Madras High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations: 1 - 134]

Case Title: M/s.The Kancheepuram Reading Room and Tennis Club, Represented by its Secretary v. The Director-General of Police & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 1

Madras High Court has recently rejected the relief sought by a Club to forbear the insisting upon obtaining FL2 License for allowing its members to consume liquor (bought from government-approved shops) inside the Club premises.

Justice S.M Subramaniam held that Clubs registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act with its bye-laws also registered under the provisions of the Act must strictly follow the objects and purpose already set out in the bye laws. When alcohol consumption is beyond the scope of the bye-laws of the petitioner club, it must be r/w Rules relating to the grant of licenses in Chapter IV of The Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981, which makes it abundantly clear that the Club cannot allow its members to consume alcohol in its premises without FL.2 License and an amendment to the existing bye-laws.

F.L.2 license is stipulated for 'license for possession of liquor by a non-proprietary Club for supply to members' in the Rules. Even for consumption of liquor in a Club or Association, a license must be obtained for the possession of liquor and for supply to its members inside the premises, the court added.

2. Madras University Losing Its Reputation Rapidly, Erring Officials Must Be Dismissed From Service': High Court

Case Title: The University of Madras, Rep. By its Registrar v. Dr. S. Bhaskaran & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 2

The Madras High Court recently expressed its dismay over the rapidly declining reputation of the Madras University, and observed that disciplinary proceedings must be instituted against errant officials for not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty.

The remarks were made by a division bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice A.A. Nakkiran after it noted irregularity in the process for appointment of Assistant Librarians in the University.

The Court observed that the University has flouted the regulations by regarding the disputed post as promotional. The bench observed that UGC Regulations and the Standing Regulations of the University of Madras does not treat it as a promotional post and it could have been filled only through Direct recruitment as per the then existing service conditions.

It noted that technical wing and library wing are completely different as per the Rules, and Assistant Librarian is the Feeder Category that can be filled only through direct recruitment.

3. 'Right To Relax Can't Be Curbed Fearing Breach Of Morality': Madras HC Disagrees With Another Bench's Direction To Install CCTVs In Spas

Case Title: Payel Biswas v. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 3

While considering a writ petition filed for obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Police for running a cross-massage centre, the Madras High Cour has also analysed a recent single judge bench order for the installation of CCTV cameras inside Spa and Massage Centres.

The court observed in clear terms that mere apprehension about a breach of morality cannot be a valid ground to curb the right to relax, which is a part and parcel of the right to privacy. Referring to the landmark decision in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, (2018) 10 SCC 1, the single judge bench pointed out that 'constitutional morality shall trump public morality'.

Justice G.R Swaminathan primarily relied on Puttaswamy judgment (K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1) that elaborates about the different facets of right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21. These forms of the right to privacy are i) a right to bodily autonomy, ii) a right to informational privacy and iii) a right to a privacy of choice.

"The installation of CCTV equipment inside premises such as a spa would unquestionably infract upon a person's bodily autonomy, These are inviolable spaces where the prying eye of the state simply cannot be allowed to enter" the court held.

The court was referring to the order passed by Justice S.M Subramaniam in C P Girija v. Superintendent of Police & Ors. dated 20th December, 2021. In the said order, the bench directed the installation of functional CCTV cameras in all spas, massage centres, therapy centres etc. in the State of Tamil Nadu. It was also directed by the court that secluded or closed rooms for conducting business activities must be avoided in spas and massage centers.

4. No 'Public Purpose' For Veda Nilayam Acquisition And Conversion To Memorial: Madras High Court Dismisses AIADMK Plea

Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam & Another. v. J.Deepak & Ors. & Connected Matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 4

In third party appeals against the single judge order quashing land acquisition proceedings of 'Veda Nilayam', Madras High Court held that no 'public purpose' is served by converting the erstwhile residence of Late J. Jayalalitaa into a second memorial.

While dismissing the appeals preferred by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam (AIADMK) and former AIADMK Minister C.Ve Shanmugam, Madras High Court has also held that AIADMK wrongfully equated itself with the appropriate government in acquisition proceedings.

A Division Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup held that the state's land acquisition proceedings were riddled with procedural irregularities, concurring with the findings of the single judge bench setting aside the acquisition.

The court held that the appellants have failed in raising any substantial challenge against the inferences made by the single judge bench about procedural irregularities. Though the acquisition was of a private residential property, the state didn't even consider the status of writ petitioners as owners of the property. However, since the acquisition and not the ownership is in question before the current bench, the court answered that the procedural irregularities explained by the single judge bench with regards to the 2013 Act and Rules will hold true.

5. 'Few Former Constitutional Authorities & Ex-Legislators Misusing State Emblem': Madras High Court Issues Directions To Prosecute Offenders

Case Title: S.Mukachand Bothra (Deceased) & Anr v. The Central Government & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 5

Coming down heavily on the misuse of State Emblems, Seals and Symbols, Madras High Court has issued a set of directions to ensure the compliance of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 and the Rules framed thereunder.

A single-judge bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam opined that not even a single case has been registered by Tamil Nadu Police against unauthorised use of such Emblems, Flags, names of departments and other Symbols on vehicles or elsewhere. The court made the above inference after referring to the status report filed by DGP who was suo motu impleaded. According to the status report, apart from registering cases under Motor Vehicles Act and for impersonation of public servants under Sections 170 and 171 of IPC, the Police 'miserably failed to register any case under the Act 50 of 2005', noted the court.

The court issued the directions in a case where a former Member of Parliament, R. Anbarasu, lodged a formal complaint by affixing the Indian National Emblem in his letter pad. After the receipt of the said complaint by the Commissioner of Police, the original (now-deceased) writ petitioner was arrested and kept in custody for 21 days. Though the criminal case was quashed by Madras High Court in 2012, the son of the original petitioner impleaded himself and decided to pursue the issue of illegal use of Emblems on account of the hardships faced by his father. M. Gagan Bothra, the son, also stated that the complaint was lodged by the former MP due to a dispute arising out of a loan given by his father.

6. Status Quo In Religious Demography Has To Be Maintained; Religious Conversion Can't Be A Group Agenda: Madras High Court

Case Title: Fr P. George Ponniah v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 6

While refusing to quash an FIR registered against the Catholican Diocese Priest P. George Ponnaih for an inflammatory speech against the Hindus, the Madras High Court made a few observations about religious conversions.

Justice GR Swaminathan, who considered the case, observed that it is important to maintain the status quo regarding religious demography. "If there is a serious subversion of the status quo, calamitous consequences may follow", Justice Swaminathan stated. While saying that an individual's choice to change religion is protected by the Constitution and must be respected, Justice Swaminathan said that religious conversions cannot be a "group agenda".

The priest was booked by Arumanai police for his speech at a meeting convened for paying homage to late Fr. Stan Swamy. Referring to the offences under which he was charged, the court observed that the priest cannot insult or outrage another religion and still claim immunity from the application of Section 295A, 153A and 505(2) of IPC. The court has however quashed the offences under Section 143, 269 and 506(1) of IPC and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

Also Read: Offensive Words Against 'Bharat Mata' & 'Bhuma Devi' Attract Offence Under Section 295A IPC: Madras High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Catholic Priest

7. Rental Dues Of Cold Storage Keeping Seized Contraband On Magistrate's Order: Madras HC Directs Payment From Victim Compensation Fund

Case Title: Trichy Cold Storage (P) Ltd., Rep.by its Manager v. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy & Anr.

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 7

In a peculiar case, the Madras High Court has ordered payment of Rs 1.25 lakh to a cold storage facility keeping seized dates, after a Magistrate Court ordered the Police to store the perishable contraband until disposal of the case.

The storage bill had mounted to Rs.3,54,000/-. The payment is directed from the Victim Compensation Fund by the jurisdictional magistrate court.

Considering the factual circumstances surrounding the issue, the High Court observed that the jurisdictional magistrate was not justified in directing the police to keep the perishables in safe custody via its October 2018 Order.

"Section 459 of Cr.PC authorizes the magistrate to direct sale of seized properties that are subject to speedy and natural decay. Fruits obviously come under the said category. The prosecution would not in any way be weakened by the disposal of the goods. The fake labels and wrappers are sufficient to establish the case against the accused", the court observed, adding that the order was 'erroneous in extreme'.

8. S.25-O ID Act| Can't Permit Authority To Sit On Closure Application & Operate Deeming Provision: Madras HC Sets Aside Closure Of 2 Textile Mills

Case Title: Swadeshi Panchalai Thozilalar v. The Secretary, Industries and Commerce

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 8

The Madras High Court has set aside notices for the closure of two Mills in Puducherry, whose history dates back to the French Colonial period, on the ground that provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with in its true spirit.

Justice S. Vaidyanathan noted that the Mills were closed without issuing any notice of enquiry under Section 25-O of the 1947 Act for making objection before the Authority concerned and without taking up the matter for hearing.

It allowed the writ petitions filed by two separate registered trade unions and passed a common order for both Swadeshi Cotton Mill and Bharathi Mills considering them as a single entity.

If the Authority is allowed to operate the deeming provision without conducting any enquiry, the very purpose of the provisions of the Act itself will be defeated, as there is not even an attempt to conduct an enquiry, which is mandatory on the part of the concerned Authority under Section 25(O)(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947, observed the court.

9. 'God Cannot Be Summoned': Madras High Court Overturns Order To Produce Idol

Case Title: S.P.Eswaramurthy v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 9

Overturning a lower court's decision, the Madras High Court has observed that an idol is believed to be a God by the devotees cannot be summoned by the Court. While hearing a challenge to the order of the lower Court in an idol theft case, where the idol was called to be produced in the Court to enquire its condition, Justice R. Suresh Kumar observed that,

"The God cannot be summoned by the Court to be produced for a mere inspection or verification purposes, as if that it is a material object of a criminal case."

To serve the purpose of the impugned compliance order without disturbing or wounding the feelings of a large number of devotees, the Court called for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, who, along with others concerned, will prepare a detailed report on the condition of the idol.

10. CCI's Order For Preliminary Enquiry Does Not Attract Civil Consequences; Writ Court Can't Interfere: Madras HC

Case Title: M/s MRF Limited v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 10

The Madras High Court has recently held that under the writ jurisdiction there should be no interference with a preliminary enquiry ordered by the Competition Commission of India under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.

The Court clarified that an order for investigation passed under S.26(1) is a preliminary order and does not attract any civil consequences and does not determine the issue raised against the parties finally and any interference by the court at that stage would only allow the parties to escape the investigation itself that would defeat the object sought to be achieved by the Act and thus, the court held that the learned single judge was right in not interfering with the order of CCI and in dismissing the petition.

A bench of Justice T. Raja and Justice T.V. Thamilselvi observed that the failure to comply with any requirement of CCI rules and regulations shall not invalidate any proceedings unless the CCI is of the view that such failure has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

11. SpiceJet Vs Credit Suisse AG- Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Airline's Admission Of Winding Up

Case Title: SpiceJet Limited v. Credit Suisse AG

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 11

Madras High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by SpiceJet against a single-judge bench order for admission of its winding up on Credit Suisse AG's Company Petition.

