Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 23 to September 29, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr.Sumit Srimal, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 357

S.Muralidharan v Madras High Court and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 358

TNEB Accounts and Executive Staff Union v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 359

Hameed Ibrahim v The Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 360

Marathal (Died) and Another v. Kanniammal (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 361

R.Gnana Sundari v T.Yesuraj, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 362

ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 363

T.Muthu Irulappa v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 364

ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

A. Guruvammal v The Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 366

REPORT

In Absence Of Defendant's Written Request, Trial Courts Cannot On Its Own Extend Time For Filing Written Statement After 30 Days: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr.Sumit Srimal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 357

The Madras High Court has observed that the trial courts should not, on its own, extend the time for filing written statements after the expiry of 30 days. The court said that the courts could extend the time only at the request of the defendant which was made in writing containing reasons. The court added that condoning delay on its own would be contrary to Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC

Justice GR Swaminathan also noted that the orders condoning delay for filing written statements should not be passed mechanically and must contain the reasons. The court added that while condoning delay was discretionary, it was mandatory for the courts to record reasons in the order. The court also said that the trial courts could consider awarding costs while condoning the delay.

Madras High Court Junks Plea Seeking Special Benches For Hearing Cases Against Public Spirited Persons, Journalists & Youtubers

Case Title: S.Muralidharan v Madras High Court and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 358

The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the constitution of special benches for hearing cases related to public-spirited persons, journalists, and YouTubers.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji said that no person had a right to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to constitute a special bench. The court added that the petitioner's grievance could not be redressed by way of a public interest litigation.

The court also observed that various factors had to be considered before establishing a separate bench to deal with particular types of cases. The court noted that while the petitioner sought for a special bench, he had not argued that there was a huge backlog of cases against public-spirited individuals, journalists, or Youtubers and had neither placed any evidence pointing to the pendency of the cases.

Transfer Incidental In Employment: Madras HC Dismisses Plea Challenging TANGEDCO's Orders Transferring Employees To TN Green Energy Corp

Case Title: TNEB Accounts and Executive Staff Union v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 359

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) Accounts and Executive Staff Union challenging an order of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO) through which company employees were transferred to the newly formed Tamil Nadu Power Generation Corporation Ltd (TNPGCL) and Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Limited (TNGECL).

Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the transfer was made pursuant to a tripartite agreement entered into between the State Government, TNEB, TANTRANSO, TANGEDCO, and the trade unions. The court thus ruled that the trade unions could not challenge the transfer when they were already a part of the tripartite agreement. The court also noted transfer was an incidental part of employment and even assuming that some employees had difficulty with the transfer, it could not be a ground to challenge the transfers.

India Must Honour Bilateral Agreements With US: Madras HC Denies Clearance Certificate To Man Who Supplied Helicopters To Iraq Despite US Sanction

Case Title: Hameed Ibrahim v The Deputy Director

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 360

The Madras High Court recently refused to grant a clearance certificate to a man against whom PMLA proceedings were initiated based on a letter from the US Government.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that the Enforcement Directorate had initiated an investigation based on a letter issued by the US Government and the Government of India had to honour the bilateral treaties/agreements with the US Government.

Presumption U/S 90 Of Evidence Act Applies When Will Which Is Over 30 Yrs Old Is Produced From Proper Custody: Madras High Court

Case Title: Marathal (Died) and Another v. Kanniammal (Died) and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 361

The Madras High Court recently observed that when a Will, which is more than 30 years old, is produced from proper custody, the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act would be applicable to such will.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan observed that the Section did not exclude a will. The court added that by the very texture of Section 90, the document that requires execution and attestation like a will is presumed to be duly executed and attested if it is more than 30 years old and produced from proper custody.

The court added that if the will is more than 30 years old and produced from proper custody and it is shown that the attesting witnesses are alive and not produced before the court, it may resort to the presumption under Section 114 illustration (g) instead of one under Section 90. The court added that the presumption under Section 90 or under Section 114 illustration (g) should be guided by the principle governing “may presume” under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The court also made it clear that the presumption under Section 90 is not wide and is limited to the signature, execution, and attestation of the document. The court added that the presumption does not apply to the contents of the document which would have to be proved like other facts.

