Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 5 to February 12, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 43 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 49

NOMINAL INDEX

Abbotsbury Owners' Association v. The Member Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 43

Dr Sri Hari Vignesh R v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 44

Dr. Jayakrishnan MP v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 45

R Rajesh v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 46

P Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 47

G Subramanian v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS (batch cases), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 48

Sivankalai v. The State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 49

REPORT

Land Shown As Common Area Belongs To Flat Owners, Builder Cannot Sell It: Madras High Court

Case Title: Abbotsbury Owners' Association v. The Member Secretary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 43

The Madras High Court has recently observed that when a land is shown as a common area and is developed as a common facility, it belongs to the flat owners of the building.

Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Kumaresh Babu thus disposed of a petition by the flat owners' association by directing the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to handover the vacant non-FSI building to the flat owners.

The court added that the builder was not a novice and thus it was highly improbable to accept the contention of the builder that there had been a mistake in calculation of the undivided share of the land. Thus, the builders had tried to mislead the buyers by adopting a wrong formula.

'People In Villages Also Must Get Services Of Specialists': Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rural Posting Of PG Doctors

Case Title: Dr Sri Hari Vignesh R v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 44

In a plea challenging the posting of non-service PG doctors in Urban Primary Health Centre (UPHC) and Additional Primary Health Centre (APHC), the Madras High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and directed the doctors to report to duty in the Centres allotted to them.

The main contention of the doctors was that the posting is not commensurate with the qualification and specialisation attained by them in the PG course. It was also argued that the health centres do not have the facilities to enable them perform their area of specialisation.

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the 19 doctors, who were before the court, had opted for UPHC and APHC at the time of counselling and cannot be allowed to wriggle out by stating that they do not have the necessary facilities in those PHCs.

Covid-19 Duty By Medical Students Pursuing Super Speciality Courses Can Be Set Off Against Compulsory Bond Service Period: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr. Jayakrishnan MP v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 45

In a relief to five doctors, the Madras High Court has held that the period of service rendered by them during Covid-19 can be adjusted towards the two years of compulsory bond service.

Justice CV Karthikeyan held that the Government should extend an arm to the doctors as there was no refusal to undergo the compulsory bond period but only a request to adjust the period already served during Covid-19.

Tribunals Have No Authority To Issue Instructions On Dress Code Of Advocates Appearing Before Them: Madras High Court

Case Title: R Rajesh v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 46

The Madras High Court has quashed a notification issued by the Registrar of NCLT which made it mandatory for advocates appearing before any bench of NCLT to wear gowns.

The division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq in the judgment noted that as per Section 34 of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, only the High Court can frame rules for the dress code for the appearance of advocates.

The court added that the powers prescribed under Rule 51 of the NCLT Rules are merely for discharging functions as per the Act, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and equity. The same could not mean conferring power to prescribe the dress code, more so when it is contrary to the Bar Council of India rules, it said.

1997 Melavalavu Massacre: Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Premature Release Of 13 Convicts

Case Title: P Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 47

The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a batch of pleas challenging the premature release of 13 convicts who were convicted in the infamous Melavalavu Massacre.

While refusing to interfere with the order of the Government, the division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Sunder Mohan of the Madurai Bench noted that the order of premature release was made after due consideration exercising the State's power conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution. It included objections from the victim’s family and the conduct of the accused.

State Must Uphold Citizen's Freedom Of Speech: Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Imposing Conditions On RSS' Route March

Case Title: G Subramanian v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS (batch cases)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 48

The Madras High Court has allowed a batch of pleas challenging a single judge order imposing certain conditions on the route march sought to be carried out by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq noted that the State must uphold the citizens' right to freedom of speech and expression. The court thus directed the RSS to file fresh applications for carrying out the route march on three different dates and directed the Tamil Nadu police to permit the RSS to take out route marches on any of such dates in various districts across the State on public roads.

'Misbehaviour Caused In A Drunken Mood': Madras High Court Grants Bail To Accused In SC/ST Case

Case Title: Sivankalai v. The State and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 49

The Madras High Court recently granted bail to a man arrested for misbehaving with a woman belonging to the SC/ST Community.

While Justice G Ilangovan agreed that the man was not having good conduct, the court noted that considering the period of incarceration and the fact that the alleged act was done in a drunken state, the man was entitled to bail.