After hearing the counsels appearing for SpiceJet and Credit Suisse at length, a Division Bench of Justices Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup and Paresh Upadhyay noted in the order that the Original Second Appeals are dismissed and the Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are accordingly disposed off. Since the stay on the operation of the impugned order is till today, the bench agreed to extend the application of stay order till 28th January so as to afford the appellant an opportunity to approach the Supreme Court.

The grievances of the appellant airlines and the issues framed by the court were pertaining to the alleged errors in the single judge bench order that does the following:

(i) admission of the winding-up petition, which is filed invoking Sections 433 (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, and

(ii) appointment of the Official Liquidator, High Court of Madras as Provisional Liquidator.

12. Adolf Hitler Was A Vegetarian, Hated Animal Cruelty; Man Can't Be Judged By Outer Appearance: Madras High Court While Upholding Death Penalty

Case Title: The State Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police v. Samivel @ Raja

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 12

In a case arising out of aggravated sexual assault and cruel murder of a 7-year-old child from a marginalised community, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has upheld the death sentence imposed on the culprit by the trial court.

A Division Bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice G. Jayachandran confirmed the death sentence of the accused made by Mahila Court, Pudukottai.

The bench held that the brutality of the attack, the barbaric manner in which the deceased child was murdered and the mental agony undergone by the parents makes it one of the 'rarest of rare' cases. The court added that it necessitates the imposition of death sentence, since no other sentence including life imprisonment will be adequate.

The accused was booked for offences under Sections 364, 376, 302, 201 IPC r/w 5(m), 5(j)(iv) and 6 (1) of POCSO Act as well as 3(2)(V) of SC/ ST Act. The case of the prosecution was that the accused developed a friendship with the child belonging to the Scheduled Castes Community and used it to fulfil his sexual desires.

"It is pertinent to mention here that everyone's mind contains a liar, a cheat and a sinner and a man cannot be judged by his outer appearance, as Adolf Hitler, who ordered the execution of some eight million people and was responsible for the deaths of many millions more, hated cruelty to animals and was a vegetarian. If a person like the accused herein is allowed to survive in this world, he will definitely pollute the mind of other co-prisoners, who will be at the verge of release from jail in which he is confined. When the attitude of a man turns into the one of a beast, having no mercy over other creatures, he should be punished and sent to the eternal world", the court noted in the order.

13. 'Publicity' Under Garb Of PIL: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Keep TASMAC Liquor Shops Closed On Public Holidays

Case Title: B. Ramkumar Adityan v. The Chief Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 13

In a plea seeking directions to keep the TASMAC liquor shops closed during public holidays, the Madras High Court has criticized the practice of advocates filing public interest litigations for 'publicity'.

The Bench however refrained from imposing cost and the plea was dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioner, Advocate B. Ramkumar Adityan, had sought appropriate directions from the High Court to the state government for declaring Pongal, Christmas, Thai Poosam, Republic Day, etc. as 'dry days'.

"Festive mode has become a tragic mode", said the petitioner referring to the untoward incidents allegedly on account of alcohol consumption in those days.

14. Petitioner Cannot File Writ Petition Before Exercising Remedy U/S 17 Of SARFAESI Act; Madras High Court

Case Title: R. Ganesan v. M/s. ASREC (India) Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 14

The Madras High Court, in a Bench comprising of Justice M. Duraiswamy and Justice Sathya Narayan Prasad in R. Ganesan v. M/s. ASREC (India) Limited has reiterated the legal position and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner due to non-exercise of alternate remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

As per the terms of Section 17, an appeal can be filed to the Debt Recovery Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which the measures referred to under Section 13(4) of the Act are taken.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in The Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C. and Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, the Bench held that the aggrieved parties cannot challenge proceedings taking place under the SARFAESI Act directly by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226, without exhausting the remedy of appeal available to them.

15. Divorce Decree From French Court; Maintainability Of Suit For Partition Of Dissolved Community Property Before Indian Court: Madras High Court Explains

Case Title: Venkateswarane Sivadjy v. Alice Viala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 15

In a divorce proceeding characterised by questions on Conflict of Laws, Madras High Court has held that a suit filed for partition and separate possession of the property in India, as per Indian laws is maintainable and will not be barred by virtue of not approaching French Notary for liquidation under Article 1444 of the French Civil Code.

A Division Bench of Justice T. Raja and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarty was disposing of an appeal filed by the Husband under Section 96 of C.P.C r/w under Order 41 R 1 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree by Family Court, Pudukottai.

The husband and wife, in this case, were French nationals for whom the personal law applicable would be the French Civil Code since it's Lex Patriae. This being the law of nationality of the persons who got divorced in 2005 , it would be applicable to them irrespective of where they are domiciled.

Under French Law, the marital relationship can either be based on a prenuptial contract, and in its absence, the relationship would be governed by Community regime.

The major question that arose before the court was the Lex Causae that's applicable for effecting the manner of partition. The main contention of the appellant was that Article 1444 of the French Civil Code mandates either of the parties to resort to the liquidation proceedings within three months from the date of divorce coming into force, that too, before the Notaries in France. Therefore, the appellant contended that the current suit filed by the wife, eight years after the divorce, before an Indian Court is not maintainable.

The court responded in the judgment to the above submission of the appellant in consonance with the findings of the Family Court. The court added that the manner of effecting partition is a rule of procedure, and therefore, in rules of procedure, lex fori(law of the forum) will apply.The court held that the Indian Law would be lex causae and not the French Code Civil. This would mean that Article 1444 wouldn't apply.

16. Madras High Court Orders 10 Lakh Compensation For Death Of Woman Negligently Shot By Stray Dog Hunter

Case Title: G. Babu v. the District Collector & Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 16

Madras High Court has ordered to pay compensation to the son of a deceased mother who was shot accidentally in a 'Shoot and Kill' stray dog hunt with the sanction of Eraiyur Panchayat.

A single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam has ordered the District Collector, Perambalur and the functionaries including the Eraiyur Panchayat President to pay Rs 5 laksh each as compensation to the petitioner son.

The court has also censured the authorities for shooting stray dogs, which is an illegal act in itself.

"It is an unusual incident where the responsible Panchayat President and the Councilors have engaged the 8th respondent for shooting out the stray dogs in the Village. The very operation itself is illegal and further the bullet removed from the mother of the petitioner during postmortem confirms that the death occurred due to the bullet injuries. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compensation…", the court observed.

17. Pendency Of Cases Involving Large Scale Revenue Causes Loss To Nation: Madras HC Calls For Quick Disposal Of Income Tax, Mining, Excise Matters

Case Title: Dalmia Refractories Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 17

The Madras High Court recently expressed its concern over long pendency of cases involving large scale revenue.

Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that cases of Income Tax, Customs, Excise, Mines and Minerals etc. must be disposed of quickly to prevent misuse of nation's property.

Talking about the skewed tactics employed by stakeholders in keeping the writ petitions pending, so as to reap undue benefits of interim orders in force, the court added the following:

"The growing tendency on writ side is that such writ petitions involving large scale revenue, more specifically, Income Tax, Customs, Excise, Mines and Minerals etc., interim orders are in force for several years and the Nation's properties are being looted or misused or taken undue advantage of. Such a situation is absolutely unconstitutional and further anything under the earth belongs to the Government and it is the Nation's property, which belongs to 'We the People of India'. Thus, no one can be allowed to extract without adhering to the Act, Rules and Regulations and any violations are to be treated seriously and all these persons must be liable for all consequences", the court observed.

18. Madras High Court Strikes Down Women Reservation In Excess Of 50% For Chennai Corporation Polls

Case Title: R. Parthiban v. The Chief Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 18

In a plea against reservation in excess of 50 per cent for women in Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation, Madras High Court has held that reservation can only be based on the total number of seats in the Municipality and not on Zonal wise demarcation.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu has struck down the 2019 Government Notification which reserved 89 wards out of 200 wards for Women Candidates and another 16 seats for the Scheduled Caste Women, bringing the total tally to 105.

The public interest litigation, calling reservations in excess of 50 per cent discrimination against men and violation of constitutional principles, was filed by Advocate R. Parthiban. The senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, S. Prabakaran, had argued that women are entitled to only 84 seats according to the Tamil Nadu Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2016 and the Chennai City Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2016 mandates 'not less than fifty per cent reservation' for women.

19. Sun TV Network Has Exclusive Broadcasting Rights Over 'Jilla' Movie: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/S Sun TV Network Ltd v. M/S Supergood Films Private Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 19

Madras High Court has allowed a writ petition that sought a declaration of the exclusive copyright of Sun TV Network over the broadcast of 'Jilla' movie, while granting permanent injunction against the defendants from exhibiting/ exploiting the movie in a similar manner.

A single-judge bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the second defendant, United India Exporters, only had the right to exploit the theatrical release of the film outside India as per the agreement between them and Super Good Films Private Limited. It does not include the exclusive rights to make, sell or let out for their copies of the cinematographic film 'JILLA' and broadcast the said film through various mediums of broadcast and transmission outside India.

The court observed that Supergood Films, the producer and exclusive copyright owner of 'Jilla', have assigned the exclusive copyright in favour of the plaintiff Sun TV Network in respect of satellite television broadcast as early as 8th July 2013. The said agreement was entered into much before the theatrical release rights assigning agreement between Supergood Films and United India Exporters.

20. Can't Sit As An Appellate Authority To Scrutinize Who Should Be Given Tender': Madras High Court Upholds Auction For Lease Of Fishing Rights

Case Title: P.Subbiah @ Subbian v. The District Collector, Theni & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 20

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has recently refused to quash the public auction of lease for fishing rights in Pappaiyampattikulam Kanmoi in Periyakulam while stating that it cannot sit in appeal and scrutinize as to whom the tender should be given.

The petitioner, the President of Pappaaianpatti Kanmoi Water Users Association, contended that Kanmoi is the water source for about 350 acres of land and about 7500 families are also dependent on it. In such a backdrop, grant of fishing rights have high chances of the lessee damaging the tank bunds and draining the water.

Justice C.V Karthikeyan observed that inviting tenders for public auction was done with specific clauses for safeguarding the irrigation requirements, without damaging the bund or draining the water for fishing.

21. Fake Arbitration In 'Film Shooting Set' Court Room, Madras High Court Cancels Award Directing Execution Of Sale Deed In Respect Of Stranger's Property

Case Title: K. J Sumathy,W/o.Late K.S.Jagannathan & Ors v. The District Registrar, Dharmapuri Registration District & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 21

Madras High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award directing execution of sale deed of a third party's property, alien to the proceedings before the tribunal, after huge fraud came into light with respect to the transaction between the parties and the arbitral proceedings before the tribunal.

Before the Division Bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice S. Srimathy, the contentious matter was a sale deed on a property earlier given as security, registered in favour of the lender (Rajendran) for a 4 lakh rupees loan. The borrower was a local politician and upon a fabricated dispute, the parties resorted to the arbitration clause in the loan agreement.

Based on the findings and inferences made by the Court, the arbitration proceedings by the appointment of Advocate K. Rajaram was fake since it was the result of collusion between the parties. In the said arbitral proceedings at a 'make-believe court room' in Dharmapuri with Government of India emblem, an arbitral award regarding the property of a stranger (K.S.Jagannathan's land measuring 8 acres and 16 cents), to which none of the parties before the tribunal had a lawful claim.