'Can't Have Another Trial Before The Registry': Madras HC Directs Family Court To Number Wife's Plea Without Asking For Evidence That Couple Are Hindus

Case Title: R.Gnana Sundari v T.Yesuraj

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 362

The Madras High Court has directed the Family Court in Chennai to number a petition filed by a wife for restitution of conjugal rights without insisting on evidence that she and her husband are Hindus.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that though the husband had filed a divorce petition claiming that the couples were Christians while the wife had filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights claiming that the couple were Hindus, the issue had to be decided by the court at the time of disposal. The court added that if proof is demanded at the time of numbering, it would lead to a trial before the registry and another trial before the court which could not be allowed.

Wife Threatening To Commit Suicide, Filing False Dowry Harassment Case Would Amount To Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court

Case Title: ABC v XYZ

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 363

Granting divorce to a husband, the Madras High Court recently observed that a wife threatening to commit suicide would amount to cruelty.

Justice S Srimathy noted that in the case, the husband had written letters to his mother, within 8 months of marriage indicating his agony wherein he had stated that the wife was threatening to commit suicide. The court noted that there was an element of mental cruelty present in the case.

The court also noted that the wife had filed false dowry harassment case against the husband and his family which had tarnished the family's image. The court thus noted that the wife had used the false dowry harassment case as a tool to threaten the husband which amounted to cruelty.

'Animals Don't Have Rights But State Instrumentalities Must Ensure Safe Environment': Madras HC Orders Compensation For Cow's Death By Electrocution

Case Title: T.Muthu Irulappa v The State and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 364

The Madras High Court has ordered compensation to a man whose cow died to electrocution after it stepped into a puddle into which electricity had leaked from a nearby transformer.

Justice GR Swaminathan noted that though animals did not have any rights as such, the State had a duty to ensure a safe environment for them. The judge added that courts have a duty to invoke parens patriae jurisdiction to take care of the rights of animals since they were unable to take care of themselves.

The court noted that of late, the natural life span of cows was also cut short due to the consumption of plastic. The court noted that death due to consumption of plastic was different as in such cases, death came gradually and insidiously accompanied by severe pain. The court also noted that the law relating to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was silent on this aspect and time had come to take note of the disturbing reality and remedy the solution. The court said that the municipalities and corporations had a duty to keep the streets litter-free and action should be taken for damages against erring entities.

If DNA Test Reveals Husband Is Not Child's Father, He Need Not Implead Wife's Paramour In Proceedings Under Indian Divorce Act: Madras HC

Case Title: ABC v XYZ

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

The Madras High court recently observed that not impleading wife's alleged paramour as a co-respondent is not fatal to a plea for divorce on the ground of adultery, when the DNA test already proves that the husband is not the father of the child.

Justice P Velmurugan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that once it is proved that the wife was leading an adulterous life, the husband would be entitled to divorce on that ground.

The court noted that the medical evidence and the expert advice clearly showed that the child was not born to the husband. The court also noted that the wife had not disputed the DNA test or the expert report on the DNA test. Thus, the court noted that even though there was no direct evidence, the expert advise would indicate that the wife had illegal intimacy with another man.

Despite Tamil Nadu Being A Better Law Enforcing State, There's An Increasing Trend Of Police Encounters: Madras High Court

Case Title: A. Guruvammal v The Commissioner of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 366

The Madras High Court today lamented the rising trend of police encounters in the state of Tamil Nadu. The court observed that despite being one of the better law enforcement State, there was an increase in incidents of criminals allegedly attempting to attack police officials and ending up being shot or injured.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that oftentimes, the family, who might have been affected by the criminals would applaud the encounter killings without realizing that the same is fundamentally wrong and retrograde thinking.

