Madras High Court Quarterly Digest: July To September 2022 [Citations 277-418]

S.Sarath Kumar v. The District Collector and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277

M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 278

Ganesan v. SHO and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 279

M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal Additional Director General, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 280

Sankar v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 281

Dr G. Selvarajan v. Dr M.S Santhosh and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 282

M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 283

G.Francis Raja v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 284

M/s.KTV Health Foods Pvt Ltd v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 285

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - Imports, Custom House Versus M/s. Mahadev Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 286

Sridhar Versus The Superintendent of GST, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 287

S Krishnamurthy v. Dr Manivasan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 288

V.Krishnamurthy v. The State of TN and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 289

The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. R Chitradevi and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 290

C.Soman v. The Secretary, HR&CE and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 291

Charu K. Bagadia Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(2), Mumbai, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 292

B.Ramprakash v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 293

O. Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294

S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295

P.Velumani v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

C Sivakumar v. A Srividhya, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 297

V.S.J.Dinakaran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 298

Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299

K.Lal Bhagadhur Sasthri v. The Director of Medical Education and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 300

E.Seshan v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 301

C Joseph Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 302

Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Ltd. and ors v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 303

Dr.Sreejith V.Ravi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 304

B.C. Mohankumar Versus Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 305

Bava Bahrudeen @ Mannai Bava v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 306

Asan Basha @ Ashan Batcha and another v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307

M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308

K Vijayakumar v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 310

Sathiya v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 311

Edappadi K Palaniswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 312

C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313

M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314

Sudha Hospital v. The Director of Medical And Rural Health and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 315

Kader Batcha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 316

Mr.P.Adhavan Seral v. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317

Siva v. State by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 318

Jaisankar v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319

Irfana Nasreen v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321

Sureshkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 322

R.Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 323

M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

Dr.R.Senthilkumar v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325

S.Bhanupriya v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 326

P.Arumugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 327

P.Ranganathan and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 328

Vasmi Sudarshini v. The Sub Registrar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 329

P.Ganesan v. M.Revathy Prema Rubarani, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 330

S.Pongulali v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 331

Subburaj and another v. State and another , 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 332

Jayalakshmi v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 333

The District Collector v. Mr R Vetri and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 334

Dr. Lakshmi v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 335

KL Prabakar v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 336

Azhagan @ Prabhu v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 337

White Cliffs Hair Studio Private Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 338

Karthika Agencies Export House v. The Commissioner of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 339

C Jagadeesan v. Additional Director General of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 340

Kannan v. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 341

J Thennarasu v. Anita Nalliah (and other connected cases), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 342

Aravinth and others v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 343

Natchal vs. V Chokkalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 344

R.Silambarasan v. Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 345

M/s. Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. versus Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB), 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 346

TJ Gnanavel and another v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 347

A. Viswanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 348

P Mihiran v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 349

V. Sounthar v. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 350

The Principal General Manager, BSNL and another v. The Administrator, ISHA Foundation, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 351

V Anusha v. B Krishnan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 352

Arul Daniel and others v. Suganya, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 353

M Raja v. Superintendent of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 354

O Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 355

Pastor V. Mariya Arockiam v. The District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 356

S Sasikumar v. The Vice Chancellor and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 357

Vinith Baid v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 358

K Muthu v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 359

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan v. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 360

Sathish v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361

M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362

Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 363

All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 364

A Priyanka and others v. The Principal Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

U Manickavel v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 366

M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367

Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry v. VK Sethukumar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 368

Air Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 369

Narayanan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 370

Subramanian P v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

M Sekar v. The District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 372

Sadam Hussain v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373

Kiruthika Jayaraj and others v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 374

M/s Gupta Hair Products (P) Ltd. Versus The Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 375

V Kannan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 376

Woodlands Theatres v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

Dr. P R Subaschandran v. State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 378

E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

K. Samad & Anr. versus Reliance Capital Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

S. Annapoorni v. K Vijay, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s.Ganges International Private Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

M/s. Sunwin Papers versus M/s. Sivadarshini Papers Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 383

India Yamaha Motor Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

B Shanmugam and others v. Karthik Dasari, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

Dr. A Packia Raj and others v. State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

Kamalanathan and others v. State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

Gokul Ajith and others v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 389

Kanthan v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

K.J.Suriyanarayanan v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

Jegan @ Ellamaran and others v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

M Satheesh v. Secretary, Revenue Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

Anandam Gundluru v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

Minor V Amrutha v. Council for Architecture and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

S.Ravi Selvan v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & customs and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

Andal Dorairaj & Ors. versus M/s. Rithwik Infor Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

TCI Freight Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

Kasthuribha and Indira Nagar Residents Welfare Forum v. Secretary, PWD, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

Nordex India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

Deepan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

B Ramkumar Adityan v District Collector, Thoothukudi, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

Registrar Judicial v. Shankar @ Savukku Sankar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

Innovators Facade Systems Ltd. versus Larsen & Toubro Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409

Sowdha Mani v. State, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 410

M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

Manokaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 412

Dr. R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

V Anusha v. B Krishnan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414

Gotla Alex Binoy v. IOP Chennai, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 415

Richa Sharma v. Ganesh Kasinathan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 416

SJ Sheik Abul Asim v The Registrar cum Chairman and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 417

Mohammed Siddiq v. Rasheeda Begum and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 418

REPORTS

1. Notice Of Intended Marriage U/S 5 Of Special Marriage Act Must Be Given "Prior" To Solemnisation Of Marriage: Madras High Court

Case Title: S.Sarath Kumar v. The District Collector and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 277

The Madras High Court recently refused to issued directions for registration of a couple's marriage under the Special Marriage Act, stating that the conditions stipulated under Section 4 of the Act for solemnization of special marriages and the procedure thereof contained under Sections 5-13 has to be mandatorily complied with.

Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench observed that the marriage was performed on 10.06.2022. Only thereafter, notice was given under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, it was not solemnized as per the procedure laid down under the Special Marriage Act. The court observed that since the petitioner did not marry Lediya under the Special Marriage Act, he could not claim benefits under Section 4 of the Act.

2. IBC Proceedings Can't Dilute Rights Of The Income Tax Department To Reopen Assessment: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 278

The Madras High Court has ruled that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 cannot dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the Resolution Plan submitted by the assessee did not contemplate any concession from the Income Tax Department, even though notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee prior to the submission of the Resolution Plan.

The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan held that the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be interpreted in a manner which is inconsistent with any other law in the time being in force. Thus, the Court ruled that the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

3. Application For Further Investigation Can Be Filed Even After Commencement Of Trial: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ganesan v. SHO and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 279

While allowing a revision of the order of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application for further investigation, the Madras High Court recently observed that an application for further investigation can be made even after the commencement of trial. The court observed that bringing out the truth was of utmost importance and that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not put any fetter on the Police to conduct a further investigation after the commencement of trial.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that "Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., does not place any fetter on the Police to conduct further investigation in the case after commencement of trial and whenever they come across any additional information it is just and necessary that the same be brought to the notice of the Court"

The court also observed that by filing the revision, the de facto complainant was only bringing to the notice of the court that an erroneous order had been passed which according to him will lead to injustice. The same would, therefore, not amount to taking over of the prosecution.

4. Officers Of DGGI Are "Central Excise Officers"; Can Issue Show Cause Notices And Adjudicate Service Tax Demand: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal Additional Director General

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 280

The Madras High Court has ruled that officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) are "Central Excise Officers" for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 since they are vested with the powers of Central Excise Officers by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC).

The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan, while considering a bunch of writ petitions, held that that the definition of "Central Excise Officer" in Section 2(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is expansive and that any person, including an officer of the State Government, who is invested by the CBEC with any of the powers of a Central Excise Officer under the Central Excise Act, is a "Central Excise Officer".

5. Rigor Of S.33(5) Of POCSO Act Gets Diluted Once Victim Attains Majority: Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Sankar v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 281

Observing that the accused must be given an opportunity to place his defence, the Madras High court recently allowed a POCSO accused's plea for recall of the victim for cross examination.

Justice V.Sivagnanam explained that Section 33 (5) of the Act was introduced only to ensure that the child should not be repeatedly called to the Court for examining as it would affect the mind of the child. In the present case, the victim was no longer a child and had attained majority. Hence, the victim could be called for cross examination to give a last chance to the accused to give his defence.

6. Madras High Court Confirms Order Of CB-CID Enquiry Into Medical Admission Scams

Case Title: Dr G. Selvarajan v. Dr M.S Santhosh and Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 282

The Madras High Court on Monday confirmed the order of the single judge directing a CB-CID enquiry in a matter relating to series of scams relating to admissions to the medical courses in state.

The court passed the order on an appeal filed by Dr G. Selvarajan, former secretary of the Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, seeking a stay of a single bench order whereby the court had found Selvarajan along with others guilty of not conducting the mop-up counselling for the management seats.

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the proceedings against the appellant could continue and that the court could only interfere with respect to the stoppage of pensionary benefits to the appellant subject to the outcome of the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were to be completed within a period of six months and no extention of time would be granted. The court also agreed with the direction of the single judge to pay Rs. 4 lakh each to the writ petitioners as the students were dragged to the litigation only for the reason that the writ appellant did not conduct mop-counselling.

7. No Demand Of GST, Interest And Penalty Can Be Made In Form DRC-01A Without Issuance of Section 74(1) Notice: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 283

While quashing the assessment order, the Madras High Court held that a demand for GST, interest, and penalty on Form DRC-01A cannot be made without the issuance of a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.

The single bench of Justice M.Nirmal Kumar has observed that the department/respondent has not followed the procedure. After the issuance of notice on Form DRC-01A, the department issued Form GST DRC-01A. If the petitioner has any objections and has not paid the tax as determined, a show cause notice must be issued under Section 74(1) of the TNGST Act. After receiving objections and giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the assessment order ought to have been finalised.

8. "DSP's Conduct Unknown To Law, Further Investigation Is Tainted": Madras High Court Quashes Forgery & Cheating Case

Case Title: G.Francis Raja v. State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 284

The Madras High Court recently allowed an appeal for quashing criminal proceedings against one Francis Raja accused of forgery and cheating. The court made the order after raising suspicion about the manner in which the further investigation was conducted, especially by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Justice Nirmal Kumar observed a lot of defects in the manner in which further investigation was carried out. The court observed that the Trial Court ought to have noted the manner in which the Deputy Superintendent of Police had carried out the investigation when the case had already been closed as a mistake of fact. Finding that the act of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not in a manner known to the law, the court remarked that the entire further investigation was a tainted and coloured one. The court thus ordered for quashing of the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate.

9. Tender Inviting Authority Can't Bind Bidders When Market Is Substantially Altered Amid Delay In Opening Bids: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.KTV Health Foods Pvt Ltd v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 285

The Madras High Court has allowed a petition for quashing the tender process after the bidders approached the court citing Indonesia's ban on the export of RBD Palmolein and other palm products as a Force Majeure Event which made it impossible for them to complete the tender process.

Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Indonesia is a major supplier of Palmolein and therefore the ban order imposed by the said exporter itself has momentous consequences on the market.