22. Restriction On Fishing Under Rule 17(7) Of TN Marine Fishing Regulation Rules Not Illegal Or Discriminatory: Madras High Court

Case Title: Poompuhar Traditional Fishermen v. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Others.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 22

A plea filed by Poompuhar Traditional Fishermen challenging Rule 17(7) of the amended Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 1983, was dismissed by Madras High Court.

The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu observed that the restrictions imposed on the use of fishing gear, especially the ban on fishing by pair trawling or fishing with purse-seine net does not suffer from the vice of constitutional illegality.

Rule 17(7) was inserted by Government Order 36 dated 17th February, 2020. However, while dismissing the petition, the court observed that the prohibition was already in force by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.40 dated 25th March, 2000. The said G.O issued by the Animal Husbandry and Fishing (FS.V) Department, in accordance with Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, prohibited fishing, by pair trawling and using of Purse-Seine nets for fishing in order to protect various fish species. The prohibition on fishing gear permitted was not challenged for over two decades, the court noted.

23. Admission To Medical PG Courses: Madras High Court Upholds Prospectus Clause Enabling In-Service Candidates To Compete In Open Category

Case Title: Dr.Parkaviyan R. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 23

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging Clause 29(c) of the Prospectus issued for filling up seats in Medical PG Courses, which allows even in-service candidates who offered their services in difficult terrains to compete for seats in the Unreserved Category, with the aid of additional weightage given to their marks.

Justice M. Dhandapani observed as follows:

"…the State is empowered to create channels of selection by prescribing quotas for open category and in-service candidates, but the State is also within its powers to lay down norms with regard to the basis in which the merit list is to be prepared for determining the inter se merit of the candidates competing in the two different categories and how the inter se merit is to be arrived at by considering the marks obtained by the candidates in the eligibility test conducted by the testing agency coupled with the incentive marks awarded to the in-service candidates. Precluding the State from exercising the powers conferred on it by the Constitution, more especially Entry 25 List III of the Constitution would be denuding the State of its power, which has been given to it by the Constitution and as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

The court also pointed out that the petitioners have not challenged G.O. Ms. No.463 in and by which the incentive marks, that were awarded to in-service candidates were allowed to be counted while finalising the inter se merit of the candidates in the open category.

24. Online Registration System For Championships, Important Posts In Sports Bodies Exclusively For Sports Persons: Madras HC Issues Directions To Prevent 'Favouritism' & 'Nepotism'

Case Title: S. Nithya v. The Secretary to the Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 24

Madras High Court has issued directions to streamline the functioning of Sports Organisations/ Associations/ National Sports Federations and its State Units/ National Olympic Association etc., including a mandate for an online registration system at all levels and laying down qualification requirements of functionaries at the helm of such Associations/ Federations.

A single-judge bench of Justice R. Mahadevan was adjudicating the grievance of a sportswoman who alleged favouritism and nepotism from the Tamil Nadu Athletics Association. The petitioner, S. Nithya, a Discus Throw Champion, accused the State Association of nit-picking the athletes of their choice for Open National Championships in 2017 & 2018, disregarding the petitioner and others who possessed the necessary qualification to participate in the National Level Event.

Madras High Court has asked the competent Sports Authorities/ Federations to formulate an online registration system for all district level, state level and national level athletic championships, competitions, meets and events, similar to the model followed in the Federation Cup Athletics Championships immediately. The single-judge bench has instructed that the posts of President, Vice President and Secretary of every sports Association/Organisation/NSFs and its State Units, as well as important functionaries of such organisations, shall be held only by sportspersons.

25. 'TN Housing Board Empowered To Initiate Eviction If Allotment Rules Are Violated': Madras High Court

Case Title: Anna Nagar Club v. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, TNHB (Anna Nagar Division)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 25

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Anna Nagar Club to quash the letter of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) demanding rental arrears from it.

The club owed an amount equivalent to Rs. 52,25,960/- as on June 2016 as rental arrears. The rent was fixed at Rs. 20,000 per month for the Club which occupies seven grounds of lands in a prime location at Anna Nagar.

Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed that the Housing Board is owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu and any loss to the Board will be the loss to the revenue of the State. Therefore, the court noted that the petitioner club should pay the remaining rental arrears and further, the Housing Board must carry out an exercise fixing the rent in commensuration with the actual market rental value in that locality.

26. 'Can't Be Mute Spectator': Madras HC Orders Action Against Revenue Officials Mutating Records To Give Legal Colour To Encroachment Of Water Bodies

Case Title: Annamalai v. Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 26

While dismissing a petition challenging disconnection of electricity service in business premises, the Madras High Court has harshly criticized the revenue and electricity officials conniving with illegal occupants of water bodies and Government Puramboke lands.

Justice S.M Subramaniam opined that the case at hand is a classic example of connivance between occupants and concerned officials. Many revenue and electricity officers have thrown caution to the wind by allowing the encroachers to cast a legal colour on their illegal occupation by mutating revenue records and even granting them with electricity connections. The court also pointed out that this is usually done without examining the genuineness of the documents and the title to the land. The court has also suo motu impleaded the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai to identify the delinquent officials and to take appropriate departmental action against them.

27. 'Let Swaraj Be Given To The Victims Who Suffer At The Hands Of Modern Day Bureaucrat': Madras HC Orders Pension For Widow Of Freedom Fighter

Case Title: M.Sornam v. The Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 27

In a writ petition filed by the widow of a freedom fighter for grant of Family Freedom Fighters Monthly pension, Madras High Court set aside the rejection order by Freedom Figher Revenue Division (F.F.R) and directed the processing of Petitioner's application under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

While allowing the plea of the petitioner wife, the court also made some stringent remarks about bureaucrats denying the freedom fighters pension on flimsy, technical grounds.

The single-judge bench of Justice C.V Karthikeyan was adjudicating a plea filed by the widow of E. Muthiya, a freedom fighter who was a Sepoy in the Indian National Army (INA) and served under the late lamented Nethaji Subhas Chandrabose. According to the wife's petition, her late husband was taken to detention in Burma (May 1945- July 1945) and incarcerated in Rangoon Central Jail (August 1945- July 1946) while he was retreating with the INA

28. Madras High Court Expunges 'Scathing' Remarks Against Actor Vijay In Entry Tax Case

Case Title: C. Joseph Vijay v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 28

In an appeal filed by Actor Vijay to remove the scathing remarks made by the single judge bench while dismissing his petition for tax exemption on a Rolls Royce Ghost Motor Car, Madras High Court has expunged the observations made by single judge bench in paras 3,4,7,8, 11 and 12 of the original order.

A Division Bench of Justices Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Mohammed Shaffiq allowed the writ appeal filed by Actor Vijay and disposed off the connected miscellaneous petition with no costs.

The actor was challenging the order passed by a single bench of Justice SM Subramaniam on July 13, dismissing a writ petition filed by Vijay in 2012. In the judgment, the single bench had made observations to the effect that one becomes a 'real hero' by promptly paying tax. The single bench had also taken a dig at the actor by saying that while his reel life characters were preaching tax compliance, in real life he was seeking exemption.

29. Madras High Court Refuses To Defer Urban Local Body Polls Amid Covid Third Wave

Case Title: Dr.M.Nakkeeran v. The State Election Commissioner & Ors. & Connected Matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 29

The Madras High Court refused to postpone the urban local body polls likely to be notified by the State Election Commission before January 27, even though the petitioners vehemently opposed conducting elections in light of the third wave of the pandemic. The order was passed after hearing all the counsels appearing for the petitioners in a course of three days.

The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that it cannot go against the direction given to the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) by the apex court to abide by the constitutional mandate to conduct elections every five years. On 27th September 2021, Supreme Court had directed the TN SEC to notify the polls within four months based on the undertaking given by the Commission.

The court accepted the petitioners' contention that the High Court has vast powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the court observed: "...The question however would be, in the exercise of said jurisdiction, can we go against direction of the apex court? This is not a case here we have refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in reference to the bar under any statute, but to maintain judicial discipline and not to pass an order contrary to an apex court order".

30. Uncivil Remark But No IPC Offence: Madras High Court Quashes FIR Over FB Post Against General Bipin Rawat

Case Title: G.Sivarajaboopathi v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 30

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) quashed an FIR registered against a man over a Facebook post made by him against Late CDS General Bipin Rawat soon after his death in the helicopter crash on December 8, 2021.

The single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan condemned the act of the accused G.Sivarajaboopathi in harsh terms but quashed the FIR observing that the post did not amount to a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code.

The subject matter of the case was the post which said "it is disgrace to shed tears for "Dictator Bipin Rawat", the mercenary of the fascists". Based on a complaint, the Cyber Crime Police Station Nagercoil registered an FIR invoking Sections 153, 505(2) and 504 of IPC on December 15 against the author of the post and others who shared the post.

31. Registry Can't Raise Objections On Maintainability Even If Alternative Remedy Available, High Court's Discretion To Exercise Powers Under Article 227: Madras HC

Case Title: Rt.Rev.Timothy Ravinder Dev Pradeep, The Bishop, CSI Coimbatore Diocese v. Rev.Charles Samraj.N & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 31

In civil revision petitions filed challenging an order passed by Coimbatore Principal District Munsiff, Madras High Court has held that the power to issue writ under Article 226 or Article 227 is subject to the court's discretion even when an alternative remedy is available. The alternative remedy in itself won't constitute a bar for the High Court to exercise its revisional powers under Article 227.

The court also made a clarification that the Registry shouldn't have queried about the maintainability of the revision petitions in light of alternative remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as against the order passed in the interim application by the Munsiff. Registry does not have such powers to raise objections on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure or under any other statute.

The single-judge bench of Justice R. Subramanian was considering the revision petitions arising out of an order granting temporary injunctions restraining administrative committee from taking any policy decisions on appointments, change of correspondents and carrying out the day-to-day affairs of CSI Diocese until the conduct of 34th CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council and interfering with the functions carried out by the current Presbyter and Chairman of the CIS All Souls' Church, Coimbatore.

32. Prisoner Has No Fundamental Right To Conjugal Relationship As A Course; May Seek For 'Specific Purpose' Like Infertility Treatment: Madras HC

Case Title: Meharaj v. The State Rep By Its Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 32

In a pertinent judgment, Madras High Court has answered i) whether the denial of conjugal rights to a convicted prisoner would be violative of Article 21 and, ii) whether the state can be directed to consider the request made by convict for emergency leave or ordinary leave for the said purpose.

Since the right of their spouses to have conjugal rights are also indirectly curtailed by such denial, Madras High Court has examined the scope of treating conjugal rights of a convict/ prisoner as a fundamental right, and in case there is such a right, whether it would be unconditional or subject to other restrictions. The court answered the above questions while deciding upon the propriety of directing the state to grant emergency leave or ordinary leave to a convict for the purpose of having a conjugal relationship with the spouse.

In a reference made by the Division Bench of High Court over the dilemma that there is no specific provision in Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, for availing leave to have conjugal relationship with the spouse, a three-judge bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice PD Audikesavalu and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana answered in the affirmative that prisoners/ convicts can claim such a right if there is a ground of 'extraordinary reason' and infertility treatment falls within the definition of 'extraordinary reasons' as envisaged in the Act.

