act allowing him to sue the company along with the other respondents before the Madras High Court.
Case Title: S Muralidharan v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Others
Case No: WP 27356 of 2019
The Madras High Court has directed the Commissioner of Geology and Mining and the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore to appear before it and explain how illegal mining had been taking place in close proximity to reserve forests in Coimbatore.
A specially constituted bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a petition filed by activist S Muralidharan for securing the elephant corridors in Coimbatore Forest division and to name the entire western ghats as special eco sensitive zone and to not permit commercial establishments or residences inside the forest.
While summoning the officers, the court also took note of the report of the District Judge, who upon an order of the court, had inspected the area and submitted his report on the environmental degradation that was happening in the area. The District Judge, in his report had found irregularities in the functioning of the brick kilns. The District Judge had stated that rampant sand mining was being carried out in the area with the connivance of the landowners.