The court noted that the issue of appreciation for encounter killings had to be taken seriously as the same points to a lack of faith in the law enforcing agencies in the rule of law, constitutional rights and protection, and the criminal justice system. The court further noted that such an attitude reminisces the colonial past of the police and is an affront to democracy.

The court added that people's belief that instant death is an appropriate punishment that would have a deterrent effect is not true and was only a myth. The court emphasized that the means should be as legal as the end.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Madras High Court Stays Instruction Of Specified Officer Removing General Insurance Services From Default List Of Input Services For GST Exemption

Case Title: Zoho Corporation Private Limited v Union of India and Others

Case No: WP.NO.22132 OF 2024

The Madras High Court has stayed an instruction issued by the Specified Officer, Office of Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, through which the officer had unilaterally removed General Insurance services from the default list of input services which are eligible for GST exemption.

Justice Anita Sumanth noted that assumption of jurisdiction by the specified officer to amend the instructions which was issued by the Government of India was suspectable.

The court also noted that only the Development Commissioner was vested with the power to expand the list and the Specified Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to curtail the list contrary to the parent instruction.

Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Plea By Madras Race Club Seeking Exemption From Pre-Suit Notice To Govt Over Lease Termination

Case Title: Madras Race Club v State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: A 4809 of 2024

The Madras High Court on Tuesday reserved orders on an application made by the Madras Race Club seeking an exemption from the mandatory pre-suit notice.

As per Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, no suit can be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiry of two months after serving notice in writing.

Justice RMT Teeka Raman reserved orders after hearing lawyers for both the Madras Race Club and the State of Tamil Nadu.

Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Direction To Trial Courts To Refrain From Mentioning Caste, Religion Of Witnesses

Case Title: Gokul Abhimanyu OR v The Registrar General and Others

Case No: WP (MD) No. 22636 of 2024

The Madras High Court has issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the trial courts in the state judiciary to refrain from mentioning the caste and religion of witnesses in the depositions and any other documents, unless it is directly relevant to the case.

The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice Victoria Gowri ordered notice on a plea filed by Gokul Abhimanyu, a lawyer practicing before the Madurai bench of the High Court.

In his plea, Gokul submitted that even after the Supreme Court's order directing the High Courts to ensure that the caste or religion of a litigant does not appear in any petition or suit proceedings before High Court or any subordinate court, the trial courts in the State had not relinquished the practice of mentioning this information.

Madras High Court Issues Notice To Centre On Plea Seeking Regulation Of Content On OTT Platforms

Case Title: S Adhisivam v The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others

Case No: WP (MD) 22782 of 2024

The Madras High Court has issued notice to the Central Government on a plea directing the Government to immediately intervene and take appropriate steps to regulate and publish movies, web series, serials, and other programs broadcasted on the OTT website as per the current censorship system and regulate OTT platforms.

The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice Victoria Gowri issued notice to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Information Broadcasting, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Ministry of Information Technology, Central Board of Film Certification, Home Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Government and the Director General of Police.

The petitioner, Advocate Adhisivam argued that since there was no censorship over the OTT platforms, movies, web series and serials were being aired through these platforms which contained violence, drug abuse, obscene speech, scenes of crime against women and children, separatist scenes and anti-national views, and scenes supporting extremist views.

Justice KR Shriram Sworn In As Chief Justice Of Madras High Court

Justice Kalpathi Rajendran Shriram has been sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. The oath of office was administered to him by Governor of Tamil Nadu RN Ravi at the Raj Bhavan in Chennai on 27^th September 2024 at 10:00 am.

The swearing-in ceremony was attended by the President of India, Shri Ram Nath Kovind, former Supreme Court judge Justice Indira Banerjee, former CJI P Sadasivam and other dignitaries.

On September 21, the Central Government had notified his appointment as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court collegium headed by CJI DY Chandrachud had recommended his elevation on July 11. Justice Shriram was serving as a Judge at the Bombay High Court when he was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.