The bench opined that the prayer of the petitioner to undergo infertility treatment when the convict and the spouse do not have a child in the wedlock forms 'extraordinary reason' under Rule 20 (vii) of 1982 Rules. However, the court made a clarification that if the couple had a child in the wedlock, then seeking leave for infertility treatment would not have been considered as an 'extraordinary reason'. The convict/ prisoner cannot seek leave over and over for the same ground in the category of 'extraordinary reason', the court added.

33. Trade Secrets: Constitution Of 'Confidentiality Club' Depends On Showing Prima Facie Case For Grant Of Ad-Interim Relief: Madras High Court

Case Title: Amica Financial Technologies Pvt.Ltd. v. Hip Bar Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 33

Madras High Court has recently refused to grant an interim injunction to Amica Financial Technologies, restraining the respondents including Hip Bar and Dreaming Technologies Pvt Ltd from undertaking any business in connection with the pre-paid instruments license (PPI License). While vacating the ex-parte order of status quo from December, 2021, the court observed that there is not even a semblance of prima facie case made out by the applicant for grant of interim injunction.

"To claim such protection, the applicant must, at least prima facie, establish through some material that such information was communicated or imparted to the 1st (Hip Bar) and 2nd respondents. The applicant must also, prima facie, establish that the information in question is confidential in nature. Further, the applicant must also show that the confidential information is under a threat of being unauthorizedly used by the respondents for wrongful gain", the court noted.

The matter pertains to the trade secrets, including business plans and objectives, in respect of the proposed PPI business by Amica which was allegedly shared with Hip Bar. The plaintiff/applicant submitted before the court that Dreaming Technologies Private Limited is in the process of acquiring Hip Bar.

The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh also discarded the request of the plaintiff to constitute a confidentiality club by noting that it cannot be done in a hasty manner merely based on the ipse dixit of the plaintiff. First of all, the Court must be satisfied based on materials and the plaintiff must necessarily lay a foundation before making such a request, the bench added. The plaintiff sought the constitution of confidentiality club for the reason that it cannot divulge the nature of trade secret either in the plaint or in the interim application for injunction; it further added that such an act would expose the sensitive confidential information to everyone and detrimentally affect the uniqueness of the business model followed by the applicant.

34. Madras High Court Issues Slew Of Directions To Remove Encroachments From Water Bodies

Case Title: K.K Ramesh v. the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors and Other Connected Matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 34

Issuing a slew of directions on top of the directions already in force, the Madras High Court has underscored that there will be no leniency towards waterbody encroachers and land grabbers.

The court has made it clear in a batch of writ petitions seeking directions to prevent widespread encroachment that- it won't allow the encroachers to peacefully enjoy the properties listed as water bodies on the 'Tamil Nilam' Website.

The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu has directed that no registering authority under the Registration Act, 1908, shall register any document pertaining to lands classified as water bodies in the revenue records as shown in the Tamil Nilam Website.

Additionally, the court made the following directions:

1) The registering authority must obtain a declaration from every such applicant seeking land registration, plan approval, electricity/ water connection or assessment of property tax that their lands are not situated in waterbodies.

2) Moreover, the authority allowing the requests in such applications should ensure that the property has not been identified as a waterbody by the State Government in Tamil Nilam Website. To ascertain the status of the land concerned, physical inspection at the property must also be carried out for ensuring the same and an office note about the same must be kept on record.

3) The court has also given an ultimatum to aiding/ abetting officials who circumvent law to facilitate encroachment of water bodies.

35. Commercial Suits - Time Limit Of 120 Days For Filing Written Statements Not Mandatory For Written Statements To Counter Claims: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.CSCO LLC & Anr. v. M/s.Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 35

In a significant decision, the Madras High Court recently held that the mandatory time limit of 120 days to file a written statement in a commercial suit is not applicable to written statement to a counter-claim.

"... this Court holds that the Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, which fixes the maximum period for filing the written statement as 120 days and which was held to be mandatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. S. Chamankar Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., reported in 2019 (2) CTC 294, beyond which the right to file the written statement will stand forfeited, will not apply to a written statement filed by the plaintiffs for the counter claim made by the defendants and such cases will be governed only by the time period fixed by the Court under Order VIII Rule 6 A(3) of CPC".

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was considering if it would be prudent according to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and Madras High Court Original Side Rules to condone the delay of 563 days in filing the Written Statement of the Plaintiffs for a Counter Claim filed by Defendant.

36. Written Complaint By Public Servant Mandatory For Taking Cognizance Of Offence U/S 188 IPC: Madras HC Quashes FIR Over Agitation To Shift TASMAC Shop

Case Title: Palaniyappan & Ors. v. State & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 36

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against protesters who assembled before a TASMAC Shop in 2017 and demanded that it must be shifted for the sake of young generation.

While quashing the FIR registered based on the complaint of Village Administrative Official and taken on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Justice K. Murali Shankar observed that the prosecution has failed to establish that the ingredients of the offences under which they were booked are made out.

The court, after placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu (2010), noted its findings that Section 195 Cr.P.C bars taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 I.P.C., except on a complaint in writing given by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

The petitioners had filed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 143 [Unlawful Assembly], 188 [Contempt of lawful authority of public servants], 341 [Wrongful Restraint] and 353 I.P.C [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty].

The court observed that the FIR was registered against 23 persons including 14 women without considering the clear bar on taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 I.P.C. without a complaint, as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

37. Imposition Of Moratorium Under IBC Does Not Bar Complaints Against Natural Persons: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Nag Leather Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Muzain Hides

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 37

The Madras High Court in a Bench comprising of Justice N. Sathish Kumar in M/s. Nag Leather Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Muzain Hides held that as long as a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is imposed, proceedings under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be initiated against the Corporate Debtor. These proceedings, however, can be initiated against natural persons as mentioned in Section 141. The Bench allowed the Petition and quashed proceedings under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Petitioner no. 1, who was the Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP under the Code.

Noting that the moratorium would apply only in respect of the Corporate Debtor, and not in respect of the directors/ management, the Court allowed the Respondent to proceed against Petitioners no. 2 and 3, them being natural persons.

38. 'Investigation Not On Right Lines, Conversion Attempt Not Improbable' : Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Tanjavur Girl's Suicide [Read Judgment]

Case Title: Muruganantham v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 38

Harshly criticising the investigation by the Tamil Nadu police into the suicide of Tanjavur girl student for ruling out the angle of alleged attempts of religious conversion to Christianity from her school, the Madras High Court on Monday ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the matter.

"...there is nothing inherently improbable in the allegation that there was an attempt at conversion. It could be true or false. The matter called for an investigation and not outright rejection", Justice GR Swaminathan observed while allowing the petition filed by the father of the deceased girl.

The girl, a Class 12 student of Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Michealpatti, had died on January 19 following an attempt to suicide. After her death, certain video clips of her recorded by a third party named Muthuvel emerged in social media, in which the girl had allegedly made statements about forcible conversion attempts.

39. 'Policy Decision': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea For Distributing Pongal Gift Hampers To Sri Lankan Refugees Outside Camps

Case Title: Dr. Ramu Manivannan v. The Chief Secretary & Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 39

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Retd. Professor Ramu Manivannan seeking directions to the government of Tamil Nadu to extend the Pongal gift hampers to the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees residing outside the rehabilitation camps.

The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that those staying outside the camps without ration cards won't be entitled to the benefits sought and there is no illegality in the policy decision of the government.

40. Extramarital Affair May Amount To 'Mental Cruelty' U/s 498(A) IPC Depending On Facts & Circumstances Of Case: Madras High Court

Case Title: M.Muthumadasamy v. The Accountant General and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 80

In a significant observation, the Madras High Court has recently said that it is time for the Constitutional Courts to ensure that the rights and duties are enforced in an equal manner. The Court also stressed that the Government should come out with a clear system with the enforceability of duties.

This assertion came from the Bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam as it held that if a public servant contracted a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife, then the second wife is not entitled to any service benefits, as the second marriage is void in the eye of law.

In its order, the Court also underscored that enforcement of duty is an integral part of the Constitution of India and that if performance of duties won't be insisted then an imbalance would be created and which would affect the democratic principles.

81. 'Fighting Only For Their Rights, Time To Emphasis On Duties': Madras HC Issues Directions To Counter Misconduct By Govt. Salaried Teachers

Case Title: K. Radha v. The Chief Educational Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 81

Slamming those in the teaching community that takes private tuition classes for remuneration and do other businesses, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to prevent government school teachers from flouting the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and Service Rules.

The court was deprecating the trend of teachers approaching the High Court even for transfer to a nearby place. The court also added that once they manage to get an interim order of stay, they continue staying in the same place for several years, which is detrimental to the rights of other employees and public administration.

Justice SM Subramaniam has also observed that the Teachers Associations in the state are illegally interfering in the affairs of the Education Department. The single-judge bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam has directed the Principal Secretary to constitute Special Teams at the District level to monitor and initiate disciplinary proceedings if teachers are involving themselves in private business/ tuition centres, other part-time employments etc.

82. Transgender Persons Self-Identifying As Females Can't Be Clubbed Under Women Quota, Should Be Given Special Reservation: Madras High Court

Case Title: Saratha vs Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 82

The Madras High Court has held that clubbing Transgender persons who self-identified as females under the quota for women is unconstitutional. The Court also held that there can't be inter-se discrimination among transgender persons identifying themselves as "males" and "females".

"The decision of Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) to combine the TGs, who had opted for female category, along with the vacancies reserved for Women deprives equality to them which is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India," the Court said.

The Court also held that the failure to provide any kind of reservation for the Trans Gender persons in the male category and placing them on par with the general category candidates, is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) and unconstitutional. The Court held that such action defies the direction in the Supreme Court's NALSA judgment to provide reservation for transgender persons in public employment.

83. Madras High Court Quashes Order Shortening Validity Of Karti Chidambaram's Passport

Case Title: Karti P.Chidambaram v. The Regional Passport Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

The Madras High Court has held that when an application is made for the renewal/ re-issue of a passport, the authority cannot shorten the duration or validity of the same without following Sections 7 and 10 of the Passports Act, 1967.

Holding thus, Justice M. Govindaraj directed the Passport Authority to re-issue a passport to Congress MP Karthi P. Chidambaram, which shall be valid for a period for which his passport was otherwise valid

After hearing both parties, the single bench noted that the order shortening the period of validity without following Section 10 or Section 7 of the Act and without recording suitable reasons is not sustainable in law.

Therefore, the court directed the passport office to reissue the passport with the existing period of validity or for 10 years as per Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

For reaching the said conclusion, the court extensively relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Narendra K.Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors. (2014).

84. 'High Time Prosecution Agencies Conduct Training Programmes For Prosecutors To Keep Them Abreast With Procedural Law: Madras High Court

Case Title: Kannan@ Mannanai Kannan & Ors. v. The State represented by Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 84

Observing that extraction of Section 161(3) of Cr. P.C statement in cross-examination cannot be construed as a substantive piece of evidence, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has set aside an order of trial court sentencing three murder accused to life sentence. The court iterated that substantive evidence is the evidence tendered by the witnesses on oath during criminal trial.

