Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 4 to November 10, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

Aunestraja v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 416

B Vidyasagar v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 417

M/s Jaiswal Products v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 418

The Union of India v The Registrar, CAT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

M/S. Sivadarshini Papers Limited vs. M/S. Sunwin Papers, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

N Mahendra Babu v The Registrar General and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

LEGO Juris A/S v Gurumukh Singh and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

N.Jayamurugan Vs. M/s.Saravana Global Holdings Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

M/s.Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Airports Authority of India and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

M Vetri Selvan v Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 425

Edappadi K Palanisamy v Dhanapal, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 426

Pondicherry Institute Of Medical Sciences v The Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 427

Sujatha v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

P.Vasantha Kumar v Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

M Mangaiyarkarasi v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

REPORT

“Extreme Emergency Looms”: Madras High Court Issues Directions For Curbing Tobacco Use Among Children

Case Title: Aunestraja v The State and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 416

The Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to the Central Government, State Government and prosecuting agencies in an effort to curb the use of tobacco products among school kids.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there was an emergency considering the sudden surge of children using tobacco products and more specifically “Cool Lip” which in turn corrupted the body, mind, and soul of the children.

The court thus directed that the Central Government to issue further directions under Section 86 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 asking the States to ban “cool lip” which has already been classified as an unsafe food based on rules framed by the Central Government. The court added that the State Governments were bound to comply with the directions of the Central Government which were statutory in character.

Courts Must Strive To Remove Barriers Faced By Persons With Disabilities: Madras HC Dispenses Language Test For Speech & Hearing Impaired Engineer

Case Title: B Vidyasagar v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 417

The Madras High Court recently highlighted the court's duty to remove the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in their daily life.

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the barriers faced by persons with disabilities went beyond issues of accessibility and was deep rooted in prejudices and stereotypes in the society. The court added that persons with disabilities faced social, attitudinal, cultural, institutional, structural, legal and environmental barriers, which constitutional courts must, through their judgments, strive to remove.

Manufacturer Of Banned Tobacco Product Which Is 'Food' Can Be Prosecuted Under Food Safety And Standards Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s Jaiswal Products v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 418

The Madras High Court recently upheld the power of the Food Safety Officer to proceed with investigation for sale of banned tobacco products observing that tobacco, with or without any additive was a food product under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act.

In doing so the court said that the manufacturer was liable to explain the manner in which the product was cleared from the manufacturing unit which was in his exclusive knowledge.

A single judge bench of Justice G Jayachandran in its order also noted that the manufacturer of the banned tobacco was liable to face prosecution and could not claim that he had no knowledge how the product entered the banned place.

Chronic Vacancies And Essential Service Needs Justify Regularization Of Contract Employees Despite Article 320: Madras HC

Case Title: The Union of India v The Registrar, CAT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order directing the regularization of contract Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who had served in Puducherry for nearly two decades. Despite objections from UPSC regarding Article 320 requirements, the Court found that the unique circumstances—including chronic vacancies and essential service requirements—justified regularization. The Court distinguished this case from the Umadevi judgment, noting that the appointments were not “backdoor” entries but were based on sanctioned posts and urgent needs.

Arbitrator Nominated U/S 18(3) MSMED Act Erred In Deciding Merits After Finding Respondent Was Not MSME: Madras HC Upholds Setting Aside Of Award

Case Title: M/S. Sivadarshini Papers Limited vs. M/S. Sunwin Papers

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

The Madras High Coury bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan has held that an Arbitrator ought not to decide the case on merits after coming to a conclusion that the respondent was not a Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and therefore not entitled to invoke the machinery under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. The court upheld the setting aside of the award passed by the Arbitrator.

No Law Fixing Number Of Persons Who Can Accompany A Party In Court: Madras HC Rejects PIL To Limit Advocates Appearing For VIP Litigants

Case Title: N Mahendra Babu v The Registrar General and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

The Madras High court has dismissed a petition seeking to restrict the maximum number of advocates appearing and accompanying a VIP or VVIP litigant whenever they appear in subordinate courts.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that since there was no law fixing the number of persons who can appear and accompany a party in court, it could not direct the Registrar General to impose restrictions on the same. Thus, noting that the relief as prayed for could not be granted, the court dismissed the petition.