The major factor that weighed with the court in granting relief was that the Tender Authority failed to open the bid on time and in the intervening period, the ban was imposed. Hence, it was of the view that though bidders offers constitute "Standing Offers" so as to bind them the moment the tenders were opened and accepted by the Respondent Corporation, however, this position will follow only where the tender had taken place as per the tender notification.

10. Madras High Court Allows Re-Exportation Of Betelnut Products Subject To Execution Of A Bond To Cover Value Of Goods

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - Imports, Custom House Versus M/s. Mahadev Enterprises

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 286

The Madras High Court bench of Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice S.Srimathy has allowed the re-exportation of betelnut products subject to the execution of a bond to cover the value of the goods.

The respondent/assessee imported betelnut products with a particular description. The department stated that the assessee had imported goods by mistake. The appellants sought to levy duty by classifying the goods under Chapter VIII. However, the assessee, stating that he cannot afford to pay tax under the classification proposed, submitted a representation to the appellants that the respondent may be permitted to re-export the goods to avoid tax being assessed under Chapter VIII.

The court noted that the respondent had no objection to submitting himself for enquiry. As a matter of fact, the investigation was going on and the respondent had already appeared before the investigative agency once. The court directed the appellants to permit the respondent to exercise the option as per the order of a single judge upon the respondent's executing a bond to the full value of the goods that are sought to be re-exported.

11. Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Harassment By GST Department

Case Title: Sridhar Versus The Superintendent of GST

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 287

The Madras High Court has dismissed the petition alleging harassment by the GST department.

The single bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the term "harassment" is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criterion. The petitioner, having given a complaint, is bound to cooperate with the police for an inquiry.

The court noted that the enquiry was pending and, without cooperating with the police, the petitioner could not seek such a blanket direction.

The court directed the police to issue a notice within two weeks to cause the appearance of the petitioner for enquiry. After enquiring the petitioner, the police may either register a complaint, if any cognisable offence is made out or close the complaint.

12. Madras High Court Issues Directions For Registration And Inspection Of All Old Age Homes In The State, Directs Setting Up Of Grievance Cell

Case Title: S Krishnamurthy v. Dr Manivasan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 288

Elaborating on the thought that the measure of a society is the way in which it treats its most vulnerable, the Madras High Court recently issued a slew of directions to the State Government for proper maintenance of the Old Age Homes in the state.

These directions involved frequent inspections, compliance to the executive orders, registration of old age homes, maintenance of record, cancellation of registration in case of non-compliance, and establishment of a grievance cell.

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad was adjudicating upon a contempt petition alleging that an earlier order of the Government directing the State to ensure proper compliance of the Government Order dealing with proper administration of Old Age Homes. While issuing direction the court also remarked that the society could not be positively transformed through judicial directions alone and the society had major role to play in ensuring the well being of the senior citizens of the country.

13. Madras High Court Imposes 1 Lakh Cost On Litigant Filing & Withdrawing Claims Based On State's "Political Climate"

Case Title: V.Krishnamurthy v. The State of TN and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 289

Coming down heavily on a litigant for approaching the court on his whims and fancies depending upon the change in the political climate of the State, the Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea and imposed heavy costs.

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that from the conduct of the Petitioner, it was clear that he would use this Court by filing Writ Petitions whenever the political climate was not in his favour and withdraw the same once it turns in his favour.

14. Pension Scheme Can Be Claimed From Date Of Entering Into Service, Not Date Of Approval Of Regular Appointment: Madras High Court

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. R Chitradevi and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 290

The Madras High Court recently observed that the relevant date while considering the pensionary benefits of Teachers would be the date on which the teacher entered into service and not the date on which the appointment was actually confirmed.

Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice N Mala relied on the decision in V.Vasanthi v. State of Tamil Nadu wherein, on similar facts, the court had held that the service period of teachers commences from the date of appointment and not from the date of approval, even though the monetary benefits start to accrue only from the date of completion of the training. Thus, the service rendered before the completion of training was also to be considered for pension.

15. Person Belonging To Another Religion Can't Be Prevented From Entering Temple If He Has Faith In That Hindu Deity: Madras High Court

Case Title: C.Soman v. The Secretary, HR&CE and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 291

Coming down heavily on a Petitioner seeking direction that the non-Hindus should not be permitted to participate in the Kumbabishegam festival of Arulmighu Adikesava Perumal Thirukovil at Thiruvattar, the Madras High Court held that a person belonging to any religion should neither be prevented nor prohibited entry into a temple.

Justice PN Prakash and Justice R Hemalatha approached the issue with a broader prospective. The court even went on to give examples of temples playing songs rendered by Dr. KJ Yesudas, a Christian by birth and how Hindu Worshippers visited Vailankanni Church and Nagore Dargah regularly.

Additionally, the court also pointed out that when such a public function like the Kumbhabhishegam of a temple is performed, it would be impossible for the authorities to check the religious identity of every person to permit entry into the temple.

16. Reopening of IT Assessment By Officer Having No Jurisdiction: Madras High Court Invalidates Proceedings

Case Title: Charu K. Bagadia Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(2), Mumbai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 292

The Madras High Court invalidated the reassessment procedures on the basis that the reopening of the income tax assessment was conducted by an officer without jurisdiction.

The division bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad has observed that the ACIT Mumbai, who recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment, has no jurisdiction over the appellant, to issue a notice dated 28.03.2018. Though the files pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the appellant were transferred, the ACIT Chennai has no authority to continue the reassessment proceedings. Hence, the notice issued by him was also held to be invalid.

The court held that the notice issued by the ACIT Mumbai under section 148 as well as the consequential notice issued by the ACIT Chennai cannot be allowed to be sustained.

17. Efflux Of Time Valid Ground To Reject Claim For Compassionate Appointment: Madras High Court

Case Title: B.Ramprakash v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 293

The Madras High Court has observed that a compassionate appointment cannot not be claimed as a matter of right, and only if a person is entitled under the terms and conditions so specified, can the scheme be extended. The court observed that a compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment as no selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility is tested but the appointment is under exceptional circumstances i.e, the death of an employee.

Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that Providing compassionate appointment after a lapse of many years would not only defeat the purpose and object of the scheme, but also the penurious circumstances arose on account of the sudden death became vanished.

In the present case, the mother of the petitioner who was working as a Junior Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of Police died on 14.04.1995. The court also noted that the application was filed on 17.03.2004, i.e. after a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased. "Now after a lapse of about 27 years, the benefit of the Scheme could not be extended in favour of the petitioner", the court noted.

18. Madras High Court Refuses To Stall AIADMK General Council Meeting, Rejects Plea By Ex-CM Paneerselvam

Case Title: O. Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294

The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the general council meeting of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that out of the 2665 members of the General Assembly, more than 2100 members have expressed desire to conduct the meeting. "In a democratic set up, the will of the majority will prevail", the court remarked.

The court also reprimanded the manner in which the petitioner was repeatedly approaching the court instead of participating in the meeting and putting forward his ideas. While allowing the conduct of the meeting according to law, the court also held that if anyone was aggrieved that the meeting was not conducted in accordance with law, they could move with a Civil Suit to that effect.

19. Extradition Act | Magistrate Holding Enquiry Need Not Be The One Within Whose Jurisdiction The Fugitive Was Apprehended: Madras High Court

Case Title: S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Central Government has the liberty under the Extradition Act to choose any Magistrate to deal with the fugitive criminals. Such Magistrate need not be the one within whose jurisdiction the fugitive was apprehended.

Justice R Vijayakumar relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Rosiline George Vs. Union of India and others where the court had observed as under:

It is obvious from the plain language of Section 5 of the Act that the Central Government can direct any Magistrate to hold inquiry provided the said Magistrate would have had jurisdiction to inquire into the offence if it had been an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction.....The Act, being a special provision dealing with the extradition of fugitive criminals, shall exclude from application the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In any case, Section 5 of the said code gives overriding effect to the special jurisdiction created under any special or local laws. Sections 177, 188 and 190 of the Code have no application to the proceedings under the Act.

20. Madras High Court Deprecates Trend Of Implicating Advocates As Accused For Offences Alleged Against Their Clients

Case Title: P.Velumani v. The State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

While quashing proceeding against an advocate for trespass, the Madras High Court observed that there is a recent trend where the advocates are implicated along with their clients for offences alleged to be committed by the clients with an object of achieving the intended result quickly. Such practice should be condemned and deprecated.

Justice Murali Shankar of the Madurai Bench observed:

"A new trend has been emerging in implicating the Advocates as accused along with their clients with ulterior motive of achieving the intended result quickly or immediately. The practice of implicating the Advocates along with their clients for the offences alleged to have committed by the clients is to be condemned and such a practice is to be deprecated."

21. Wife Suspecting Husband's Character, Levelling Allegations Of Extra Marital Affair Before His Colleagues Amounts To Cruelty: Madras High Court

Case Title: C Sivakumar v. A Srividhya

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 297

While granting the relief of divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by his wife, the bench of Justice V.M Velumani and Justice S Sounthar recently observed that the act of wife suspecting the character of the husband and making allegations of extra marital affair in the presence of his colleagues would all amount to mental cruelty. The court also noted that the respondent wife had also given police complaint connecting the appellant husband with his female colleagues without specifically naming anybody. Such a police complaint would also amount to cruelty when it is not substantiated by any evidence. The court observed that during the time of separation, the respondent had removed her thali chain. The court opined that tying of Thali Chain was an essential ritual in marriage ceremony and its removal was an unceremonious act.

22. [Prohibition Of Benami Transaction Act] Opportunity For Cross-Examination Need Not Be Provided At The Stage Of Show-Cause Notice: Madras HC

Case Title: V.S.J.Dinakaran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 298

While confirming the order of the single judge dismissing a challenge to the provisional attachment under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the Madras High Court held that there is no provision for providing an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses from whom they have collected the information regarding benami property, at the preliminary stage and therefore, the question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise at the preliminary stage. It is applicable only during the adjudicatory proceedings.

A division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad observed:

"The provisions of law mandate the respondent authorities to furnish such documents, particulars or evidence and provide an opportunity of being heard to the appellant only at the stage of adjudication proceedings; and there is no provision under the Act to provide an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the witnesses at the preliminary stage."

23. "Leave Travel Concession For Traveling Abroad Not A Statutory Right": Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By Union Bank Officers

Case Title: Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299

Dismissing a writ petition filed against a circular issued by the Union Bank of India taking away Leave Travel Concession for travel abroad, Justice SM Subramaniam observed that such decision was taken in view of the policy of the Government and in the absence of any statutory right, the same did not warrant interference. The court observed as under:

Concessions or facilities extended by way of Administrative Instructions beyond the scope of the rules cannot be construed as an absolute right to the employees.. Regulation 44 remains as the same, providing right to travel within India by the shortest route and therefore, the Administrative Instruction/ Circular, granting an additional facility by way of discretion to travel abroad is to be construed as concession/facility and cannot be construed as a service right, so as to enforce the same.

24. NEET: Madras High Court Grants ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Aspirant Who Missed Counselling Registration Due To Poor Internet Connectivity In His Village

Case Title: K.Lal Bhagadhur Sasthri v. The Director of Medical Education and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 300

Observing that digitisation should lead to empowerment and not deprivation, the Madras High Court recently directed the Director of Medical Education and its Selection Committee to award a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to a student who failed to register himself for the NEET counselling process due to technical glitches and poor internet connectivity in his village, thereby losing admission prospects.

