Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 21 - October 27, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

A Shankar and Another v RS Bharathi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

Veera Bharathi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

G.Shrilakshmi v Anirudh Ramkumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

P. Ananda Kumar v The Director General of Police (Prison) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

S Porkodi v The Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

Ahmed Mansoor and Others v The State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

N. Manoharan v G Sivakumar and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

The Management v. R. Parthiban, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Offshore Infrastructures Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

MRB Nurses Empowerment Association v. The Principal Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

Rev.Fr.Savarimuthu and Others v V.S.Jeyapandi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

The Director, Directorate of Medical Education and Research and Others v Jubil Timothy and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

The Regional Officer, NHAI v K Vasuki and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

S.Harikumar v The Presiding Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

M/s Challani Rank Jewellery and Others v Ashok Kumar Jain, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

REPORT

"Judges Can't Hide Behind Curtains": Madras HC Dismisses Savukku Shankar's Contempt Plea Against DMK Leader For Alleged Comments On Sitting Judge

Case Title: A Shankar and Another v RS Bharathi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

The Madras High Court, on Friday, dismissed a contempt petition filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar against DMK Organisation Secretary RS Bharathi for the latter's comment against Justice N Anand Venkatesh.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that Justice Venkatesh himself had expressed that he did not want to initiate contempt proceedings. The court also noted that the Advocate General had refused to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Bharathi.

The court remarked that citizens were free to access and criticize the conduct of those holding public office. The bench added that transparency was the foundation of the judiciary and that judges could not hide behind curtains.

Governor Bound By Cabinet's Recommendation On Premature Release Of Life Convict: Madras High Court

Case Title: Veera Bharathi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Governor of a State is bound by the decision of the State Cabinet with respect to the recommendations regarding the premature release of convicts.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam observed that the power under Article 161 to is to be exercised by the State Government and not the Governor on his own. The bench added that the Governor was bound by the advice of the appropriate Government.

The court added that the Tamil Nadu government had issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms). No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department setting out the eligibility criteria for premature release of life convicts. The court noted that this GO was statutory in nature as it was passed under Section 432 of the CrPC giving power to the State to suspend or remit sentences. The court thus held that the power of remission under Article 161 was to be exercised by the State Government and the Governor was bound by the decision of the State.

Family Courts Should Not Insist On Physical Presence Of Parties While Presenting Petition And For Future Hearings: Madras High Court

Case Title: G.Shrilakshmi v Anirudh Ramkumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

In a significant decision, the Madras High Court has held that the Family Courts should not insist on the physical presence of the parties/spouses at the time of presenting the petition and for future hearings.

Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed that virtual proceedings provided an opportunity to modernize the system and make it more affordable and citizen-friendly. The court thus held that family courts should make use of the video conferencing facilities without insisting on the physical presence of the parties and should not raise technical objections by insisting on the physical presence at any stage.

The court noted that Section 530 of the BNSS emphasized holding even criminal trials through electronic mode. The court added that recently, the justice dispensation system has seen much advancement in the use of technology, and the family court's insistence on physical presence would defeat the very purpose of the video conferencing facility.

Mutual Respect Between Lawyers And Prison Authorities Paramount To Vindicate Grievances Of Prisoners: Madras High Court

Case Title: P. Ananda Kumar v The Director General of Police (Prison) and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

The Madras High Court recently observed that mutual respect between lawyers and prison authorities was paramount to vindicating the grievances of the prisoners. The court added that both the lawyers and the prison authorities were working for the benefit of the prisoners and must ensure mutual respect through the process.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam added that the prison authorities were expected to provide all reasonable facilities to the lawyers and treat them with dignity while the lawyers were also expected to respect the prison authorities while performing their duties in a lawful manner.

Plea Opposing Online Release Of Vikram Starrer 'Thangalaan' For Allegedly Targeting Vaishnavites Withdrawn From Madras High Court

Case Title: S Porkodi v The Secretary to Government of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

A plea challenging the online release of Vikram starrer 'Thangalaan' was withdrawn in the Madras High Court last week.

The withdrawal of the petition has paved way for the online release of the movie which has been directed by PA Ranjith.

A division bench of Chief Justice KR Sriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy in its October 19 order noted the submissions and dismissed the case as withdrawn. The plea claimed that the movie targeted Vaishnavites and had sought a stay on its online release.

The plea was filed by Porkodi of Thiruvallur District claiming that the movie speaks about Buddhism and shows religious variation between Vaishnavites and Buddhists by showing Vashnavism and Vaishnavites in a comic role and Buddhism and Buddhists in a sacred role.

UAPA | Requirements Of S.43B Met When Remand Requisition Report Containing Grounds Of Arrest Is Served On Accused: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ahmed Mansoor and Others v The State and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

The Madras High Court recently observed that the requirements under Section 43B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is met when the remand requisition report, containing the grounds of arrest is served on the accused.

As per Section 43B of the UAPA, any officer arresting a person under Section 43A shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.

A remand requisition report is a document prepared by the investigating agency seeking remand of the arrested persons under Section 167 before the Magistrate. It contains the grounds of arrest and copy of the police diary entries.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that when the grounds of arrest were made available in the remand requisition report which was served to the accused before arrest in the presence of his lawyer, the fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 43B of the UAPA were complied with.