"...Therefore, mere repeating the statement contained in 161(3) Cr. P.C by the public prosecutor under the pretext of cross-examination of the witness who turned hostile can never be substantive evidence. It is relevant to note that the purpose of treating the witnesses hostile and cross-examination is to get some materials or to unearth truth from the witnesses", the court noted.

The Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and N. Sathish Kumar pointed out that the witness statement under Section 161(3) CrPC were put to witnesses during cross examination with a conclusion that the witnesses who turned hostile gave false evidence to exonerate the accused persons.

85. Underage Driving | 'Innocent Lives Are Lost, Can't Give Stamp Of Approval': Madras High Court Declines Motor Accident Claim Of Minor

Case Title: Irfan v. K.S Kumaran & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 85

Madras High Court has recently refused to entertain a motor accident claim in which the claimant, a minor, was found driving the motorcycle involved in the accident.

In a strongly-worded judgment, Justice S. Kannamal noted that the claimant who was a minor boy at the time of accident cannot demand compensation from the insurance company when he himself is a tortfeasor.

Though the bench agreed with the claimant's submission that Motor Vehicles Act is intended to be a 'benevolent legislation', it clarified that that in itself would not mean there is an ipso facto applicability in all the cases. In the light of clear insurance policy violation, the court noted that the insurance company is relieved from the responsibility of paying compensation. Therefore, the court upheld the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai that had rejected the claim in 2017.

86. Devotees Expected To Enter Temples In Proper Dress Code; Temples Having Dress Code May Fix Visible Sign Boards: Madras High Court

Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

In a plea for a mandatory dress code to allow entry into temples, Madras High Court has observed that devotees are expected to enter the temple premises in proper dress code.

However, the Court also held that it cannot issue a general direction to all temples to put up signboards prescribing the dress code as suggested by the petitioner.

A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the court cannot 'thrust' opinions on the society. The bench also added that if the customary practice of a certain temple prescribes dress code for entry, then such temple can fix visible sign boards to ensure that dress code is followed and the temples can take regulatory measures to that effect.

"The devotees are expected to enter the temples in proper dress to maintain the sanctity of the temple. It is not for the Courts to venture into unchartered waters and thrust our opinions on society. It is the devotees who should realise that they are entering into a place of worship and they need to adhere to the customs in vogue at such temple, if any", the court observed while issuing directions.

87. Can't Claim Specific Post When Two Posts Are In The Same Cadre With Identical Pay Scale: Madras High Court

Case Title: O. Selvam & Ors v. The Commissioner of School Education & Ors & Connected Cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

Madras High Court has recently iterated that when two posts carry equivalent scale of pay and are treated as equal categories under the Rules, the petitioners have no right to claim a particular post as a matter of right or choice.

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court underscored that when the service conditions are not infringed from and out of the administrative transfers effected, the Government employees have no right to claim a specific post as their choice.

Justice S M Subramaniam was hearing a plea made by petitioners who were initially appointed as B.T.Assistants (Bachelor of Teaching) and some others who were promoted as B.T. Assistants from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Petitioners belonging to both categories has passed the Deputy Inspector's Test and were qualified to be transferred and appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, an equivalent cadre carrying identical pay scale. Since they met the requirements under Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service, they were appointed as Deputy Inspectors.

The petitioners were challenging the 6th January notification by the Joint Director of School Education directing the District level Chief Educational Officers to make administrative transfers and accordingly post these Deputy Inspectors as B.T Assistants by 7th January.

88. 'Propensity To Stoke Communal Disharmony': Madras High Court Disallows Lalgudi Temple Car Festival To Pass Through Streets

Case Title: D.Balasubramanian v. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department & Ors and Prabhu Nambiappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

Madras High Court has observed that the temple car procession/ festival in Achiramavalli Amman Kovil at Jangamarajapuram cannot be allowed this year since it has the potential to stoke communal tension like in 2021.

The court was hearing two separate writ petitions filed in 2021 and 2022 about the conduct of the Temple/ Car Festival in the Trichy District .

In the common order, the single-judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan added that the reports submitted by the Tahsildar and Deputy Inspector of Police indicated that the temple/car festival was not conducted in a peaceful manner in 2021, which saw partial boycott and pelting of stones, injuring public and police.

89. Pondicherry University Empowered To Collect University Development Fund Paid By Students: Madras High Court

Case Title: Immaculate College Of Education For Women v. Pondicherry University & Anr. and Connected Matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of writ appeals filed against the single judge bench order dated 05.01.2022 in favour of Pondicheryy University collecting University Development Fund paid by students from the Individual colleges.

The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the University can demand 'other charges' in addition to the fees stipulated in Section 27(e) Pondicherry University Act,1985. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal by saying that the demand notices issued to colleges for University Development Fund are not beyond the University's competency since it is covered by Section 5(20) of the Act.

"The appellant counsel referred to Section 27 of the Act by taking note of the subject matters mentioned therein with regards to ordinances and not the powers of the University under Section 5 of the Act", the court pointed out.

The single bench judgment in 2020 had dismissed the plea by the appellant colleges filed in 2010 which challenged the imposition of Rs 1000/- as University Development Fund.

90. 'Interest To Solatium A Must': Madras High Court Modifies Award Of Additional Compensation For Land Acquired By ONGC

Case Title: M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Deputy General Manager v. Rajeswari & Ors and Connected Cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

While upholding the additional compensation per Are granted by a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'Act') , Madras High Court has held that interest for Solatium is a mandatory component as per Section 28 of the Act.

The single Bench of Dr Justice G. Jayachandran was hearing a batch of appeal suits preferred by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) under Section 54 of the Act.

With respect to the interest that must be paid on Solatium, the court observed that there was an omission from the Reference Court since Section 28 of the Act [Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation] and Supreme Court Judgments mandate such interest even if the landowners have not preferred any cross objection or appeal for the interest portion on the solatium.

"...their right to seek interest to solatium in the appeal filed by the third party/Requisition Authority has to be entertained. The cardinal principle in land acquisition is, when a person is deprived of his Constitutional Right to hold property, he must be paid just and fair compensation. Therefore, when the statute prescribes interest to compensation at a particular rate (i.e) 9% p.a., from the date of award, till the date of possession plus one year and at the rate of 15% thereafter, the same has to be applied on the solatium also, as mandated under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894", the court underscored.

91. 'Can't Order DVAC Inquiry In Absence Of FIR': Madras HC Disposes Plea For Investigation Into Alleged Stationery Supply Scam By Madurai Prison

Case Title: P. Pugalenthi, Director, Prisoners Rights Forum v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

In a plea seeking direction upon the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to investigate the alleged scam in the supply of stationery articles by the officials of Madurai Central Prison, the Madras High Court has asked the petitioner to seek registration of FIR or to file a private complaint invoking Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed,

"The prayer has been made to direct the fourth respondent to cause investigation pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner without realizing that the investigation into the matter can be conducted by the Police or Anti-Corruption Department only after registration of the First Information Report."

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Director of Prisoners Rights Forum, P. Pugalenthi.

92. IIT-Madras Student Suicide: High Court Quashes FIR Against Protesters From Campus Front Of India

Case Title: Ashraf & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against some office bearers and members of 'Campus Front of India' who organised a protest in front of IIT-Madras seeking justice for a suicide victim.

Admittedly, the members assembled and protested for arresting the faculty implicated in the suicide note of Fathima Latheef, a first-year Humanities student who hung herself in a ceiling fan in her hostel room in November 2019.

The single bench of Justice A.D Jagadish Chandira observed that no act of violence has occurred during the protest and no untoward incident has taken place, which warrants the quashing of the FIR registered against the protesters.

While allowing the criminal original petition, the court noted as below:

"...admittedly, no violation is reported in this case and the protest has also not ended in any violence. Therefore, this Court, is of the considered view that further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2962 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai is liable to be quashed".

93. 'Can't Thrust Gujarat Model Of Underground Transmission Lines On Authorities': Madras HC Dismisses Appeals Against Electricity Project In Krishnagiri

Case Title: T. Akshaya & Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

Madras High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ appeal challenging the laying of high tension transmission lines at Sevaganappalli in Krishnagiri, allegedly contravention of distance norms and disregard for potential health hazards.

The appellants argued that the sub-station would be supplying electricity solely to Exide Industries Limited while the State submitted that the project will be equally beneficial to the nearby villages that experience electricity deficit. Apart from challenging the grant of approval by pitting it against Article 14, the writ appellants/ petitioners further submitted that realigning the 110 KV DC lines or laying underground transmission lines like in Gujarat will be a plausible alternative.

About the alternatives proposed by the appellants, the court noted in the judgment that the 'Gujarat Model' cannot be imposed on the Respondent Authorities, especially when 24 towers have already been erected and transmission lines are being laid.

"A reference of Gujarat model has been given, but it cannot be imposed on the respondent authorities because they have wisdom to decide as to whether to go with underground transmission lines or overhead lines. This court cannot thrust the opinion of the appellants upon the respondents to go for underground transmission lines for the remaining towers...", the court noted.

94. 'Factum Of Cohabitation & Marriage Can't Be Proved With A Single Photograph Together': Madras High Court

Case Title: S. Meena & Anr. v. Sivakumar & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

While dismissing an appeal suit filed by a woman claiming 1/7th share for herself and her son in the ancestral property of her deceased husband's family, Madras High Court has underscored that the factum of marriage cannot be inferred from a single photograph where both are seen together.

The single-judge bench of Justice G. Jayachandran added that though the courts should generally 'lean upon legitimacy and frown upon bastardy' [as laid down in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others] it can also not consider a deceased person as responsible for the birth of the minor appellant. Attempts made to obtain the property of a deceased person by claiming parentage must be equally frowned upon, the court remarked.

Before the bench, an appeal suit under Section 96 CPC was filed by submitting that the appellants are the widow and son of one late Sakthivel. They contended that they are the legal heirs of Sakthivel, and therefore, they are legally entitled to 1/7th share in the ancestral property jointly held by defendants who are the brothers, mother and father of the deceased Sakthivel.

"The factum of marriage and long cohabitation are not matters, which can be inferred through a single photograph, where a male and female are seen together. More so, when only the positive is filed without negative and the person, who took the photograph not examined. The Ex.A-1, the photograph is in colour and new...", the court said while clarifying that the photo and the CD that contains the photograph will not be admissible in evidence.

95. Madras HC Holds Execution Petition Over Beneficial Ownership Of Award Debtor In Shares Held Ostensibly By Third Parties Maintainable

Case Title: Pueblo Holdings Limited v. Emirates Trading Agency LLC & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

Madras High Court has recently held that the execution petition filed by a company incorporated in the Republic of Marshall Islands, in pursuance of a foreign arbitral award in its favour, against another company with its registered office in Dubai is maintainable before it.

The single-judge bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has held that the consecutive third execution petition filed by Award Holder, Pueblo Holdings Limited, seeking the enforcement of the decree against UAE based Award Debtor, Emirates Trading Agency LLC, by attaching the assets held ostensibly by third parties in the prominently Chennai based ETA Group is maintainable.

96. Alleged Scam Of 20,000 Crores Involving Cholamandalam Group and Public Servants: Madras HC Refuses To Direct Investigation By CBI

Case Title: N. Rahul Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

Madras High Court has recently iterated that when two posts carry equivalent scale of pay and are treated as equal categories under the Rules, the petitioners have no right to claim a particular post as a matter of right or choice.