The Madurai Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the state had an obligation to compensate a student who was deprived of his entitlement due to "digital divide". The court also directed the Department to ensure that the selection procedure is conducted in such a way so that incidents like these do not occur in future.

25. Madras High Court Issues Directions To Prevent Illegal Transport & Slaughtering Of Animals, Says Police Failed To Take Action Against Defaulters

Case Title: E.Seshan v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 301

The Madras High Court recently expressed alarm at the "day in and day out" illegal transportation and slaughter of cows and other animals in open places in the State.

A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that such situation can arise only when the administration fails to ensure compliance of the provisions of the statutory laws and does not take timely action against the defaulters.

The court was hearing a plea claiming that the provisions with respect to prevention of cruelty to animals namely the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001; the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, the Prevention of Cruelty in Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 etc were being violated in the state. The court found merit in the plea and issued a slew of directions for protection of animals

26. Actor Vijay's BMW Entry Tax Case: Madras High Court Rules Penalty For Non-Payment To Be Calculated From Date Of Order For Payment, Not Date Of Import

Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 302

Madras High Court on Friday disposed of a writ petition filed actor Vijay challenging the order of Commercial Tax Department directing the actor to pay penalty for non-payment of entry tax for a BMW X5 luxury car imported by him from the United States in 2005.

The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar directed that the penalty for non-payment of entry tax could be levied only from 29th January, 2019 when a division bench of the court had directed that car importers were liable to pay entry tax. The court held that the penalty was to be calculated from the date of the order till the actual payment of the entry tax and not from the day of actual import.

27. Omission In Framing Of Charge Not Fatal By Itself Unless Prejudice Caused To Accused: Madras High Court

Case Title: Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Ltd. and ors v. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 303

The Madras High Court recently imposed a penalty upon a company for allotting shares in violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and opined that though the charge was not separately framed under Section 24(2), the penalty was imposed by the authority keeping in mind the ingredients of the section.

The bench of Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus imposed two penalties on the company. Firstly, under the unamended Section 24(1) of the Act for allotting shares in violation of the act and secondly under the amended Section 24(2) of the Act for violating the directions of SEBI.

28. Breach Of Compulsory Service Bond: Madras High Court Orders Doctor To Either Serve For 2 Yrs Or Pay ₹50 Lakh As Damages

Case Title: Dr.Sreejith V.Ravi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 304

The Madras High Court recently directed a doctor, who was in violation of his compulsory service bond executed for a period of 10 years, to either serve a bond period of two years or pay an amount of Rs. 50 lakh in breach thereof.

The court thus set aside the impugned order passed by the Dean of Tirunelveli Medical College wherein the college had called upon the young Doctor to pay a sum of Rs. 2 crores as damages for breach of bond condition.

Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench observed as under:

I am more than certain that when it comes recovery of bond amount, the authorities will adopt an uniform policy throughout the State. Either the petitioner has to serve for the bond period of two years atleast from now on or he has to pay the amount of Rs.50 Lakhs as fixed by the Government themselves. The impugned order is quashed with the aforesaid clarifications.

29. Madras High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Rejecting The GST Registration Application

Case Title: B.C. Mohankumar Versus Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 305

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the GST registration application. The court held that if the assessing authority is inclined to reject the application, which he is entitled to, he must assign reasons for such objection and adhere to proper procedure, including due process.

30. Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA Over Facebook Posts Allegedly Instigating Muslims To Act Against Hindus

Case Title: Bava Bahrudeen @ Mannai Bava v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 306

The Madras High Court recently allowed a criminal appeal and granted bail to a man booked by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) over his social media posts, allegedly instigating Muslims to act against Hindus and create communal disharmony amongst different religions.

The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira opined that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was involved in any violent activity and the only allegation was regarding uploading of Facebook posts. The court was also satisfied that the organization was not a terrorist organization. Considering that the appellant was in custody for more than 300 days and that there was no likelihood of the trial being completed at the earliest, the court was inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

31. Karnataka Hijab Row: Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To TN Thowheed Jamath Members Accused Of Threatening Judges

Case Title: Asan Basha @ Ashan Batcha and another v. The State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307

The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to seven members of Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath who participated in the meetings against the recent Karnataka High Court Hijab judgment. The anticipatory bail was granted keeping in view that the prime accused had already been granted bail and after taking on record the joint affidavit filed by the petitioners tendering their unconditional apology.

Justice Murali Shankar of the Madurai Bench, while granting bail also observed that every person has a right to express their views but the same should be done in a good faith. In the present case, the speakers had in fact exceeded the limits and went to the extent of threatening the Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court.

32. Right Of Accused To Representation Integral Part Of Article 21, Trial Court Must Appoint Amicus In Absence Of Defence Counsel: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308

The Madras High Court recently set aside the order of conviction of one M/s. RK Emu Frams which was convicted under Sections 120B, 420, and 406 IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection Of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act after observing that the order of conviction was passed without hearing the appellant/accused.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the right of the accused to be represented was an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and that even when the counsel for the accused is absent, the Court should not remain helpless and must appoint an Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.

33. 'Grave Danger To Physical & Mental Health': Madras High Court Allows Termination Of 13 Yrs Old Rape Victim's 28 Weeks Pregnancy

Case Title: K Vijayakumar v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309

Coming to the aid of a 13 years old rape victim, the Madras High Court recently allowed termination of her 28 weeks + 3 days old pregnancy on a plea by the girl's father.

Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that even though the pregnancy had crossed the legal period of 20 weeks, it had to be noted that she was a small statured girl and was not mentally or physically strong to withstand the pregnancy. Apart from this, the court also noted that the girl's father, the Petitioner herein, was an agricultural labourer and if the pregnancy was allowed to continue, not only the victim girl but the whole family would suffer. The court also noted that it had wider power under Article 226 of the Constitution than what is prescribed under section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

34. S.245(2) CrPC | Magistrate's Power To Discharge Accused "At Any Previous Stage" Of Case Means Stage At Which Cognizance Is Taken By Court: Madras HC

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 310

While discussing the power of the court to discharge an accused under Section 245(2) of the CrPC, the Madras High Court recently observed that the words "at any previous stage" used in the provision would mean the stage from when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the case.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed as under:

"The phrase "at any previous stage of the case" means a case on file with cognizance being taken , as otherwise, there cannot be a 'discharge' from the case. Therefore, I am of the view that in this case, the stage of Section 200 of Cr.P.C., itself has not commenced and even before that such application (discharge) cannot be filed."

35. Madras High Court Releases On Probation Mother Who Killed Her Two Daughters Due To Societal Taunts About Bearing Only Female Children

Case Title: Sathiya v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 311

In a rare incident, the Madras High Court released a mother, convicted for killing her two daughters, on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy saw the case as a testimony to the gender inequality prevailing in the country.

The court found it to be a case of "Nalla Thangal syndrome" wherein unable to bear the taunt of the society, the state of mind of the mother led her to attempt suicide and kill her children along with it. This concept of "state of mind" had been previously considered by the court in the case of Suyambukani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and was later reiterated by a division bench in Poovammal Vs. State.

36. Madras High Court Quashes AIADMK Headquarters Sealing Order, Directs Handing Over Of Keys To Edappadi Palaniswamy

Case Title: Edappadi K Palaniswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 312

The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed the order of Revenue Divisional Officer sealing the headquarters of AIADMK party. Justice Sathish Kumar directed the RDO to hand over the keys of the headquarters to Palaniswamy and also directed the police to provide necessary protection to ensure that no untoward incident takes place. In view of the violence that had taken place last week in connection with the sealing, the court also directed Edappadi Palaniswamy to not allow party cadres to enter the building premises. The court also directed the registry to keep the pendrive containing video footage of the violence in safe custody.

37. Regularisation Of Backdoor Appointments Infringe Fundamental Rights Of Candidates Appearing In Competitive Process: Madras High Court

Case Title: C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313

While adjudicating a man's plea for permanent absorption into the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) on the ground that he had been continuously rendering temporary services since 25 years, the Madras High Court heavily criticised the practice of back door appointment that was prevalent in the country.

Justice S M Subramaniam opined that the practice of back door appointment was infringing the fundamental rights of all those candidates who were trying to secure public employment through open competitive process.

38. Owner Not Entitled To Return Of Vehicle Involved In Crime Pending Confiscation Proceedings: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy recently observed that whenever a vehicle is involved in a crime, the same cannot be returned to the owner when confiscation proceedings are pending before the authorities.

Though there were divergent views taken by the court in various judgements, the instant bench was inclined to follow the observations made by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Uday Singh [(2020) 12 SCC 733] wherein the court held as under:

"29.4.......The jurisdiction under Section 451 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the authorised officer initiated confiscation proceedings."

39. Madras High Court Quashes Govt Order Sealing Private Hospital Allegedly Involved In Illegal Sale Of Oocyte

Case Title: Sudha Hospital v. The Director of Medical And Rural Health and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 315

The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed an order of the Government of Tamil Nadu sealing Sudha Hospital in Erode for their alleged involvement in illegal sale of oocyte from a 16 year old girl.

Justice Abdul Quddhose quashed the order after observing that the respondent authorities had failed to record in writing the reasons for suspending the registration of the clinic establishment without issuing any notice, as was necessary under proviso to Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishment (Regulation) Act 1997 and Section 20(3) of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.

40. Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe Against Retired IPS Officer For Allegedly Colluding With Idol Smugglers

Case Title: Kader Batcha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others

Citation: 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 316

The Madras High Court on Friday directed Central Bureau of Investigation to probe into the allegations levelled against retired IPS Officer AG Ponn Manickavel for his alleged collusion with idol smugglers. The orders were issued by Justice G Jayachandran in a plea moved by a former Deputy Superintendent of Police Kader Batcha.

The court concluded that for it to satisfy its conscious, it was necessary that there was an impartial investigation. To ensure the same, the court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to ensure fair and impartial investigation. For this, the court deemed it fit to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

41. S.11 RTI Act | Inter-Caste Marriage Certificate Submitted By Persons Seeking Priority In Public Employment Contain Personal Info, Notice Mandatory: Madras HC

Case Title: Mr.P.Adhavan Seral v. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that informations touching upon the right of privacy of third parties cannot be sought through RTI applications without putting them on notice.

Justice Anand Venkatesh was dealing with a plea seeking directions to the Tamil Nadu Information Commission to provide details with respect to persons who have registered themselves in the district employment office under the special category of Inter Caste Marriage and to furnish the certificates provided by such persons.

42. Statements Recorded U/S 164 CrPC Are Not Substantive Evidence, Can Only Be Used For Corroboration: Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Siva v. State by Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 318

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of conviction of a man accused of murder after observing that the trial court was misled in corroborating the statement of witnesses recorded under S. 164 CrPC with the medical evidence when in fact all the independent witnesses had turned hostile.

Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira took note of the judicial precedents where the courts have clearly laid down that the statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC are not substantive evidence and that they can only be used to corroborate/contradict the statement of a witness.