Magistrate Can Take Cognisance Of Offence Based On Protest Petition Even If He Declined To Take Cognisance Of Police Report: Madras High Court

Case Title: N. Manoharan v G Sivakumar and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

The Madras High Court recently observed that the Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance of an offense based on a complaint or a protest petition after filing the final report even if he had earlier declined to take cognizance based on the police report.

Justice P Dhanabal observed that the Magistrate could take cognizance even if the accused persons were discharged. The court noted that while exercising this judicial discretion, the Magistrate was expected to apply his mind to the contents of the protest petition

Employer Must Substantiate Misconduct Charges With Documentary Evidence, Mere Allegations Without Proof Insufficient: Madras HC

Case Title: The Management v. R. Parthiban

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and C. Kumarappan upheld a Labour Court order reinstating an employee terminated on charges of theft and misconduct, holding that disciplinary action must be supported by substantial evidence rather than mere allegations. The Court emphasized that the employer's failure to produce essential records like stock registers to prove charges of theft and fabrication of accounts rendered the termination unjustified, despite the argument that criminal acquittal standards differ from disciplinary proceedings.

The court cited B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612 to reiterate that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to examining whether procedural fairness was followed. In this case, both the Labour Court and the Single Judge found that the inquiry was flawed due to a lack of substantial evidence. The court ruled that there was no basis to overturn these factual findings, as they were neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Labour Court's order reinstating Parthiban with back wages.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Probe Into Data Breach At Star Health Insurance

Case Title: Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by Cyber Security expert Himanshu Pathak seeking a probe into the alleged security breach at Star Health Insurance. Pathak had also filed an interim petition seeking to stay the online business of the company in light of the recent data leak.

Justice M Dhandapani dismissed the plea noting that a civil suit filed by the company against Pathak was already pending in which a single judge had already passed an interim injunction. Thus, noting that the issues were connected and there could not be parallel proceedings for the same issue, the court dismissed the plea. The court, however, gave liberty to Pathak to work out his remedy before the appropriate authority.

Award Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality If Decision Of Arbitrator Is Perverse Or Irrational: Madras High Court

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Offshore Infrastructures Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

The Madras High Court Bench of Justice C.Saravanan held that patent illegality as a ground for setting aside an Award is available only if the decision of the Arbitrator is found to be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take or that the view of the Arbitrator is not even a possible view.

At the outset, the court reiterated the settled law on section 34 of the arbitration act. It referred to the Supreme Court judgment in The Project Director, NHAI Vs. M.Hakim, (2021) wherein it was held that the power to set aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not include the authority to modify the Award. It further held that an Award can be set aside only on limited grounds as specified in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and it is not an appellate provision.

Provisions Of Maternity Benefits Act Prevail Over Contractual Conditions, Would Apply To Contractual Employees: Madras High Court

Case Title: MRB Nurses Empowerment Association v. The Principal Secretary and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act would prevail over any contractual conditions set up by the employer to deny maternity benefits to a woman.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the benefits of the Maternity Benefits Act would be applicable to contractual employees and the employer could not rely on the contract of employment to deny them such benefits.

The court ruled that as per the recent ruling of Dr Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and others, the Supreme Court had held that once a lady employee fulfils the eligibility criteria specified in Section 5(2), she would be eligible for full maternity benefits even if such benefits exceed duration of her contract.

Order Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC Is Judicial Order And Amenable To Revisional Jurisdiction: Madras High Court

Case Title: Rev.Fr.Savarimuthu and Others v V.S.Jeyapandi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

The Madras High Court has recently observed that an order granting leave under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is a judicial order and not an administrative order. The court added that being a judicial order, it was also amenable to revisional jurisdiction of courts. The court thus took a different stand than what had been previously taken by the Madras High Court.

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the power of the court to grant leave under Section 92 was judicial as it was wielded by a Civil Court and the court had to exercise its discretion on objective grounds as the matter involved rights of parties.

Madras High Court Allows Student To Continue In MBBS Course After Wrongly Choosing BDS Course During Counselling

Case Title: The Director, Directorate of Medical Education and Research and Others v Jubil Timothy and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a student, who despite having been allotted the MBBS course in the first round of counselling, had wrongly chosen the BDS course.

The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that it could not agree with the State's hyper-technical contention and give capital punishment for a genuine mistake committed by the student. The court also noted that the Instructions stated that once a candidate opts for upgradation and gets allotted an upgraded seat, he has to relinquish the seat from previous rounds and join the upgraded seat. The court observed that the Rule was not applicable in the present case, as it dealt with the degradation of the seat and not upgradation.

NHAI Empowered To Lay And Maintain Roads, Cannot Be Mulcted With Liability Under Motor Vehicles Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Regional Officer, NHAI v K Vasuki and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

The Madras High Court recently held that the National Highways Authority of India which was empowered with the responsibility of laying down and maintaining roads but it could not be mulcted with any liability under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the MV Act empowered the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to only pass an award against the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle and thus did not have jurisdiction to entertain a tortious claim against any person not named under Section 168 of the Act. The court thus set aside an order of the MACT which had imposed liability on the NHAI for the death of a person.