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court underscored that when the service conditions are not infringed from and out of the administrative transfers effected, the Government employees have no right to claim a specific post as their choice.

Justice S M Subramaniam was hearing a plea made by petitioners who were initially appointed as B.T.Assistants (Bachelor of Teaching) and some others who were promoted as B.T. Assistants from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Petitioners belonging to both categories has passed the Deputy Inspector's Test and were qualified to be transferred and appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, an equivalent cadre carrying identical pay scale. Since they met the requirements under Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service, they were appointed as Deputy Inspectors.

The petitioners were challenging the 6th January notification by the Joint Director of School Education directing the District level Chief Educational Officers to make administrative transfers and accordingly post these Deputy Inspectors as B.T Assistants by 7th January.

97.'Air India Was A Sinking Company, Interests Of Employees Protected': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against Disinvestment

Case Title: Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected Matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Air Corporation Employees Union challenging Air India disinvestment, who feared that certain terms and conditions of service enjoyed by the employees under the erstwhile public sector management will be severely affected.

"Considering the fact that Air India Ltd prior to the disinvestment initiative was a sinking company, a fortuitous transformation has happened for their own good. In the opinion of this Court, various conditions of service under the SPA are the best that the Government could wrangle out from the fourth respondent towards ensuring protection of the employees' interest. Therefore, the employees conjecturing they have been treated unfairly and unjustly is misplaced and misconceived", Justice V. Parthiban observed.

On the Petitioner's apprehension regarding alteration of service conditions, the Bench said,

"...Any decision concerning the service conditions would obviously be taken within the framework of the existing laws on the subject. In case of any infraction, deviation or violation of any existing laws, the employees always have a recourse to judicial mechanisms. This Court, therefore, need not assume any advisory role in emphasizing the sacrosanct legal position as every private or public entity is mandated to act in accordance with law."

Also Read: Air India Employees Can't Demand Pre-Decisional Hearing In Economic Policy Matters Like Disinvestment: Madras High Court

98. GST Dept. Should Issue DRC-1 Notice, Grant Fair Opportunity Of Hearing Before Passing Assessment Order: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. V.R.S. Traders Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

The Madras High Court has held that the DRC-01 notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act must be issued before passing the assessment order.

The single bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar has remitted the after back to the respondent/department for reconsideration and directed that the department to issue DRC-01 notice to the petitioner and after giving a fair opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/assessee, necessary orders shall be passed with regard to the assessment.

If any taxpayer has to pay tax, interest and penalty under sub-section (1) of section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act then, the authorised officer should first communicate the details of the tax, interest and penalty ascertained in Form GST DRC-01A to the taxpayer.

99. Public Servants Should Not Use Mobile Phones During Office Hours For Personal Use: Madras High Court Orders Govt To Frame Regulations

Case Title: D.S. Radhika v. The State Represented By Secretary to Government & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99

Madras High Court has criticised the public servants who utilise mobile phones and cameras during office hours unnecessarily and directed the Government authorities to frame regulations in line with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.

Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench was hearing a plea made by a Superintendent in the Tiruchirapalli Regional Workshop (Health) who wanted a direction to revoke her suspension and quash the order passed by the Director, Tamil Nadu State Health Transport Department.

Since the respondent state authorities made a submission that most of the public servants are using mobile phones and cameras in government offices, the court wondered if the employees are performing their duties and responsibilities as expected of them.

"...If such indiscipline and misconduct are allowed to be continued, no doubt, they are committing the greatest sin to the public by getting tax payers' money as huge salary. Therefore, the Government is duty-bound to ensure that the public servants are not wandering with mobile phones inside the office during office hours and it is to be regulated in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973", the court underscored in the order.

100. 'No Absolute Proposition By SC That Suspension Of Employee Can't Continue Beyond 3 Months Without Filing Chargesheet': Madras High Court (FB)

Case Title: P. Kannan v. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Ors., D. Sekar v. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kancheepuram

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 100

Madras High Court has held that Supreme Court has not laid down any absolute proposition of law that suspension of an employee cannot continue beyond three months in the absence of serving the charge sheet within that time, or if the charge-sheet is served without reasoned order of extension.

The full bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice V. Bharathidasan concluded that the apex court case relied on by the suspended employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015), would not apply and the order of suspension should be analysed based on the facts of each case, rules applicable and the gravity of charges etc.

101. Visible Collusion With Investigating Officer': Madras High Court Quashes Appointment Of Government Pleader Accused Of Giving Death Threats

Case Title: M.A.M Raja v. The Special Personal Assistant to Minister for Law & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

Concluding that there has been visible collusion between the investigating officer and an advocate who was accused in a criminal case, Madras High Court has set aside the appointment of the latter as a Government Pleader for a District Munsif Court in Periyakulam.

Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that constitutional courts have time and again repeated that public posts are to be filled up only with women and men of integrity and honesty. Therefore, the single judge bench expressed its strong disapproval about the conduct of the investigating officer and the respondent government pleader.

"To cover up the misdeeds, the Police has conducted a corrupt investigation and deleted the name of the sixth respondent from the charge sheet without assigning any reason", the court noted.

102 'Not A Flight Risk, No Concrete Evidence For Coercive Action': Madras High Court Quashes Look Out Circular Against Rahul Surana

Case Title: Rahul Surana v. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 102

Madras High Court has quashed a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Rahul Surana, son of the Managing Director of Surana Industries Limited.

Dr Justice Anita Sumanth opined that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on whose approval the Bureau of Immigration issued a LOC in December 2020 couldn't satisfy the settled parameters for issuing the same, let alone its extension.

Relying on Karthi P Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration (2018), the court observed that the respondent authorities have not placed any material justifying the extension of the Look Out Notice. The investigating agency only mentions prima facie materials and no concrete evidence has been placed to take coercive action in the nature of a Look Out Circular according to the court. The court also pointed out that there are no proceedings against Rahul Surana so as to implicate him in a criminal court or any other fora. Therefore, the court noted in the order as below:

"No material is placed before the Court in support of the bald assertion that the petitioner is a flight risk and as a consequence, there is no tangible material available, admittedly, to deny the petitioner of his Fundamental Right."

The court also referred to the submissions made by CBI that there are no ongoing investigations against him. The single-judge bench also took note of the fact that the petitioner has not evaded any summons demanding his appearance till date.

103. 'Temples May File A Civil Suit Or Invoke Provisions Of HR & CE Act To Evict Tenant': Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: M. Selvaraj v. Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Thirukkoil

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

Madras High Court has reiterated that it is open to the temples to avail the common law remedy by filing a regular suit or invoking Section 78 of the HR & CE Act for the eviction of a tenant.

The single bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the substantial question of law is no longer res integra in light of the judgment in A.N. Kumar v. Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam Thiruvannamalai & Ors. (2011). In the said case law, it was clarified that the bar under Section 108 of the HR & CE Act for instituting civil suits will not apply for eviction of the lessee without resorting to Section 78 of the Act.

104. 'No Misrepresentation Or Suppression Of Material Facts': Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Former CM Panneerselvam

Case Title: O. Panneerselvam v. P. Milany & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

Madras High Court has rejected an election petition filed for declaring the election of O. Panneerselvam from Bodinayakanur Legislative Assembly constituency as null and void. An application was filed by Panneerselvam before Madras High Court against the election petition filed by P. Milany, a voter in the constituency.

The election petition had alleged that the AIADMK Candidate and the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had suppressed material facts and failed to disclose the assets and liabilities of his wife, P. Vijayalakshmi, at the time of filing the nomination papers. On these grounds, the petitioner submitted that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 33 and 33A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the 'Act') r/w Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It was also added that the election of the former CM must be cancelled since the affidavit furnished in Form 26 did not contain the full particulars that must have been there.

Justice V. Bharathidasan noted that the principles laid down in Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi (2001) and Ram Sukh Vs. Dinesh Aggarwal (2009) would apply in the case at hand and noted in the order that the election petition does not disclose a cause of action regarding suppression of material particulars.

105. Madras High Court Issues Directions In Suo Motu Petition Regarding Motor Accident Fund Misappropriation

Case Title: Suo Motu W.P. No. 12935 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

While pronouncing orders in a Suo Motu writ petition, the Madras High Court bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice Abdul Quddhose made a series of directions to be followed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) in the state. The court also made suggestions to the Chief Justice and requests to the portfolio judges to issue appropriate directions to put in motion these suggestions.

The petition was for directing the respondents - Registrar General, Additional Registrar (Inspection) and State Bank of India to audit the motor accident cases funds in all districts, lodge criminal complaints against recalcitrant officials and monitor the investigation in the matters.

From the inputs received, the court was satisfied that practitioners in the MCOP jurisprudence operate in delineated specific turfs and would not brook encroachment by anyone.

It was also found that the practitioners were not alone in this misadventure and were assisted by court staff and sometimes even judicial officers.

"MCOP jurisprudence is a gold mine as well a mine field and attempts to clean the Augean stables earlier by various Benches of this Court had not yielded the desired results", the court observed.

106. Notice To Accused Not Necessary For Freezing Bank Account Under Section 102 CrPC: Madras High Court

Case Title: Kiruthika v. The State Represented By Inspector of Police & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea made by the wife of controversial PUBG gamer Madan seeking the defreezing of her bank account at Axis Bank Limited.

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed that there are far-ranging allegations against both the accused, including misappropriation of funds collected in the name of Covid Relief and making revenue from the live streaming of PUBG gaming videos with obscene commentary and filthy language against women and teenage subscribers.

The court noted that the bank had acknowledged the freezing of the account of the accused to the police by a letter on 15th June, 2021. It was produced and submitted to the magistrate when Kiruthika was remanded on 16th June.

About informing the petitioner about the freezing of accounts, the court noted that there is no such mandate in the statutory provisions. Relying On Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat (2017), the court remarked that Section 102 Cr.P.C. does not stipulate issuance of any notice to the account holder. For the purpose of investigation, no notice to the suspect can be expected under law, the court added.

107. Court Cannot Act As Post Office To Collect And Exchange Information: Madras High Court

Case Title: S.P Muthu Raman v. The Joint Secretary & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

The Madras High Court bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing a petition for directing the Joint Secretary of Department of Personnel and Training and the Secretary of Department of Post to pass appropriate orders giving effect to the recommendations made by the Central Information Commission in 2013.

One of the recommendations made by the commission was to affix postal stamps on the RTI applications in the place of Indian Postal Order or Demand Draft.

The court however found no merits in the petition and dismissed the same. The court stated that the Commission has made only recommendations that cannot by any stretch be taken as a statute so as to give effect. It also stated that only after certain modifications are made in the statutory provisions that the recommendations can be challenged.

The court was also unsatisfied with the fact that the petitioner chose to sleep on these recommendations for almost nine years and has only now filed a petition. The petition is also silent regarding the reason for the delay. The court also highlighted the fact that the petitioner had not tried to find out as to what action was taken by the appropriate authority with regard to these recommendations.

108. State Not Bound By Prison Authority's Recommendation For Premature Release Of Convicts: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr. Esther, MBBS, DGO v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

Madras High Court has observed that the Governor alone can execrcise the power conferred for granting premature release of a prisoner under Article Article 161 of the Constitution, upon advice rendered by the State Cabinet.