43. When Prosecution Itself Is Infested With Motive, Court Can Interfere & Quash The Same To Prevent Abuse Of Process Of Law: Madras High Court

Case Title: Jaisankar v. The State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319

While quashing a final report against a man accused of being in possession of an intoxicating drug and charged with Section 4(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937, the Madras High Court observed that the prosecution was a malafide one.

After going through the materials available on record, Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that though it was alleged that 96 rum bottles were found in possession of the accused, there was no evidence except the statement of the investigating officer. The court also noted that even though the courts do not generally go into the materials collected by the police, if it was found that the prosecution itself was without any material, the same could be quashed.

44. Failure To Disclose Impotency Before Marriage: Madras High Court Directs Police To Register Offences For Cheating

Case Title: Irfana Nasreen v. The State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

Allowing an application for alteration of FIR filed by an estranged wife, the Madras High Court recently directed the respondent police to register offences under Section 417 and 420 of IPC for cheating against the husband who deceived the wife by non-disclosing his impotency.

Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench directed the respondent police to add the offences along with already existing Section 498-A and 406 and submit the final report within four months after investigation.

45. Freedom Fighter's Pension Cannot Be Said To Be "Income" For Denying Benefit Of Family Pension: Madras High Court

Case Title: S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Freedom Fighter's Pension could not be brought under the category of family income for grant of family pension. It observed that Freedom Fighter's pension is given to honor the sacrifices made by them for the nation in the freedom struggle. Justice B Pugalendhi thus allowed a woman's plea to draw a family pension arising out of her mother's service in addition to the freedom fighter's pension.

46. Madras High Court Gives Clean Chit To IPS Officer In Fake Passport Case; Lauds BJP State President For Highlighting The Scam

Case Title: Sureshkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 322

The Madras High court recently gave a clean chit to Madurai's former Commissioner of Police, S. Davidson Devasirvatham in connection with matters pertaining to issuance of fake passports to Sri Lankan and Indian Nationals by using forged documents.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan observed that field enquiry police officer play the most crucial in verification process and the buck stops with the nodal officer. "Involvement of the officials above the said rank may not really arise."

47. Madras High Court Directs TN Govt To Include Photographs Of President & Prime Minister In All Advertisements Of Chess Olympiad 2022

Case Title: R.Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 323

On a plea seeking the inclusion of photographs of the Prime Minister and the President of India in the advertisements for the 44th Chess Olympiad organised by the Federation Internationale des Echecs [FIDE], the Madras High Court directed the State government to ensure that the pictures of the Prime Minister and the President are included in all the advertisements. The division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice S Ananthi also directed the government to ensure that in future events also, these directions are followed.

48. Dept. To Follow Procedure Set Out In Circular On The Issues Of Mismatch: Madras High Court Quashes VAT Assessment

Case Title: M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumnath has quashed the VAT assessment and directed the department to follow the procedure set out in the circular regarding the issue of mismatch.

The court ordered that the procedure set out in the circular be applied to the present case as well. The orders of assessment are set aside to enable both parties, i.e., the assessee as well as the department, to engage in the finalisation of the issue in line with the circular.

49. Homeopathy, Ayurveda Practitioners Registered With TN Board Can Also Practice Allopathy Based On Course Training: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr.R.Senthilkumar v. The State and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325

The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor registered with State Homoeopathy Medical Council who was found practicing in Allopathy Medicine.

Justice Teeka Raman observed that Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani practitioners who are registered in the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine are eligible to practice in the respective system with Allopathy based on the training and teaching they had in the Course. The court however cautioned that such persons cannot exclusively practice Allopathy medicine.

50. Hospital's Delay To Shift Patient To Another Hospital For Proper Treatment Amounts To Negligence: Madras HC Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation

Case Title: S.Bhanupriya v. The State and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 326

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh has ordered lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a young mother who was forced to undergo three surgeries due to delay on part of a government hospital to shift her to a better facility, consequently kept away from her newborn baby for nine months.

Since the hospital was a government hospital, the State was vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. Thus, the court directed the state to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

51. Police Officials Making False Statements Before Criminal Court To Protect Fellow Officer Amounts To "Misconduct": Madras High Court

Case Title: P.Arumugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 327

While upholding the disciplinary action against an erring police official, the Madras High Court heavily criticized the manner in which his fellow officials had given false statements before the trial court in the connected criminal case.

Justice SM Subramaniam remarked that police officials making false or incorrect statements before the criminal courts could be construed as "misconduct" under the Government Service Conduct Rules.

52. Buddha Sculpture Found In Temple : Madras High Court Directs Take Over By Archeological Dept, Halts Poojas

Case Title: P.Ranganathan and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 328

The Madras High Court recently directed the Archaeological Department to take control of the property of Thalaivetti Muniyappan Temple at Kottai Road, Periyeri Village, Salem District after the Archaeological department confirmed that the idol inside the temple depicted the mahalakshanas of Lord Buddha.

The court also prevented any further pooja from being conducted in the temple. Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that allowing Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) department to continue treating the sculpture as that of Thalaivetti Muniappan would be against the tenets of Buddhism.

53. 'Right To Marry Is A Fundamental Human Right': Madras HC Allows Couple To Solemnize Marriage Virtually

Case Title: Vasmi Sudarshini v. The Sub Registrar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 329

Coming to the aid of a young couple, the Madras High Court allowed solemnisation of marriage through virtual mode with the groom in USA and bride in India. The court also allowed the bride's plea for getting marriage certificate by observing that she could affix signature in the certificate for both herself and the groom as she had a power of attorney to that effect.

Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench observed that Section 12 of the Special Marriage Act 1954, gives liberty to the parties to adopt any form of solemnisation of marriage provided that it must be recognised and reasonable and not against public policy.

54. Proceedings Under Domestic Violence Act Civil In Nature, Can Be Transferred To Family Court With Victim's Consent: Madras High Court

Case Title: P.Ganesan v. M.Revathy Prema Rubarani

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 330

The Madras High Court has held that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, though before a Magistrate, are civil in nature. It observed that the intention of the legislature in enacting the Domestic Violence Act was to ensure civil law remedies to the victims of domestic abuse by adopting criminal procedure.

The court also held that since the legislature had clear intentions while granting special powers to the Magistrate under the Act, the same could not be diluted by transferring the domestic violence proceedings to a civil court or a family court, without the victim's consent.

The bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan was answering a reference made by two single judge benches of Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Murali Shankar.

55. [Custodial Death] Madras High Court Directs CB-CID To Charge Erring Police Officials For Murder, Awards ₹5 Lakh Interim Compensation To Family

Case Title: S.Pongulali v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 331

The Madras High Court recently allowed a mother's plea to register a case for the offence of Murder against the police officials allegedly involved in the custodial death of her 22 year old son. It directed the CB-CID to alter the charge against the accused police officials and proceed against them for the offence of murder and file the final report within a period of eight weeks.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the Police has a responsibility to ensure that a citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life, except according to procedure established by law.

56. [Matrimonial Dispute] Entire Family Cannot Be Implicated Based On Omnibus Allegations: Madras High Court

Case Title: Subburaj and another v. State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 332

Criticising the trend of implicating family members in matrimonial cases, the Madras High Court bench of Justice N Satish Kumar observed that in such cases, mere omnibus allegation against the family members could not be the basis for initiating criminal proceedings.

The court also opined that though under Section 482 CrPC, it cannot assume the role of a trial court. However, if it is satisfied that the prosecution has been maliciously instituted, it could go into the materials and find out whether there are materials, which requires a trial.

57. Distance Rule Not Criteria For Permitting TASMAC Shop To Run Near Educational Institution: Madras High Court

Case Title: Jayalakshmi v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 333

The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision to close a TASMAC shop after considering that the proposed area had a College, a De-addiction Centre, and temples in the vicinity.

Justice Nirmal Kumar agreed with an earlier order with respect to the same premises which held that the distance rule cannot be the only criteria for allowing a TASMAC shop to function near a college.

58. Illegality Can't Perpetuate On Mere Technicality, Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Exercised To Nullify Decree Obtained By Fraud On Civil Court: Madras HC

Case Title: The District Collector v. Mr R Vetri and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 334

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order passed by the civil court declaring title in favour of private respondents qua a government land, after observing that the order was obtained by committing fraud on the court.

Justice Anand Venkatesh held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can nullify the judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil court if it has been obtained by playing fraud on the Court and such a decree is a nullity and non-est in the eye of law.

59. Passenger May Be Prosecuted For Motor Accident Caused By Drunk Driver: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr. Lakshmi v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 335

The Madras High Court recently held that a co-passenger in a vehicle involved in motor accident caused by an inebriated driver can be prosecuted for instigation and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (ii) of IPC.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the co-passengers could not escape liability by merely claiming that they were merely sitting in the passenger seat and were not behind the wheels.

The court noted that the petitioner had committed a "positive act" in opening the door and sitting in the front seat of the car and thus participating in the journey. Whether this positive act would amount to instigating the driver to drive in an inebriated state would depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the parties were going on a night stroll which would amount to instigation.

60. Madras HC Quashes Advocate's "Motivated" Land Grabbing Complaint, Says Magistrate's Power U/S 156(3) CrPC Must Be Exercised Vigilantly

Case Title: KL Prabakar v. The State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 336

The Madras High Court recently emphasized that directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be issued by Magistrates without the application of judicial mind.

Justice N Sathish Kumar also observed that before ordering an investigation of an offence by the police, the Magistrate can, in appropriate cases, verify the truth and veracity of the allegations made. The Magistrate should also ensure that remedies under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of CrPC have been availed. Further, an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC must contain the details of all these applications made before appropriate authorities.

61. Evidence Of The Victim Can Be Taken To Prove Her Age In Absence Of Necessary Documents: Madras High Court

Case Title: Azhagan @ Prabhu v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 337

The Madras High Court recently modified a judgment of conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to one under the IPC after observing that the prosecution had failed to establish the age of the victim at the time of the offence.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy opined that when the prosecution had not produced the Transfer certificate of the victim and when the victim had categorically deposed before the court that her date of birth was 27.07.1995 not making her a minor at the time of the offence, her evidence should be taken as her correct age and therefore altered the charges.

62. Service Of Preparation Of Scalp, Fitment And Maintenance Of Wig- Indivisible Contact: Madras High Court

Case Title: White Cliffs Hair Studio Private Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 338

The Madras High Court has held that the primary activity is the manufacture of the wig, for which the central excise duty is remitted. The fitment of the wig, including the preparation of the scalp and optional maintenance of the wig itself, is incidental to the manufacturing and supply of the wig.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Supreme Court has specifically noted the difference between a composite contract and an indivisible one. A composite contract is one that would involve components of sale and service, whereas an indivisible contract, also involving components of sale and service, is one where the distinction between the two is very fine and difficult to determine.

63. S.102(3) CrPC | Info Regarding Freezing Of Bank Account Must Be Given To Jurisdictional Magistrate: Madras High Court

Case Title: Karthika Agencies Export House v. The Commissioner of Police and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 339

While ordering de-freezing of an account seized pursuant to investigation into a loan fraud, the Madras High Court held that it was an essential requirement of Section 102(3) of CrPC that information of the seizure should be duly reported to the Magistrate.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that in the case on hand, the information regarding the seizure was made after considerable delay. As this necessary procedure of law was not complied with, the court deemed it fit to set aside the order of seizure of the bank account.

64. Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Be Initiated For Absence When The Period Of Absence Is Regularised By Competent Authority: Madras High Court

Case Title: C Jagadeesan v. Additional Director General of Police and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 340

Coming to the rescue of a dismissed Police Officer, the Madras High Court recently observed that once the competent authority has regularized a period of medical leave, no further disciplinary proceedings for misconduct would sustain.

In the present case, though the petitioner was said to be absent from service for over three years, the court held that the same was condoned by the regularisation of his absence.

A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam held that though normally such a lengthy period of absence was not condoned by the authorities, especially if the Police Personnel is a chronic absentee or habitual absentee, however, once the authorities have accepted the reasons for absence, the misconduct is condoned.

65. [Statutory Bail] Bail Court Has No Jurisdiction To Go Into Merits Of The Case U/S 167(2) CrPC: Madras High Court

Case Title: Kannan v. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 341

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a bail court, while considering an application under Section 167(2) CrPC was not concerned with going into the merits of the case. The court had to consider such an application for default bail by considering whether the statutory period for filing a charge sheet or challan had expires, whether the charge sheet or challan had been filed and whether the accused was prepared to and had furnished bail.

Justice Murali Shankar, while setting aside the decision of the lower court, also criticized the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The court expressed shock over the manner in which the impugned order was passed and the personal liberty of the accused was handled by the Judicial Officer.

66. TN Rent Control | Cross-Examination Not A Right, Discretion Must Ensure "Fairness" In Judicial Proceedings: Madras High Court

Case Title: J Thennarasu v. Anita Nalliah (and other connected cases)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 342

The Madras High Court recently held that cross examination of a party in Rent control proceedings in the state is not a "right" and the Court's discretion to allow or disallow the same must be based on a plane of fairness in judicial proceedings.

Justice N Seshasayee also observed that though the court has been given discretion, the legislative thrust is on adherence to the principles of natural justice. Hence, even if the Rent Court can regulate its own proceeding, the same has to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.

67. Mere Gathering Of More Than 5 Persons Not "Unlawful Assembly": Madras HC Quashes Case Against Law Students Protesting Against Srilankan Govt

Case Title: Aravinth and others v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 343

The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against 11 law students accused of raising slogans against the Srilankan Government, demanding their "Tamil Ealam issues".

Justice N Satish Kumar observed that the students had democratically raised protest against the inaction of the police and such a gathering could not be held unlawful.

The court also discussed the definition of the term "Unlawful Assembly" and held that the petitioners had not committed any acts that would fall within the meaning of unlawful assembly. That is, they have not shown any criminal force to commit any mischief, crime of any offence or by way of criminal force or tried to take possession of the property or right to use of incorporeal right which is in possession of enjoyment of others or rights.

68. Hormonal Imbalance/ Irregular Menstruation Of Women Cannot Be Considered As Female Impotency: Madras High Court

Case Title: Natchal vs. V Chokkalingam

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 344

The Madras High Court has held that hormonal imbalance or irregular periods would not amount to impotency of a woman and would not mean that she is unfit to have sex.

Justice RN Manjula observed thus while hearing a revision petition against a Family Court's order directing a woman's medical examination on her husband's plea for annulment of marriage citing non-consummation.

The bench held that when the woman herself had admitted the fact of her hormonal imbalance and details of examination by a gynecologist, it was unnecessary to subject her to medical examination.

69. Intended To Blackmail Leaseholders: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Stop Construction Of Sand Quarries With 50K Cost

Case Title: R.Silambarasan v. Chief Secretary and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 345

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed to stop the construction of sand quarries at three villages of Nagapattinam District after observing that the same was filed without bonafide.

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the petitioner, who himself had a criminal track record under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, had failed to ascertain facts regarding the quarry leases granted to the respondents before filing the writ petition.

70. Limitation Is An Aspect Of Public Policy For The Purpose Section 34 Of Arbitration Act : Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. versus Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB)

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 346

The Madras High Court has ruled that limitation is a facet of public policy, and hence, an arbitral award which is incorrect qua limitation is hit by Section 34(2)(b)(ii), read with Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that, in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Voltas Limited versus Rolta India Limited (2014), if the counter claimant before an Arbitral Tribunal has invoked the arbitration clause, then, the date of such invocation would be the relevant date to decide the limitation period for raising the counter claim. Hence, the Court ruled that the view of the Arbitral Tribunal that the counter claim raised by the party was barred by limitation, by referring to the date on which it had filed the counter claim before the Tribunal, was incorrect.

71. 'Jai Bhim' Movie : Madras High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Actor Suriya And Director Gnanavel Over Alleged Hurting Of Vanniyar Sentiments

Case Title: TJ Gnanavel and another v. The State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 347

The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed criminal proceedings against cine actor Suriya and director TJ Gnanavel for allegedly hurting the sentiments of the Vanniyar community in his movie Jai Bhim.

Justice N Sathish Kumar allowed the petition filed by the actor and the director to quash the FIR filed by Velachery Police on a complaint by Advocate K Santhosh, president of Rudra Vanniyar Sena. He had approached the Saidapet Magistrate seeking direction to file an FIR. Subsequently, Surya and Gnanavel were charged under Section 295A of the IPC.

The court opined that though the defacto complainant had alleged that the movie was projected in such a manner to incite violence and hostility on a particular community, no specific instance had been recorded. Further, the entire FIR was only based on inference and presumption of the de facto complainant. The court also noted that mere reference to a name would not mean that the said name related to a particular community.

72. Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging State's Decision To Transfer 1000 Crocodiles To Gujarat

Case Title: A. Viswanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 348

The Madras High Court, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Viswanathan against the Tamil Nadu Government's decision to shift 1000 crocodiles from Madras Crocodile Bank Trust to Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) in Gujarat.

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala dismissed the PIL after considering the fact that the Rehabilitation Centre had the necessary infrastructure. The court pointed out that even experts were satisfied with respect to the infrastructure available at the facility and thus the court did not find any ground to interfere with the decision. There was also photographic evidence that shows the infrastructure available in the facility.

73. Absorption Not In Consonance With Established Rules: Madras HC Confirms TASMAC Order Demoting Supervisor To Salesman

Case Title: P Mihiran v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 349

The Madras High Court recently confirmed the order of the Managing Director of TASMAC to revert an employee from the post of Supervisor to the post of Salesman after observing that his absorption/promotion was not made in accordance to the established rules or principles. The employee had approached the court seeking to quash the order of the Managing Director.

Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the petitioner could not establish any Rule for his absorption and thus was not entitled to such promotion.

74. "Can't Refuse Indians To Celebrate Independence Day": Madras HC Allows Conduct Of 'Rekla' Race As Part Of Independence Day Celebrations

Case title - V. Sounthar v. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 350

The Madras High Court recently granted permission for conducting Rekla race in connection with the 75th Independence Day Celebration and Aadi Temple Festival in the Bhavani Town of the state's Erode District.

The bench of Justice T. Raja and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu said that since the Rekla race was to be conducted by residents of Erode District as part of the 75th Year Independence Day, therefore, refusing their prayer would send a message that Indians are refused to celebrate even the Independence Day.

75. "Award Patently Erroneous": Madras High Court Orders Fresh Arbitration In BSNL's Claim Against ISHA Foundation

Case Title: The Principal General Manager, BSNL and another v. The Administrator, ISHA Foundation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 351

The Madras High Court recently gave liberty to state-owned telecom provider BSNL to institute de novo arbitration against the ISHA foundation for its claim related to unpaid dues.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy made the order after observing that the current arbitral award, which was passed without consulting an expert committee and without giving due regard to the evidences, was patently erroneous.

76. Husband Must Be Removed From House If It's The Only Way To Maintain Domestic Peace, Absence Of Alternate Accommodation Not Relevant: Madras HC

Case Title: V Anusha v. B Krishnan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 352

While allowing a wife's plea for permanent injunction, the Madras High Court has opined that if removal of the husband from home alone is the only way to ensure domestic peace, the Family Courts should not hesitate to pass such orders.

The bench of Justice RN Manjula observed,

"The protection orders are normally given to ensure the peaceful movement of a woman within her domestic sphere. When a woman fears the presence of her husband and screams, the Courts cannot be indifferent by just directing the husband that he should not harass the wife, but by allowing him to reside in the same house."

77. Whether Proceeding U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act Can Be Challenged Under Article 227 Constitution/ S.482 CrPC? Madras HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench

Case Title: Arul Daniel and others v. Suganya

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 353

A single judge of the Madras High Court recently referred to a larger bench, the question regarding the applicability of provisions of Section 482 CrPC and/or Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Justice N Sathish Kumar was considering a batch of petitions seeking to quash the application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act by invoking the provision under Section 482 CrPC.

78. Govt Itself Permitted Businesses To Run 24x7, Police Cannot Restrict The Time On Their Own: Madras High Court

Case Title: M Raja v. Superintendent of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 354

While hearing a shop owner's plea to direct the police not to interfere with his business during late night hours, the Madras High Court noted that the Government of Tamil Nadu has already passed orders permitting shops in the State to run 24x7. In such a situation, the police cannot interfere with the business, except in case of any law-and-order situation.

Justice N Satish Kumar observed:

When the Government itself has permitted to run the business for 24x7, the police cannot restrict the time on their own.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed not the interfere with the petitioner's business and they can interfere only in case of any law and order problem arose in the shop.

79. AIADMK Leadership : Madras High Court Orders Status Quo Ante As On June 23, Says No To General Council Meeting Without Joint Consent Of OPS & EPS

Case Title: O Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 355

The Madras High Court on Wednesday ordered to conduct a fresh General Council Meeting of the AIADMK party. The court also ordered the status quo ante, as existed on June 23, before the General Council meeting took place on July 11. The court observed that only the coordinator and the joint coordinator had the powers to convene the General Council. Thus the court in effect canceled the General Counsel meeting held on July 11 and as a result the election of Edappadi Palaniswamy as interim General Secretary of the party

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran thus allowed a plea moved by former Tamil Nadu CM O Paneerselvam challenging his expulsion from the party and the General Council meeting of the AIADMK party that was conducted on July 11. Another General Council member P Vairamuthu had also approached the court challenging the General Council meeting.

80. Building Rules Do Not Permit Conversion Of Residential Building Into A Prayer Hall: Madras High Court Rejects Plea Of Man To Convert Residence To Prayer Hall

Case Title: Pastor V. Mariya Arockiam v. The District Collector and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 356

The Madras High Court has recently held that Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules 1972 mandates prior permission from the District Collector before construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes. The court thus dismissed the petition of a man for converting his residential place into a prayer hall after observing that the necessary permission from the authorities was not sought.

Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the building was located in a residential area and that gathering of such large number of people in a residential area would cause nuisance and difficulty to the residents of the locality.

81. Dr. Ambedkar Is The Architect Of Constitution, Install His Portrait In All Govt Law Colleges: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Sasikumar v. The Vice Chancellor and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 357

While dealing with a challenge to the suspension of a law student, the Madras High Court stressed pon the need to install portraits of Dr. BR Ambedkar in Law colleges. Justice GR Swaminathan, therefore, directed the Director of Legal Studies, Chennai to issue a circular mandating the installation of portraits of Dr. Ambedkar in all Government Law Colleges.