'Lego' A Well Known Mark: Madras High Court Cancels Hyderabad-Based Company's Registration In Confectionary Products

Case Title: LEGO Juris A/S v Gurumukh Singh and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

The Madras High Court recently cancelled the registration of a Hyderabad based company's trademark for its confectionary products which was similar to the trademark of famous toy company “Lego”.

Justice PB Balaji held that the company had almost identically adopted Lego's mark, including the style and the colour and had failed to give a satisfactory explanation to the close identity of the two marks. The court thus held that the company had a dishonest intention to use Lego's marks.

The court also noted that though the company claimed to have made a thorough search in the trade mark registry, the fact was that the company had made search only for traders dealing in confectionaries. The court thus noted that the company was conscious that there was a possibility of Lego being applied in other classes and the company's conduct exposed its malafide intention. The court also noted that the company's claim that it had used “Lego” mark honestly could not merit acceptance given that “Lego” had a global reputation and goodwill.

Award Must Not Be Set Aside On Ground Of Mere Erroneous Application Of Law Unless Patent Illegality Is Established U/S 34: Madras HC

Case Title: N.Jayamurugan Vs. M/s.Saravana Global Holdings Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited and within the contours of the ground specified under Section 34 of the Act. To put it otherwise, the award is not required to be set aside on the ground of mere erroneous application of law or by reappreciation of the evidence until and unless it suffers from patent illegality.

The court observed that under Section 25(3) a debtor can enter into an agreement in writing to pay the whole or part of a debt, which the creditor might have enforced but for the law of limitation, and suit can lie on a written promise to pay the barred debt as it is a valid contract. The reason for this provision is that the debt is not extinguished; only the remedy gets barred by passage of time, and this provision does not revive a dead right but merely resuscitates the remedy to enforce the right, which already exists.

Construction Of Contract's Terms Is Task Of Arbitrator, Cannot Be Interfered With U/S 34 Unless Construction Is Unreasonable: Madras HC

Case Title: M/s.Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Airports Authority of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an Arbitrator to decide unless the Arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do then only interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is justified.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Conferment Of Padma Vibhushan On Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

Case Title: M Vetri Selvan v Union of India and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 425

The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking to revoke the Padma Vibhushan Award conferred on Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed the plea noting that the court was satisfied that the norms for conferment of award was adhered to and thus the relief as sought for could not be granted.

Previously, the court had also expressed its doubts regarding the maintainability of the plea and had remarked that conferment of Padma award might not be within the scope of judicial review.

The petitioner had approached the court claiming that the award be revoked in light of the multiple criminal charges and court cases being faced by Jaggi Vasudev and his foundation. It was argued that the Padma Vibhushan, being the highest civilian honour in the country was awarded to persons with exceptional and distinguished service.

“Scandalous Allegations”: Madras High Court Awards ₹1.1 Crore Damages To Former CM Edappadi Palanisamy For Comments Linking Him To Kodanad Case

Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v Dhanapal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 426

The Madras High Court on Thursday awarded Rs. 1.1 Crore as compensation to former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palanisamy for comments made by one Dhanapal linking Palanisamy to the crimes that took place in Kodanadu Estate in 2017.

While decreeing the suit in favour of Palanisamy, Justice RMT Teekaa Raman said that the defendant, Dhanapal made the statements with the sole intention of lowering Palanisamy's image with the knowledge that the contents were per se false. The court also noted that the language used by Dhanapal clearly indicated that his intention was to malign Palanisamy and cast aspersions on his character.

On going through the contents of the video of Dhanapal's interview, the court was satisfied that Dhanapal had made scandalous allegations. The court also noted that Dhanapal had blackmailed Palanisamy to extract money as he was booked under a financial fraud case and was in dire need of money. Thus, the court was convinced that while making the statements, Dhanapal had a malice against Palanisamy.