A bench of Justices P.N. Prakash and A.A. Nakkiran refused to reconsider the plea made by Dr Esther, mother of the John David, convicted prisoner in the 1996 infamous murder of Pon Navarasu, for premature release. John David was the prime accused in the murder of Pon Navarasu, a first-year MBBS Student in Annamalai University and the son of Madras University's former Vice-Chancellor. The public outcry after the heinous murder paved way for the first state legislation criminalising ragging in educational institutions, i.e, Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997.

"The State Level Committee which is composed of the Inspector General of Prisons and the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Headquarters) can only recommend a case to the State Government and cannot exercise the power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Governor of the State would exercise the power under Article 161, ibid., on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Thus, the Cabinet has the authority to accept or reject the recommendation of the State Level Committee and accordingly, give their advice to the Governor."

The court also observed that it cannot interfere with the Government Order under Article 226 since it does have any powers under Article 142, like the Supreme Court.

109. 'LIC IPO To Bring About Rs 70K Crores For Nation's Development' : Madras High Court Dismisses Policyholder's Challenge Against 5% Disinvestment

Case Title: L. Ponnammal v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

The Madras High Court has dismissed a lea challenging the amendments brought in by the Finance Act 2021 and the subsequent amendments made in the LIC Act 1956 which provided for the disinvestment of the Life Insurance Corporation.

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the challenge was made to the amendments by way of Article 110 of the constitution without challenging the certificate issued by the Speaker of the House. Further, the procedure for certifying the Finance Bill as a money bill have been duly complied with and therefore there is no constitutional illegality.

The court also highlighted that the word "only" used in the definition of Money Bill has to be read along with Article 110(1) (g) of the constitution which provides for any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in (a) to (f) of Article 110(1) and therefore should not be given a narrow meaning.

"The intrusion or inference to the implementation of a public interest policy by way of legislation should be eschewed, as it directly impacts the economic growth of the country and interference therein may have far reaching consequences, because the receipt of money into the Consolidated Fund of India is to be used for the development of the country." the court added.

110. 'Insufficient Evidence To Decide Title In Summary Proceedings': Madras HC Directs Maxworth Orchards & Alleged Purchasers To Undergo Trial Process

Case Title: Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited & Anr. v. T. Mohan & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 110

in a matter pertaining to th ewinding up of Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited, the Madras High Court has ordered an absolute interim injunction on the deletion of certain properties, for which the employees of Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited are PoA holders, from the auction sale process.

The single-judge bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy also placed an interim stay of the confirmation of the sale in respect of the properties for a period of eight weeks. The court also noted there is insufficient evidence to apply Sections 536 and 537 of the Companies Act and set aside the registered sale deeds in summary proceedings.

The dispute arose when two persons alleged that they had purchased the properties from the original owners in bona fide transactions. The alleged purchasers had also placed a challenge against Maxworth's claim on the title to these properties on the basis of Power of Attorneys (PoAs).

"From the PoAs, it is evident that the agent was authorised to sell the lands and receive consideration. A few receipts in respect of payment of consideration are also on record. Pursuant thereto, two sale deeds dated 17.07.1996 are on record, which indicate that the lands were sold by Maxworth through the PoAs to its customers", the court inferred.

However, the court concluded that there aren't enough relevant documents to infer that the immovable properties whose alienation is challenged by Maxworth are actually the assets of Maxworth.

111. Frame A Scheme For Allotment Of Houses In Public Quota For Lower-Income Young Advocates: Madras High Court Orders State

Case Title: P. Subburaj v. The Principal Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 111

The Madras High Court has tabled a proposition to frame a scheme for allotment of houses in public quota on rental basis.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and State Government to frame a scheme in consultation with the Tamil Nadu & Puducherry Bar Council for reserving a certain percentage of residential accommodations in public quota by giving preference to practicing young lawyers until a prescribed age. the court also recommended another alternative to consider the financial status of advocate and give them residential accommodation for a limited number of years on rental basis.

The court was considering a petition filed by a former President of District Consumer Redressal Forum who was still not able to own a house and was applying for allotment of residential accommodation under public quota which was initially rejected.

Relying on the judgement of T. Sornapandian & Others v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development (HB(2) HB5(2)) Department, Chennai & Others (2019), the court remarked that there are no hard and fast rule about to whom the residential accommodation should be allotted under 'public quota'.

The court also discussed the plight of young Advocates coming from irregular income group and also highlighted the vital role played by young practicing advocates in assisting court and rendering justice.

112. Madras HC Dismisses For Non-Prosecution Plea Against NGT Order Mandating Suo Moto 'Pan-India' Matters To Be Heard Only By Principal Bench

Case Title: Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam v. National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 112

The Madras High court bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy recently dismissed for non prosecution, a plea challenging the NGT Office Order which mandated that Pan India matters should be heard by the Principal Bench at New Delhi.

The plea was filed to quash the Office Order issued by Registrar General of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directing that suo motu matters having pan-India or inter-state implications will be henceforth listed before the Principal Bench of at least three members.

113. 'Footage Must Be Stored Atleast For A Year': Madras High Court Directs DGP To Ensure Proper Functioning Of CCTV Cameras In Police Stations

Case Title: R.R Saravana Balagursamy v. The Superintendent of Police and Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 113

The Madras High Court has observed that instead of repeated orders of the Supreme Courts and the High Courts, the Police Department is not equipped with CCTV Cameras to store the footage for at least a period of one year. This defeats the purpose for which the cameras are installed. The court also suggested storage points for keeping the CCTV footage at least for a minimum period of one year.

Justice S.M Subramaniam also took note of the fact that a number of writ petitions are being filed seeking initiation of action against public servants including police officials and a solution should be found.

114. Claim U/s 163A Of MV Act Not Maintainable Against Owner/Insurer Without Third-Party Involvement When Injured Was Driving The Vehicle: Madras HC

Case Title: The Divisional Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited v. A.C. Jagadeesann & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 114

The Madras High Court has highlighted that the deceased/ injured in a motor accident claim must be a third party to maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Justice P.T. Asha noted that an application under Section 163A of the Act against the Insurance Company of the vehicle driven by the injured/ deceased himself/herself/themselves is liable to be disimissed.

The court also held that usually the claimant does not have to establish the negligence of the owner of the vehicle which resulted in death or permanent disablement However, when the claimant himself was driving the borrowed vehicle that was insured. In such an instance, he would step into the shoes of the owner of a vehicle.

115. College Demands Internship Fees From Students; Manipulates Attendance Registers : Madras High Court Imposes Rs 3 Crore Penalty

Case Title: SC Raja Rajeshwari v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 115

Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy of Madras High Court recently allowed petitions filed by two students of Madha Dental College seeking similar reliefs against the college - to direct the college to issue course completion certificate and to permit the students to complete their internship/receive certificate without fail.

The court, satisfied that the college had manipulated the attendance registers of the students to get orders in their favour, condemned the act of college and directed it to pay a penalty of Rs. 3 crore to the university. The university was directed to utilize this fund for the purpose of providing scholarship to the poor students those who are undergoing BDS/MDS course under any existing Scheme. In the absence of such schemes, the university was directed to frame new schemes.

The court had also directed the college to pay a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs each to the students for depriving their opportunity to become dentists and to refund the excess fee collected from them with interest at 18% p.a.

116. POCSO Act | Bar U/S 33(5) To Recall Minor Victim Not Applicable After Her Attaining Majority: Madras High Court

Case Title: S. Ganeshan v. State Represented by Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 116

Madras High Court has held that the bar under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act against recalling a child (minor victim) is not applicable after such victim attains majority.

Justice A.D Jagdish Chandra, while allowing the petitioner-accused's plea held that the victim is now 21 years old and she will not fall within the definition of "child" so as to invoke Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Section 33(5) of the Act only mandates that the child witness cannot be called repeatedly to testify in the Court.

The court also relied on decision of Apex Court in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. (2017) and noted that it is mandatory for a court under Section 311 CrpC to recall witnesses for further cross-examination if their evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. the court also highlighted that the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has to be balanced with the right of the accused.

117. 'Perennial Rivers Now Drainage Channels': Madras High Court Refuses To Return Seized Vehicles Allegedly Involved In Illegal Sand Mining

Case Title: Krishnamoorthy v. State Represented by Inspector of Police & Connected Matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 117

Justice A.D Jagdish Chandira recently lamented on the current pace of environmental deterioration and opined that it is society's collective responsibility to leave the planet in a better shape for future generations.

The court was dealing with a batch of pleas made for return of seized vehicles involved in illegal sand mining cases. The court noted that these vehicles are used for similar offences once released. The court also noted that the perennial rivers that were carrying clean water have now been converted into drainage channels for carrying effluents. The court issued direction for the conclusion of confiscation proceedings already initiated within 6 months.

118. Will Can't Be Used As Evidence Without Examining Attesting Witness Even If Opposite Party Doesn't Deny Its Execution: Madras High Court

Case Title: Malliga v. P. Kumaran

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 118

Madras High Court has held that a Will cannot be admitted in evidence unless it complies with the conditions laid down in Section 68 of the Evidence Act, even if the execution of the document is expressly admitted or not specifically denied by the opposite party.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the mandate of calling at least one attesting witness for the purpose of proving execution cannot be diluted. the court further added that Section 68 only excepts examining an attesting witness for the proof of execution of any document that requires to be attested under law, not being a will, if its execution is not specifically denied by the person who appears to have executed the document.

119. Even If 'GOD' Encroaches Upon Public Space, Will Order Its Removal: Madras High Court

Case Title: Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil v. Pappayee & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 119

The Madras High Court has observed that "even if GOD encroaches upon public space, Courts will direct removal of such encroachments". The court stated that it is not concerned by 'who or in what name' the encroachment takes place and that public interest and rule of law must be safeguarded and upheld.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was hearing an appeal filed by temple against the order of lower court restraining it from putting up construction in Mariamman Koil Street.

The court was also critical of the stand taken by respondent Municipality who refused to interfere with the encroachments by stating that the Government was in control of the street since it was a puramboke land. The bench reiterated that such hyper technical pleas wouldn't whitewash the public wrong committed by the temple.

120. Mother Entitled To Maternity Leave Of 26 Weeks For 3rd Child If She Doesn't Have Custody Of Other 2 Children : Madras High Court

Case Title: K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 120

Justice V Parthiban of the Madras High Court has held that there is no cap on the number of deliveries for grant of maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act. The only differentiation is on the period of maternity benefit available. For a woman employee having less that two surviving children, the maximum period of benefit is 26 wees while for a woman having more than two surviving children, the benefit is restricted to 12 weeks.

Relying on Madras High Court judgment in N.Mohammed Mohideen & Anr vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Inspection) Chennai, (2008), the court observed that as long as Article 42 of the Constitution read with the provisions of the M.B. Act, 1961, is available, every female worker covered by the Act is entitled to claim maternity benefit without any ceiling on the number of deliveries made by them. The court also mentioned a High Court judgment in Ruksana v. State of Haryana (2011) and noted that Maternity Benefit Act would have an overriding effect over any service rules.