82. "She Converted To Islam & Applied For Bangladeshi Citizenship Voluntarily": Madras HC Dismisses Father's Plea Against Daughter Renouncing Indian Citizenship

Case Title: Vinith Baid v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 358

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a Father's plea to forbear the Central Government and the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs from registering the declaration of renunciation of Citizenship or granting no objection certificate/certificate of renunciation of citizenship to his daughter.

The Court noted that the duaghter is a major, aged 25 years. Also, from the record of an earlier habeas corpus petition filed by the father, the Court noted that she had converted to Islam and applied for Bangladeshi citizenship voluntarily.

Justice Abdul Quddhose was considering a petition filed by a father who contended that his daughter, who was presently residing in Bangladesh with her husband, was a victim of radicalization, undue influence, coercion, abduction, and captivity violating all her rights and human dignity.

83. Protest Using Animals Would Amount To 'Animal Cruelty': Madras High Court

Case Title: K Muthu v. The State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 359

While dismissing a man's petition seeking permission to conduct a democratic protest using a buffalo, the Madras High Court held that such action would amount to animal cruelty.

The bench of Justice Sathish Kumar observed that keeping the animal at the place from morning to evening cannot be permitted as it would amount to cruelty and would be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960.

84. 'Let Down All Education': Madras HC Upholds Doctor's Suspension For Creating Fake Medical Certificate For Land Grabbing

Case Title: Dr. S. Radhakrishnan v. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 360

The Madras High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a doctor challenging the order of removal of his name from the medical register for a period of two years after observing that he had issued a fake medical certificate for wrongfully gaining property and thus had committed professional misconduct.

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy opined that the appellant had let down all education imparted on him merely for obtaining land. This would double up the seriousness of his misconduct. The court thus opined that the punishment accorded to him was proportionate

85. Sunday Hearing: Madras High Court Grants Interim Bail To Accused For Observing Rituals Following Father's Demise

Case Title: Sathish v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361

The Madras High Court conducted a special sitting on Sunday after an urgent petition was filed seeking bail for an incarcerated accused on the ground that his father had died and he, being an only son was to perform the last rites.

Justice G Jayachandran granted an interim bail of 3 days to the Petitioner, subject to his own bond, to enable him to perform post rituals. He has been directed to report and surrender before the authorities on 24th. The police has been directed to escort the Petitioner to his village.

86.Cut/Sized Shade Trees Constitutes "Agricultural Produce", No Sales Tax Applicable: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has held that the cut and sized shade trees would constitute "agricultural produce" and, therefore, fall outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act, 1959).

The court rejected the claim of the petitioner that the cut/sized Silver Oak/shade tree would constitute "firewood".

87. Magistrate Cannot Act As A "Post Office" & Direct For Registration Of FIR Mechanically, It Affects Individual's Rights: Madras High Court

Case Title: Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 363

The Madras High Court, while emphasizing that FIR is not an ordinary thing and could affect the rights of the individual, heavily criticised the order of a Magistrate directing registration of FIR against an accused, without due application of mind.

The court also noted that there was a lack of jurisdiction.

88. 'Agamas Will Govern' : Madras High Court Exempts Archakas In Temples Constructed As Per Agamas From TN Govt Rules 2020

Case Title: All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 364

In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court on Monday exempted temples constructed as per agamas from the rules brought by the Tamil Nadu Government in 2020 in relation to the qualifications and appointments of archakas/poojaris.

A division bench of the High Court read down Rules 7 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 to hold that they will not apply to temples constructed as per agamas.

The High Court said that reading down these Rules are necessary so as to exempt temples constructed as per agamas. Otherwise, it would offend the fundamental rights to practice religion and the rights of a religious denomination to manage its affairs guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Court however refrained from striking down the said Rules in their entirety, as they dealt with other appointments as well.

89. [NEET] Intake Cannot Be Beyond Sanctioned Limit Or Time Schedule For Completing Admissions: Madras High Court

Case Title: A Priyanka and others v. The Principal Secretary and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

In context of admissions to MBBS courses, the Madras High Court has reiterated that admission to the courses had to be commensurate with the annual intake capacity of the institution. The court also highlighted that the admissions cannot be made beyond the time limit fixed by the Apex Court for completing admissions.

The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose was hearing petitions filed by children of defence personal seeking admission to MBBS Course under the wards of defence personnel quota. The court noted that the GO dated 30.06.1979 was not applicable to the petitioners as the said notification was applicable only to PUC and BSC students which was the stream of education prevalent at that point of time.

90. Madras High Court Orders Complete Abolition Of 'Orderly System' From TN Police In Four Months

Case Title: U Manickavel v State and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 366

The Madras High Court on Tuesday passed final orders in the case against engagement of uniformed Police officers as orderlies at the residence of higher officials in Tamil Nadu.

Justice SM Subramaniam today directed the authorities to ensure that the orderly system is completely abolished within a period of four months. The court also directed the authorities to remove the orderlies appointed in the residence of retired officials as the same amounts to illegality and a violation of the law.

Further, if any complaint/ information was received with respect to misconduct or offence by officials, the authorities were directed to conduct enquiry and initiate all appropriate actions under the relevant laws and under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.

With respect to illegal occupation of the official police quarters, the court directed to initiate steps for eviction in the manner known to law.

91. Timelines For Uploading TRAN-1 For Seeking Credit And Revision Of Credit Cannot Be One: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367

The Madras High Court has held that the timelines for uploading of TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be one and the same as it leads to an unworkable position.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN-1 return be identical to the timeline for filing of a return seeking transition. The purpose of revision is to enable correction or modification of a return of transition. It would stand to reason that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return, be provided by the respondent in the latter instance.

92. Bonafide Disciplinary Proceedings By Bar Council Have Statutory Indemnity Against Legal Action: Madras High Court

Case Title: Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry v. VK Sethukumar and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 368

The Madras High Court recently emphasized on "statutory indemnity" available to the Bar Councils with respect to bonafide disciplinary proceedings initiated against Advocates.

The court was hearing a criminal revision petition moved by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry against the order of a lower court dismissing the Bar Council's application to reject a plaint filed by an Advocate seeking damages from the Bar Council.

The court noted that since the proceedings before the Bar Council were quasi-judicial, an aggrieved party could make use of the Appeal remedies provided under the Advocates Act. The grounds of appeal shall include all the shortfalls in the order of the lower forum. Thus, when no further appeal is made against the order of the first appellate forum, there cannot be anymore grievances left out.

93. Arbitrator Appointed Under MSCS Act; Fixation Of Fees Is Subject To A&C Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: Air Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 369

The Madras High Court has ruled that the power of the Central Registrar to appoint an arbitrator and fix the fees of arbitration under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

Holding that there is no provision under the MSCS Act where an exemption has been provided with respect to Section 38 of the A&C Act, which requires the parties to equally bear the advance costs to be deposited before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan set aside the order of the State Registrar directing the petitioner to pay the fees and expenses to the Arbitrator.

94. Madras HC Voices Concern Over Rise In Sexual Exploitation Of Children, Says Recalcitrant Attitude Of Public Must Change, Calls For Social Movement

Case Title: Narayanan v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 370

While confirming the life imprisonment of a man convicted for sexually abusing five children, the Madras High Court emphasized that the mere absence of physical injury does not rule out the sexual acts.

Justice PN Prakash and Justice Hemalatha held sexual activity with a child to be a criminal/ immoral act and emphasizing on making the society safe for children

95. Framing Of Charge | Court Merely Required To Sift Evidence On Record & Form Prima Facie Opinion Regarding Existence Of "Strong Suspicion": Madras HC

Case Title: Subramanian P v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

Madras High Court recently dismissed a revision petition moved by a man accused of cheating and forgery after observing that while deciding upon discharge, the High Court only had to sift through the evidence on record and form an opinion on whether there was a prima facie case and a strong suspicion against the accused.

96. "It Is A Paradox That Closure Of Temple Actually Leads To Peace": Madras HC Expresses Anguish Over 'Ego Clashes' Between Worshippers

Case Title: M Sekar v. The District Collector and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 372

While directing the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment to appoint a fit person to look into the affairs of the Sri Madurai Veeran, Karupparayan and Kannimar temple at Erode, the Madras High Court expressed concern on how temples were now becoming a cause for disturbance of law and order due to "ego clashes" between worshippers.

Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that temples are supposed to bring man closer to god. However presently, the courts were flooded with litigations and the police and revenue authorities were made to spend their lives resolving disputes between disputing parties.

97. Case Based On Suspicion And Confession Statement: Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Charged Under UAPA

Case Title: Sadam Hussain v. State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373

The Madras High Court recently granted bail to a man after observing that the entire case against him was based on suspicion and case was taken based on the confession statement. Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira also observed that there was no complaint made against the accused.

The court had also noted that no offence had taken place and no complaint was actually made by Kumaresan. The entire case was merely on the suspicion that arose in the mind of a police officer while doing his routine rounds. The court was therefore convinced that there was no prima facie case against the appellant.

98. [Kallakurichi Student Death] Unfortunate That Teachers Are Being Arrested For Asking Students To Study Well: Madras High Court

Case Title: Kiruthika Jayaraj and others v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 374

The Madras High Court recently granted bail to two teachers, school principal, school management correspondent and secretary in connection with the death of a XIIth standard student in Kallakurichi.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that there was no evidence to show that the girl had been tortured before her death. Even going by the suicide note, there was no evidence to implicate the teachers as they had merely asked the student to study well.

99. Exporter Can't Be Deprived Of MEIS Benefits Due To Technical Error In Electronic System: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s Gupta Hair Products (P) Ltd. Versus The Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 375

The Madras High Court has held that due to technical error or lacunae in the electronic system, the petitioner/exporter cannot be deprived of its benefit/incentive under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS).

The single bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has directed the department to consider the petitioner's representation seeking to get the benefit under the MEIS for the subject shipping bill and pass orders within a period of six weeks.

100. "It Has Become A Fashion To Make Such Comments": Madras HC Grants Conditional Bail To Stunt Master Kanal Kannan

Case Title: V Kannan v State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 376

The Madras High Court on Thursday granted conditional bail to Hindu Munnani office bearer and stunt master Kanal Kannan for his remarks seeking to demolish the statur of Periyar outside Srirangam temple. The court while granting bail, however, criticised the recent trend of making such remarks. The court stated that it had become a fashion to make such comments.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan granted him bail on condition that he shall file an affidavit before the Egmore Court guaranteeing that he will not make any such statements in the future. He has also been directed to appear before the police two times for a period of four weeks.

101. TN Govt Prescribed "Very Low" Parking Fees In Cinema Theaters: High Court Quashes GO

Case Title: Woodlands Theatres v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

The Madras High Court recently found that the charges fixed by Tamil Nadu government for parking in cinema theaters is "very low" and directed the State to re-fix the same, keeping in view the fees levied by Municipal Corporations and Railway authorities.

Rule 91(B) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Rules 1957 to empower states to fix parking charges for the vehicles parked in the cinema theatres in the state. The petitioner theatre had challenged the fee fixation claiming that parking rates for all other places except cinema theatre was higher.