Disciplinary Proceedings Need Only 'Preponderance of Probability', Not 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt': Madras HC

Case Title: S.Harikumar v The Presiding Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice C. Kumarappan upheld the dismissal of two Greaves Cotton Limited workers accused of engine sabotage. The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings need only meet the “preponderance of probability” standard rather than criminal law's “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold. The court found the dismissal proportionate given the serious nature of industrial sabotage and its potential implications for public safety and company reputation. The bench validated the inquiry findings, ruling they were based on substantial evidence and proper cross-examination, not mere presumptions.

Cheque Bounce Complaint Maintainable Despite Freezing Of Account By ED/IT Dept If Complainant Establishes 'Insufficiency Of Funds': Madras HC

Case Title: M/s Challani Rank Jewellery and Others v Ashok Kumar Jain

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

The Madras High Court recently observed that even if an account is blocked or frozen by the Enforcement Department or the Income Tax Department, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be maintainable if the complainant is able to prove that dehors the freezing, the account did not have sufficient balance to honour the debt.

Justice G Jayachandran observed that the drawer of the cheque, in such cases could take a defence that the account was blocked or frozen. The court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012) and held that issuing a cheque without sufficient fund to honour it is the genus of the crime and the complaint would be maintainable.

The court also observed that a single complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable when all the cheques were presented on the same day and were returned on the same day relying on the earlier decision of the Madras High Court in Suryakant V Kanakia v. Muthukumaran and Manjula v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.

Madras High Court Quashes Defamation Complaint Against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu By AIADMK's Babu Murugavel

Case Title: Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

The Madras High Court on Friday quashed a criminal defamation complaint filed by AIADMK's Babu Murugavel against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu and which was taken on file by the Special Court for Trial of Cases relating to Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu.

Justice G Jayachandran noted that the complaint had been filed by Murugavel in his personal capacity and not in a representative capacity. The court added that Murugavel had failed to prove that he was aggrieved by the alleged speeches made by Appavu. The court observed that though Murugavel claimed to have filed the complaint on behalf od the AIADMK party, he had failed to provide any authorisation by the party allowing him to represent the party.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Samsung Opposes Trade Union's Plea In Madras High Court For Registration After Company's Name, Says Union Has Political Affiliations

Case Title: P Ellan v State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP No. 28894 of 2024

Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd has objected to the registration of the Samsung India Thozhilalar Sangham before the Madras High Court.

Justice RN Manjula, on Tuesday, allowed an impleading petition by the company in an ongoing proceeding by the union seeking its registration. The court noted that in the interest of justice, it was appropriate to include Samsung as a party to the proceedings.

The trade union approached the court seeking directions to the Registrar of Trade Union to register the union. The union had argued that since the Registrar of Trade Union has caused a delay in registering the union within the stipulated time without any reason, it has caused great prejudice to the union. The union had contended that it had a right to be registered under the Trade Union Act of 1926 and the Registrar should uphold the constitutional values and should comply with the provisions of the Act by registering the Trade Union.

Senior Advocate G Rajagopalan, appearing for Samsung informed the court that the trade union had a political association as it was backed by the CITU and Samsung, being an international company did not want to be associated with any political party. Rajagopalan also informed the court that the company had already incurred a loss of 100 million dollars since the workers had been protesting for over a month without registering the union.

Star Health Data Breach: Telegram Agrees To Take Down Accounts Flagged By Star Posting User Information, Says Can't Do Patrolling

Case Title: Star Health and Allied Insurance Coltd v M/s Telegram Messenger and Others

Case No: OA No. 684 of 2024 and CS (Comm.Div) 178 of 2024

Telegram, on Friday informed the Madras High Court that it was ready to remove and block any account that was flagged by Star Health Insurance and was found sharing the details of policyholders in light of the recent Star Health data breach.

The submissions were made before Justice K Kumaresh Babu who was hearing an application filed by Star Health to injunct Telegram from sharing the data of the users.

The court had previously granted a temporary injunction preventing Telegram from sharing information related to Star Health. The court, while granting interim relief had noted that considering the sensitive nature of the business, irreparable damage will be caused if the interim protection was not granted.

On Friday, when the case was taken up, Telegram informed the court that it could take action only upon information from Star. It submitted that it could block accounts only as per request from Star and could not monitor all accounts as requested by Star. Telegram also submitted that it was not empowered under the Information Technology Act or the concerned Rules to take down all accounts that were posting data related to Star Health.

Madras High Court Seeks State's Response On Plea Against Appointment Of Male Superintendent In Female Prisons

Case Title: P Pugalenthi v State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP No. 31223 of 2024

The Madras High Court has sought a response from the State Government in a petition questioning the appointment of Male Superintendents in female prisons.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy issued notice on a petition filed by Advocate and Director of Prisoners Rights Forum, P Pugalenthi.

Pugalenthi had argued that since special prisons for women were manned by Male Supervisors, the women prisoners were not in a position to explain their grievances and get them redressed. He pointed out that this causes immeasurable mental agony to the woman prisoners.