121. Madras High Court Directs Magistrate To Issue Non-Bailable Warrants Against Absconding Police Officials U/S 73 CrPC

Case Title: State rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID v. A Sivakumar & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 121

The Madras High Court has directed the Magistrate to issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the absconding accused police officials who were evading arrest in an extortion case.

Justice A.D Jagdish Chandra, while passing the order also added that:

"As stated above, the accused in the case are evading arrest and the only course left open to the Investigating Officer to ensure their presence, would be to seek the Magistrate to invoke his power under Section 73 of Cr.P.C. and only thereafter can proceed with the other procedures of proclamation and attachment. In such an eventuality, there is no bar for the Magistrate to legitimately exercise his power under Section 73 of Cr.P.C for the person to be apprehended during investigation since the respondents are accused of Non-Bailable offence and are evading arrest"

122. Serious Allegations Of Availing Fraudulent GST ITC In Electronic Credit Ledger: Madras High Court Refuses Refund Of Amount

Case Title: M/s.MNS Enterprises Versus The Additional Director General Directorate of GST Intelligence

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan refused to grant a refund of the amount lying in the assessee's electronic cash ledger on the grounds that there were serious allegations against the assessee for having an availed fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) in the electronic credit ledger on the strength of a bogus and fictitious input tax invoice for discharging GST liability with no supply.

The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and Others, in which it was held that when the law mandates a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in the aforesaid manner. Therefore, the amount that has been deposited into the Electronic Liability Register of the petitioner by the petitioner's customer or client cannot be ordered to be refunded directly. The deposit into the electronic cash ledger of the petitioner can be made not only by the petitioner, but also by any other person on behalf of the petitioner. This is evident from a reading of Section 49 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 86 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

123.'No Procedural Irregularity': Madras High Court Dismisses TN State Marketing Corporation's Plea Against Reassessment Orders U/S 148 Income Tax Act

Case Title: M/s.Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asst Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 123

Madras High Court has held that the writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd challenging the Assessment Order for the year 2015-16 is not maintainable. The court also clarified that the current order only touches upon the maintainability of the writ petition in reference to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the objections thereupon, and not the merits of the case.

The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy concurred with the decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO (2002) and that when a notice under Section 148 of the Act is given, the proper course of action for the assessee is to file a return. The assessee can also seek reasons for issuing the notice. Then, the assessing authority should give reasons for reopening the assessment. When the reasons are received by the assessee, he can file his objections to the said notice. If that's done, then the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.

124. No Wilful Evasion Of Tax -Madras High Court Quashes Prosecution Under Section 276C (2) Of Income Tax Act

Case Title: S.P. Velayutham Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 124

The Madras High Court has ruled that prosecution under Section 276C (2) of the Income Tax Act for wilfully attempting to evade payment of tax cannot be initiated against an assessee who merely defaults to pay tax on time under the Act.

The Single Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar held that in the absence of mens rea to avoid payment of tax, a "wilful attempt" to evade tax cannot be attributed to assessee in order to prosecute him under Section 276C (2).

The High Court held that wilful attempt to evade tax cannot be attributed to Assessee in order to prosecute him under Section 276C (2) for mere default on payment of tax in time. The Court added that to prosecute a person for penal action, the penal provisions have to be strictly construed. Also, the Court ruled that only when the circumstances and the conduct of the accused showed a wilful attempt to evade tax or the payment of tax, prosecution under Section 276C(2) could be launched. The Court added that the word "wilful attempt" could not be inferred merely on failure to pay tax in time in the absence of any intention, deliberate attempt or mens rea to avoid the payment of tax.

125.'Confinement Inevitable': Madras HC Denies Bail To NRI Company Director Accused Of Money Laundering, Supplying Inferior Quality Coal To PSUs

Case Title: Shri. Ahmed A.R.Buhari, S/o.Shri.Abdul Rahman Buhary Seyed v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 125

Madras High Court has refused to grant bail to Ahmed A.R Buhari, director and promoter of M/s Coastal Energen Private Limited (CEPL), accused of the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Justice G. Jayachandran noted that the principle of 'bail being the rule and jail being the exception' is not entirely applicable in special legislations like PMLA, NDPS Act etc. where 'Jail becomes the rule and bail becomes the exception' based on the gravity of offences committed.

"...Whether such classification is reasonable or not is the question primarily now subject matter pending before of the Apex Court. Till verdict is pronounced, as the Division Bench of this Court has observed in N.Umashankar & others -vs- The Assistant Director, Directorate ofEnforcement, Government of India, Chennai(2022)...., the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 found in the statute has to be held valid", the court clarified.

126.Madras High Court Evokes Doctrine Of 'Approbate & Reprobate', Holds A Party Can't Take Contradictory Stands In Different Courts

Case Title: Mr.G.Nagaiyan & Anr. v. Mr. K. Palanivel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 126

Madras High Court has evoked the 'doctrine of approbate and reprobate' to hold that a party cannot claim a right over a property when he had obtained another Decree from the competent Civil Court on the ground that no right or title was conveyed to him under the sale deed.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the defendant party claiming right over the schedule property cannot take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/ courts. The judge observed that the position is well settled by the Indian Courts and foreign courts as well.

127."Not Grave Misconduct": Madras High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Workman Who Hung Dr. Ambedkar's Photo In Office Without Permission

Case Title: M. Gowrishankar v. The Deputy Manager (SME) & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 127

The Madras High Court has recently directed reinstatement of a workman, working with a bank and belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community, who was dismissed from service after an incident of hanging Dr. BR Ambedkar's photo in the Bank premises, without prior permission.

The bench of Justice M. Duraiswamy and Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad held that the Single Judge had wrongly interpreted that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had interfered with the punishment of removal from service solely on the ground of sympathy. The tribunal had in fact exercised power under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

The court also stated that the charges levelled against the appellant/workman will amount to a minor misconduct as per clause 7 of the Bank Settlement and warrants the punishment mentioned in the settlement. He did not face the charges of grave misconduct, which warrants the punishment of removal from service as contented by the bank.

128.'She Was In School Uniform': Madras High Court Confirms Conviction Under POCSO Act, Commutes Life Sentence Of Three

Case Title: Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 128

Madras High Court has commuted the life sentence of three accused including a pastor involved in the acts of kidnapping, marrying and sexually assaulting a Class X Student.

Justices P.N Prakash and A. A Nakkiran took note of a particular submission by A2 and A3 that they were unaware of the age of the victim and genuinely believed her to be over 18 years. The court, however, observed that though the argument appears to be 'a little convincing' at the first blush, the cross-examination of the victim has revealed that she was in a school uniform when taken to the houses of accussed.

Life imprisonment imposed on Vijayakumar-A1 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act [Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault] was reduced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment, without any remission benefits. Life imprisonment imposed on Pastor Muniyandi-A2 and Joseph Raja-A3 under Section 6 R/w Section 17 of the POCSO Act was reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court also made it clear that the sentences imposed under IPC and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, along with the sentence of fine and the default clause imposed by the trial Court on all the appellants will remain unaltered.

129.An Adjudication Is Conclusive With Respect To Incidental/Connected Subject Matter Of The Litigation: Madras High Court

Case Name: Cannou Parimala Rani @ Mary Rosay Parimala Rani v. Ilamathy and Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 129

The Madras High Court has held that the rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question again.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh made the above remarks while considering a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC against a judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry confirming the Judgement and Decree passed by the Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry.

With respect to the rights of the purchasers pendente lite, the court observed that they cannot get any additional right than what their vendor possessed. Order 21 Rule 98(2) r/w Order 21 Rule 102 clearly bars a pendente lite transferee from resisting or obstructing the execution of a decree of the possession of the immoveable property.

The court further went on to impose compensatory cost for the false and vexatious claims and also for causing such a humongous delay in keeping the proceedings pending for more than four decades.

130.Permanent Injunction Sought For Against A Particular Person Must Confine To That Person: Madras High Court

Case Title - A. Ganesan v. Javeed Hussain (died) and Ors.

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 130

The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh disposed off a second appeal holding that the cause of action ceases to exist and no substantial question of law was involved.

The case was with respect to issuance of license by the corporation to run a flower shop. During the course of the appeal, the respondent had died and his legal heirs were impleaded.

The court identified that all the allegations of interference with possession and enjoyment of suit property were made against the first defendant in his individual capacity. The court then went on to analyse the principle of Actio personalis moritur cum persona.

In the present case, since licence was granted by the municipality specifically in the name of the first defendant to run flower business, the license comes to an end with the death of the allottee. Such a right is not heritable. Therefore, the allegation of the plaintiff confines itself to the first defendant and on his death, the cause of action automatically dies.

131.Madras High Court Directs Youth Involved In Illegal Bike Racing To Assist In Hospital's Trauma Ward

Case Title: L Praveen v. State represented by Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 131

The Madras High Court has directed the accused in an illegal bike riding case to assist the ward boys in the trauma ward of Stanley Hospital, Chennai and to submit one page daily reports.

Justice G Jayachandran passed the above orders in a bail petition filed by the accused L. Praveen. The court also directed the accused to furnish security of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties along with other bail conditions.

The court also discussed the rash and negligent manner in which the youngsters were driving in the country and also how the pillion riders were also a part of this. However, the Court was of the view that detention of the Petitioner is not necessary and he may be enlarged on bail, subject to certain conditions.

132. Madras High Court Quashes Defamation Petition Against Edappadi Palanisamy And O Panneerselvam

Case Title: Edappadi K. Palanisamy and Anr v. Va Pugazhendi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 132

The Madras High Court quashed the defamation proceedings against Edappadi K. Palanisamy and O. Panneerselvam on the file of Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

Justice M Nirmal Kumar, while allowing the petition held that there was no material or reason to proceed against the petitioners, and that further continuation of proceeding is nothing but abuse of process of law.

The court was not satisfied with the submissions made by the respondents and held that the disciplinary actions are usually communicated to the party members through media and that the expulsion letters were issued in a usual format, the court allowed the petition and quashed the defamatory proceedings.

133.Madras High Court Quashes Suspension Of Former ABVP President Dr. Subbiah Shanmugham

Case Title: Dr. S. Subbiah v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by Secretary and anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 133

The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed the order of suspension of former ABVP President Dr. Subbiah Shanmugham, Government Surgical Oncologist for alleged association with a political organisation.

The bench of Justice D. Krishnakumar further directed the Tamil Nadu Government to complete the departmental enquiry against Dr. Subbiah within a period of 12 weeks. The Court also directed Dr. Subbiah to extend cooperation to the enquiry proceedings.

Holding that the order was passed by an imcompetent authority, the court considered Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and stated that when the Act prescribes the particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body. It cannot be exercised by others unless it is delegated. The court further held that the respondents could not prove that the state had delegated the power to the Director to issue the suspension order.

134. Uncondonable Delay Cannot Be Condoned In A Routine Manner: Madras High Court

Case Title: T.Lakshmi v. M.Vasantha and Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 134

Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench held that the Law of Limitation is substantive and that the litigations and appeals are to be filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under the Statutes.

The court also held that the power of discretion is a double-edged weapon. And that the discretionary powers are to be exercised cautiously and uniformly so as to avoid any prejudice to either of the parties.

The court further added that condoning delay by imposing heavy costs compromises the legal principles and does not do justice to the parties.