102. Sports & Physical Activities Integral To Education, All Schools Must Have Playgrounds: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr. P R Subaschandran v. State and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 378

While disposing of a petition seeking to frame a set of guidelines for proper instruction of physical education in public and private schools, the Madras High Court stressed on the need for physical education in schools.

The court directed the state to constitute a committee to monitor and ensure that physical education is given due importance and requisite infrastructure in all schools is made available.

The committee shall be constituted by the Government within one month and shall be headed by the Secretary to the Government, School Education Department. The committee shall identify the schools not having requisite infrastructure for imparting physical education and ensure physical education is given necessary importance.

103. Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Restoring Status Quo Ante As On 23rd June In AIADMK

Case Title: E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the order of a single judge restoring the status quo ante in the AIADMK party as on 23rd June, 2022.

The bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the orders allowing an appeal preferred by Edappadi Palaniswamy.

Further, the court held that when majority of the General Council members, who were elected by the primary members, were in favour of convening a general council meeting on 11th July and had also supported the resolutions made on 23rd June, the balance of convenience was in favour of the appellants.

104. Section 8 Of A&C Act Falls Outside The Scope Of Section 42: Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: K. Samad & Anr. versus Reliance Capital Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

The Madras High Court has reiterated that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is an exception to Section 42 of the A&C Act. The Court added that if Section 8 is also brought within the ambit of Section 42, it would defeat the sublime philosophy underlining arbitration i.e., party autonomy.

The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar ruled that a party has no choice of jurisdiction while filing a Section 8 application, and that it is a Hobson's choice for it since it is constrained to file an application under Section 8 in the Civil Court where the civil suit has been filed by the opposite party.

105. Madras High Court Full Bench Rules In Favour Of Original Jurisdiction Of High Court For Hearing Child Custody Cases

Case Title: S. Annapoorni v. K Vijay

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

The Madras High Court on Friday ruled in favour of original jurisdiction of High Court for hearing child custody and guardianship cases in a 3:2 majority decision.

Justice R Mahadevan, Justice M Sunder and Justice AA Nakkiran delivered the majority judgment and held that the jurisdiction of the High Court on original side is not ousted in view of explanation (g) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. They further observed that the judgement in Mary Thomas continued to be a good law.

Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh however ruled against original jurisdiction of High Court and held that Mary Thomas was not a good law.

106. Assessee Entitled To Avail Cenvat Credit Of Service Tax Already Paid During Transitional Period: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s.Ganges International Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

The Madras High Court, consisting of Justice R. Ramdevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, has held that the assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit of the service tax already paid but the assessee was unable to claim due to a transitional provision that has come into effect from 01.07.2017.

The court directed the appellant to consider the application of the assessee under section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, based on the available materials on merits and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, within a period of six weeks.

107. Order Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Which Results In Conclusion Of Arbitral Proceedings- Can Be Challenged Under Section 34: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Sunwin Papers versus M/s. Sivadarshini Papers Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 383

The Madras High Court has ruled that if an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), of ruling on its own jurisdiction, has the effect of concluding the arbitral proceedings, the same would be challengeable under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that since registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) is not compulsory, the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal accepting the plea of lack of jurisdiction due to the non-registration of the claimant under the MSMED Act, is patently illegal and in conflict with the public policy of India.

108. Interest Leviable On Belated Remittance of GST Even If Credit In Cash/Credit Ledgers Is Available: Madras High Court

Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

The Madras High Court has ruled that interest on late GST remittances is levied even if credit in electronic cash or credit ledgers is available.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that unless an assessee actually files a return and debits the respective registers, the authorities cannot be expected to assume that available credits will be set-off against tax liability.

109. Audit Objection Can't Be The Basis Of AO's 'Reasons To Believe ' That Too After Lapse Of 6 Years: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings and held that an audit objection does not satisfy the requirement of the Assessing Officer having an independent "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, that too after the elapse of nearly six years.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that all materials with regard to the computation of tax under the provisions of MAT were available before the Assessing Authority during the original assessment proceedings.

110. Madras High Court Restrains ED From Proceeding Against TN Minister Senthil Balaji

Case Title: B Shanmugam and others v. Karthik Dasari

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

The Madras High Court recently allowed a petition moved by Minister Senthil Balaji and two others and quashed the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate.

Justice T Raja and Justice K Kumaresh Babu made the orders after observing that the proceedings emerging from the FIRs was quashed in one case and stayed in two others. The court observed that when a stay had been granted, it would eclipse the proceedings initiated thereunder pending disposal of the suit.

111. Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With TN Govt Order Giving Preference To In-Service Doctors In PG Admission

Case Title: Dr. A Packia Raj and others v. State and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by three doctors seeking to set aside the GO passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu giving special preference to "In Service Doctors" in admission to Post Graduate courses.

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that a challenge to the above GO had already been decided by a division bench. The division bench had also observed that no arbitrariness can be made out from the data pertaining to only one academic year.

112. Using Land Earmarked As Waterbody For Other Purposes Detrimental To Society: Madras High Court Upholds Eviction Notices

Case Title: Kamalanathan and others v. State and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

Stressing on the importance of preserving water bodies, the Madras High Court recently stated that water bodies play a significant role in maintaining ecology and environment and usage of land earmarked as waterbody for any other purpose would be detrimental to the society at large. The court thus highlighted that it was the duty of officials to preserve and protect government lands which have been reserved for specific purposes.

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala were disposing petitions challenging the notices issued in Form III under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007.

113. "Heartfelt Regret Expressed": Madras HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To BJP Workers Accused Of Throwing Slippers At Minister PTR's Car

Case title - Gokul Ajith and others v. The State

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 389

The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to 3 BJP workers who allegedly waylaid the Car of the State Finance Minister, abused and insulted him, and threw slippers toward his car bearing the national emblem on August 13, 2022.

However, the Court did term the entire incident as very unfortunate as it emphasized that the political ideologies may differ, but, while exercising the democratic right, when the same turn violent and ugly, then causality will not be the political opponent, but the society at large which every political party intends to serve and evolve.

114. Teenagers Impacted By Technology, Indulging In Sexual Offences: Madras HC Suggests State To Formulate Counselling Mechanism For Young Detenues

Case Title: Kanthan v State and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

The Madras High Court recently remarked that information technology today is posing a great challenge in upbringing of teenagers, whose minds are often affected by easily accessible pornography, misleading them and making them indulge in sexual offences without understanding its consequences.

The Madurai bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice N Anand Venkatesh emphasized that whenever these teenagers are arrested, efforts should be made to attend to their mental perversity.

115. Can't Permit Accused Reexamination By Police On Its Own Merely By Registration Of Another FIR Regarding Same Occurrence: Madras HC

Case title - K.J.Suriyanarayanan v. State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

The Madras High Court recently observed that once FIR has been registered against a person, his/her re-examination by the investigation agency on its own should not be permitted merely by registering another FIR with regard to the same occurrence.

"If such protection is not given to a suspect, then possibility of abuse of investigating powers by the police cannot be ruled out. It would result into a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary harassment to the accused and registration of multiple FIR's on the same occurrence would be hit by the doctrine of sameness and it would have to be obliterated, as it would amount to violation of fundamental rights of a citizen," the bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan further remarked.

116. Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Men Who Allegedly Raised Slogans Against PM Over Demonetization Decision In 2016

Case title - Jegan @ Ellamaran and others v. State and another

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

The Madras High Court has recently quashed a case against 5 persons who had allegedly indulged in a protest and had raised various slogans against Prime Minister for announcing Demonetization.

The bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar observed that the offences against the accused under Sections 143, 188 of IPC @ 143, 149, 353 IPC were not made out.

117. Reservation For Women In Public Employment Can Only Be Horizontal, Not Vertical: Madras High Court To TNPSC

Case Title: M Satheesh v. Secretary, Revenue Department and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

The Madras High Court has categorically held that the reservation for women in public employment can only be made horizontally and not vertically. The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala, thus, directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to amend the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act of 2016 accordingly or otherwise the same would be declared ultra vires.

118. Madras High Court Directs NMC To Reconsider Direction For Govt Fee Rate In 50% Private Medical College Seats

Case Title: Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court on Friday directed the National Medical Commission to revisit the office memorandum which directed that fees in 50% seats in Private Medical Colleges and Universities should be at the rate of Government seats. The Court said that the structure should be amended in such a way that merit is not affected.

The NMC has been asked to reconsider the Office Memorandum and if necessary issue a fresh OM. Till such exercise is completed, the present fee structure prescribed shall continue.

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala also upheld the validity of Section 10 of the National Medical Commission Act.

119. Madras High Court Acquits Man Who Possessed 1.5 Kg Heroin Believing It To Be Wheat Flour

Case Title: Anandam Gundluru v. Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

The Madras High Court recently directed the release of a man who was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 rupees for consciously possessing 1.5 kg Heroin for transportation to Kuwait. The bench of Justice G Ilanthiraiyan observed that the appellant had carried the material believing it to be wheat flour and tamarind and not a prohibited substance.

120. Madras High Court Directs TN Engg Admission Secretary To Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation To Student For Wrongfully Denying Her Admission

Case Title: Minor V Amrutha v. Council for Architecture and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh to a student for denying her admission to the Architecture course. Justice R Subramanian also observed that the conduct of the respondent was outrageous and inexplicable in that they had acted blatantly in violation of previous court orders.

121. Formation Of ICC By Govt Dept Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226 Of Constitution : Madras High Court

Case Title: S.Ravi Selvan v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & customs and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

While dismissing a challenge against the formation of an Internal Complaints Committee, the Madras High Court observed that the formation of the Internal Complaints Committee was under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The challenge would therefore fall within the scope of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 and could not be dealt with by the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution.

Justice Abdul Quddhose opined that the petitioner should have taken up the matter with the Administrative Tribunal dealing with service matters and not approach the High Court in the first instance.

122. Parties Can Deviate From Terms Of Jurisdiction Under The Arbitration Clause Only Once: Madras High Court

Case Title: Andal Dorairaj & Ors. versus M/s. Rithwik Infor Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

The Madras High Court has ruled that the parties have got the liberty to deviate from the terms with respect to the jurisdiction, as contained in the Arbitration Clause; however, the number of such deviations is limited to only one.

The Single Bench of Justice R.N. Manjula held that waiver of the jurisdiction clause contained in the arbitration agreement can be presumed from the conduct of the parties. The Court added that if the parties have waived the earlier agreement on jurisdiction and have substituted a new jurisdiction by conduct, then, in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the parties cannot make any further diversions with respect to the jurisdiction.

123. Transporter Of Goods May Seek Release Of Only The Conveyance: Madras High Court

Case Title: TCI Freight Versus The Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

The Madras High Court has held that the transporter may seek release of only the conveyance upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions.

The division bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the phrase 'person transporting the goods' in Sections 129(1) and (6) to mean the owner or his agent who has contracted to supply the goods, and not the transporter who will provide the carriage for the same. Both sub-Sections 129(1) and (6) use the phrase 'goods or conveyance' whereas the proviso extends the benefit of release, upon terms, to the transporter, but is restricted to the conveyance alone.