Madras High Court Directs Pondicherry Institute Of Medical Sciences To Surrender 26 Seats For Failure To Comply With MCI Guidelines

Case Title: Pondicherry Institute Of Medical Sciences v The Government of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 427

The Madras high court recently directed the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences to forfeit 26 seats – 13 during the 2025-26 academic year and 13 during the 2026-27 academic year for failing to comply with the directions issued by the Medical Council of India during admissions in the year 2017-18.

Justice M. Dhandapani also directed the institute to pay Rs. 10 Lakh to the Spastics Society of Tamil Nadu and Rs. 10 Lakh to Adyar Cancer Institute within 2 weeks of the order. The court made it clear that no action would be taken against the students who had already been admitted and they shall be issued with the course completion certificate if not already issued.

Practise Of Deploying Uniformed Personnel Outside Police, Prison Authorities' Homes Not Done Away With: Madras HC Directs State To Enquire

Case Title: Sujatha v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

In a plea concerning condition of prisons, the Madras High Court while expressing its concern said, that despite several orders the practice of deploying "uniformed personnel" in the residences of higher police authorities and prison authorities has not been done away with.

In doing so the court called for stringent government action to ensure that the public servants are utilised only for public welfare and not to perform household works in the residences of the authorities, adding that deployment of uniformed personnel in the residences of the prison authorities is resulting in "dereliction of duty".

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman emphasized that police authorities and prison authorities were public servants who were paid decent salary from tax payer's money and they were expected to effectively perform their public duty. The bench added that the Government should take stringent action to ensure that public servants were utilized only for the welfare of the public and not to perform household works in the residence of officers.

Impossible To Impart Quality Education Without Filling Sanctioned Posts: Madras HC Forms Expert Committee To Monitor Recruitment In Govt Law Colleges

Case Title: P.Vasantha Kumar v Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

The Madras High Court has constituted an expert committee headed by retired High Court Judge V Bharathidasan to monitor the selection of Assistant Professors, Assistant Professors (pre-law) and Associate Professors in Government Law Colleges in Tamil Nadu.

Justice Battu Devanand remarked that it was impossible to impart quality legal education without filling up the sanctioned posts of the professors. The court added that by not filling the vacancies in a time-bound manner, the ultimate sufferers were the law students who's potential was lost due to the low quality of education and lack of proper teaching faculity.

The court thus constituted the committee headed by Justice (Retd) V Bharathidasan and Senior Advocate P Wilson and IAS (Retd) Mythili K Rajendran as members. The committee was to monitor the entire selection process including implementation of reservation rules. The committee was also asked to issue necessary instructions and guidelines to the Teachers recruitment Board to finalise and issue notification for recruitment to ensure that the notification is free from litigation.

Can't Expect Media To Verify If Each Advertisement Is Misleading: Madras HC Junks PIL To Prohibit Commercial Ads By Doctors, Hospitals

Case Title: M Mangaiyarkarasi v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

Dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking to prohibit television channels, newspapers, magazines, and radio channels from telecasting advertisements of doctors and hospitals to commercially promote medical practice, Madras High Court on Friday orally said it cannot expect the media to verify if each advertisement was misleading.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that if the advertisements by the doctors and hospitals were found to be in contravention of the rules framed by regulatory authorities, complaints could be made to the regulatory authority which could take appropriate action. The court added that it could not expect the media to verify if each advertisement was misleading but could only expect that channels do not advertise something which was detrimental to the general public.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Telegram Informs Madras High Court That It Will Remove And Block Accounts Impersonating PhonePe

Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v Telegram FZ LLC

Case No: O.A.No.839 of 2024 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.) No.218 of 2024

Telegram has informed the Madras High Court that it would remove any accounts impersonating PhonePe in its servers as and when a request for the same is received from Phone Pe.

The submissions were made before Justice K Kumaresh Babu. The court was hearing a plea by PhonePe seeking an injunction against Telegram.

Phone Pe had approached the court seeking damages of 10 Lakh and an injunction restraining Telegram and its agents from infringing PhonePe's registered trademark by developing, distributing, hosting or enabling the hosting, marketing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or dealing in any APK, mobile app or products. It was alleged that Telegram had been hosting channels that were impersonating the digital payment app and facilitating scamming in the name of PhonePe.