124. Every Individual Has Duty To Protect National Environment: Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Encroachments From Buckingham Canal

Case Title: Kasthuribha and Indira Nagar Residents Welfare Forum v. Secretary, PWD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

While disposing of a writ petition filed by Kasturbha and Indira Nagar Residents Welfare forum seeking to remove encroachments from the Buckingham Canal lying between Chennai and Puducherry, the Madras High Court emphasised that it was the duty of every individual to protect and improve the national environment and the national assets

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the citizens and the government were two wheels of development and if any one wheel derails, it will affect the development.

The court also pointed out that encroachments were a direct reflection on the failure of the Government to provide basic facilities to the poor.

125. Madras High Court Allows Concessional Customs Duty Benefit On Goods Used In Rotor Of Windmills For Notional Billing To Customer

Case Title: Nordex India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

The Madras High Court has allowed the concessional customs duty benefit on goods used in the rotor of windmills for notional billing to customers.

The single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has observed that the imported rotor blades need no customization and mechanisation. Hence, raising an invoice in the name of the client after importing and transporting it to the customer's site is only a notional exercise. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not the importer and that he is the person who has used it for a specific purpose for which it was imported.

126. Madras High Court Asks Man To Distribute Pamphlets Against Drunken Driving As Condition For Bail

Case Title: Deepan v State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

The Madras High Court recently set a unique condition for bail for a man accused of drunken driving. While granting bail, the bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, directed the petitioner Deepan to distribute pamphlets against "Drunken Driving" everyday in the morning and evening for a period of two weeks.

127. "Denigrates Hindu Religious Sentiments": Madras High Court Asks Police To Prohibit All Obscene & Vulgar Dance Performances During Dasara Festival

Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v District Collector, Thoothukudi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

The Madras High Court recently directed the Thoothukudi District Collector and police authorities to strictly implement a Circular Memorandum regarding procedure to be followed while granting permission to conduct cultural events, sports events, procession/meeting etc. The authorities were thus to ensure that no obscene or vulgar dance performance or other procession takes place during the Dasara festival in the Arultharum Mutharamman temple.

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were hearing a petition filed by one Ramkumar Adityan to direct the police authorities to obtain a declaration from the organisers of all Dasara Groups and Sound Hire Service Providers not to sing and play any non Devotional Songs and Kuthu Pattu during Dasara festival in connection to the festival of Arultharum Mutharamman Thirukovil, Kulasekarapattinam, Thoothukudi District. By doing so, the petitioner sought to stop vulgar and obscene dance performances in the name of Dasara Groups and to protect the Traditional Culture, Traditional Viradham System and Religious sentiments of lakhs of Devotees.

128. Madras High Court Sentences Savukku Shankar To 6 Months Imprisonment In Contempt Case, Refuses To Suspend Sentence

Case Title: Registrar Judicial v. Shankar @ Savukku Sankar and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

The Madras High Court(Madurai Bench) on Thursday sentenced Savukku Shankar to six months simple imprisonment in a suo moto contempt proceeding for his remarks against the higher judiciary. The bench also refused to entertain the request of Mr. Shankar to suspend the sentence until filing of appeal before the Supreme Court. The court thus directed that Mr. Shankar be forthwith taken to custody and lodged in Central Prison, Madurai.

The orders were passed by a bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi. This was the second suo moto contempt proceeding initiated against Mr Shankar.

129. Clause Giving Only Supervisory Powers To Third Party With Respect To Disputes; Not An Arbitration Agreement: Madras High court

Case Title: Innovators Facade Systems Ltd. versus Larsen & Toubro Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

The Madras High Court has ruled that where the parties have agreed to give only supervisory powers to a third party with respect to the disputes arising between them, and a clause which does not disclose the intention of the parties to give any adjudicatory powers to the third party, does not qualify as an 'arbitration agreement', as defined under Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that the adjudicatory process is an essential feature of arbitration, in contra-distinction to mediation, and hence, when there is nothing to demonstrate that the contracting parties intended to put an adjudicatory mechanism in place, an arbitration agreement cannot be said to exist.

130. Registrar Can't Accept Deed Of Cancellation Which Seeks To Nullify A Deed Of Conveyance Which Has Already Been Acted Upon: Madras High Court (FB)

Case Title: Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

While answering a reference, the Madras High Court Bench of Justice SS Sundar, Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the Registrar does not have the power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify a deed of conveyance made earlier, when the deed of conveyance has already been acted upon.

The court was answering a reference made by Justice S Vaidyanathan with respect to the maintainability of a writ petition against the Registration of a unilateral cancellation deed.

131. Cannot Ask State To Treat All Visually Impaired Persons On Par With Other Disabled Persons: Madras High Court

Case Title: Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

The Madras High Court on Monday said that it cannot not direct the State Government to treat all Visually Impaired Persons on par with other Differently Abled Persons who may be incapable of any employment.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation on a plea by Nethrodaya, an organisation working for the differently abled community. The petitioner organization had sought for transfer of the Pension Scheme for the Visually Impaired from the Social Welfare Department to the Differently Abled Department. The second prayer was to enhance the pension of the Visually Impaired persons from Rs. 1000 to Rs.1500 on par with that given to other Differently Abled Persons.

132. GST Department Did Not Recognize Concept Of 'Working Day' And 'Holiday' In Matters Of Interception, Seizure, Detention: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

The Madras High Court has held that in the matters of interception, seizure, and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of "working day" and "holiday" since substantial civil rights of the parties were at stake.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that neither the assessee nor the department could have the luxury of reference to a holiday to delay or protract the proceedings. The acts of interception and retention, though an invasion of the rights of citizens have been accorded statutory sanction in pursuance of the aims and objects of the Goods and Services Act. Thus, it was imperative that the intrusive acts be carried out in strict compliance with the statutory provisions.

133. Police Law & Order Wing Pivotal To Protect Citizens' Fundamental Rights; Can't Depute Dishonest Personnel: Madras High Court

Case Title: R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409

While dealing with a petition seeking conversion of some Police Officers from Armed Reserve to Law and Order, the Madras High Court observed that suitability and eligibility, etc had to be assessed by the concerned departments and High Courts could not interfere in such matters. Interference was only possible when there was an irregularity in appointments.

The court emphasized that the authorities were the best persons to assess the eligibility of the personnel. Since the personnel posted in the Law and order category had more responsibility and accountability, the government thought it fit to prescribe certain additional criterias. Further, conversion could not be claimed as a matter of right. Even if the conversion was granted to certain personnel violating the guidelines, illegality could not be a ground to claim equality.

134. Objectionable Retweet: Madras HC Orders Action Against IO For Six Days Delay In Producing BJP Functionary's Seized Mobile Before Magistrate

Case Title: Sowdha Mani v. State

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 410

While dealing with a petition by BJP functionary Sowdha Mani seeking return of her phone which was seized in connection with an investigation following objectionable retweets, the Madras High Court observed that delay in production of material objects before the Jurisdictional Magistrate would vitiate the entire prosecution.

In the present case, the material (phone) was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate six days after it's seizure.

Observing that this unexplained delay of six days could not be brushed aside, Justice P Velmurugan ordered the Director General of Police to take stringent action against the investigating officer.

135. GST Registration Cancellation: Madras High Court Directs Changes In Architecture Of GST Portal

Case Title: M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

The Madras High Court has directed the GST department to take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable charges in the architecture of the GST Web Portal to allow the petitioners to file their returns and pay the tax/penalty/fine.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that payment of tax, interest, fine/fee, etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any input tax credit which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners.

136. Two Women Kept In Illegal Detention For 128 Days, Madras High Court Awards Rs 5L Compensation

Case Title: Manokaran v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 412

The Madras High Court recently directed the State to pay Rs five lakh compensation each to two women who were unauthorisedly kept in preventive detention for more than four months.

"The sequence of events in the case on hand reveals beyond any doubt that it is a classic case of bureaucratic lethargy and slumber, which has played a lot in depriving the personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," said the division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira.

137. [SC/ST Act] Offence Under Section 3(1)(u) Attracted Only When Committed Against Community's Members 'As a Group': Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr. R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

Dismissing a university professor's petition against trial court's refusal to order investigation on his complaint, the Madras High Court recently said Section 3 (1) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act comes into play only when a person is trying to promote ill feelings against the members of SC or ST community as a group.

Section 3 (1) (u) criminalises any communication that promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe.

138. Marriage Not For Mere Carnal Pleasure, But Mainly For Progeneration: Madras High Court

Case Title: V Anusha v. B Krishnan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414

Dealing with an estranged couple's case related to the custody of their children, the Madras High Court in a recent order said marriage is not for "mere satisfying the carnal pleasure" but mainly for the purpose of progeneration. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy was dealing with a petition filed by a woman, lawyer by profession, for interim custody of her two minor sons from her husband, who is also a lawyer.

Stating that though courts are mindful of the interest of the child, Justice Ramasamy said it is "to be lamented" that the law leaves the child "with only one hand, rather than two". The court also said child "brought into this vicious world through the act of the two individuals for their pleasure" is made to suffer for no fault of his.

139. Dangerous Stunts: Madras High Court Asks Biker To Help Patients In Trauma Ward, Upload Instagram Video Against Reckless Driving

Case Title: Gotla Alex Binoy v. IOP Chennai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 415

Granting anticipatory bail to a biker accused of performing dangerous stunts on a public road, the Madras High Court directed the 22-year-old to upload a video on his Instagram account against reckless driving and also report before a trauma ward duty doctor at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital for three weeks.

The directions are part of the conditions imposed by the court while granting him the pre-arrest bail. Justice AD Jagadish Chandira ordered the accused to report to the Duty Doctor at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital and assist the Ward Boys at the Trauma Ward in taking care of the patients from Tuesday to Saturday between 8 am and 12 PM for three weeks.

140. Madras HC Sets Aside Order Requiring Wife To 'Serve Snacks' To Estranged Husband During Visitation

Case Title: Richa Sharma v. Ganesh Kasinathan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 416

The Madras High Court recently allowed a mother's appeal against a single judge order requiring her to treat her estranged husband, during child visits, as an "Athithi" (Guest) and show hospitality by providing snacks and dinner, etc.

The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the single judge was swayed by what should be the conduct of the parties towards each other and that prescribing such stipulations was not relevant for deciding their rights.

141. 3 Year Diploma/ Polytechnic Equivalent To 12th Standard Certificate For LLB Admissions: BCI To Madras HC

Case Title: SJ Sheik Abul Asim v The Registrar cum Chairman and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 417

While hearing a Degree Graduate's plea seeking to allow him to study law in the absence of a 12th Standard Degree, the Bar Council of India informed Justice GR Swaminathan that as per the decision taken by its Legal Education Committee on 21st May 2022, diploma courses and polytechnic courses will be treated at par with a 12th standard certificate.

142. No Bar On Initiating Simultaneous Proceedings For Maintenance Under Different Statutes: Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Mohammed Siddiq v. Rasheeda Begum and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 418

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that as per the settled legal position, there is no bar or prohibition on initiating simultaneous proceedings for claiming maintenance under different statutes. The parties however should disclose about previous maintenance petition before the subsequent court.

Justice Murali Shankar of Madurai Bench was deciding upon the plea of a husband, who was seeking to quash the proceedings before the Family Court, Thiruchirappalli in which the wife had moved a Maintenance case.