Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 13 2022 To June 19 2022
Upasana Sajeev
19 Jun 2022 5:10 PM IST
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257 NOMINAL INDEX A Shanmugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of...
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
NOMINAL INDEX
A Shanmugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of Advaitha Philosophy through P.S Sundaram and others v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
M/s Ankit Ispat Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
M/s. Fenner (India) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr v. M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram and others v. Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
S. Manjula v. G. Shoba and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
Tvt.LAF Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
Udhaya Kumar v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
REPORTS
Case Title: A Shanmugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
While dismissing a Police Inspector's plea for retrospective promotion, the Madras High Court has observed that entertaining such belated claims will result in unsettling the settled position. The court reiterated that settled positions cannot be unsettled after a lapse of many years.
Finding the petition to be devoid of any merits, a bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed as follows:
"The employees, who have slept over their rights, cannot wake up one fine morning and knock the doors of the Court for the purpose of redressal of their grievances, which all are otherwise lapsed on account of efflux of time"
2.Smartha Brahmins Not A Religious Denomination, Madras High Court
Case Title: Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of Advaitha Philosophy through P.S Sundaram and others v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Smartha Brahmins were just a caste/community without any peculiarity specifically attributable to them that distinguished them from other Brahmins of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, they could not be identified as a religious denomination and were not entitled to benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench was considering an application made by some members belonging to the Smartha Brahmin community claiming minority status for an institution run by them. Observing that the appellants had failed to establish that they constitute a denomination as Smartha Brahmins in the state of Tamil Nadu, the court held that the suit was mainly filed only to wriggle out of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Act 1973 by invoking the benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution.
3. Order Of ITAT Is Based On Evidence, Findings Based On Facts, Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Appeal
Case Title: M/s Ankit Ispat Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a tax appeal observing that there were no substantial question of law arisen for consideration.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was based on the evidence adduced before the same. "Such well-considered findings of the appellate authorities do not warrant any interference at the hands of this court", it observed.
Case Title: M/s. Fenner (India) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directing the assessing officer to exclude the royalty income from the business profits for the purpose of calculation of deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad observed that the appellant could not produce concrete evidence to assert that the royalty income received from a subsidiary company was related to export business. Thus, the decision of the tribunal did not warrant any interference.
5. Period Of Limitation Under S.153 Of Income Tax Act Applies To Remand Proceedings: Madras HC
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr v. M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court recently observed that the period of limitation under the Sections 153 (2A) or 153 (3) was applicable even for remad proceedings before the Assessing Officer, Transfer Pricing Officer or the Dispute Resolution Panel. The entire proceedings had to be conducted within a period of 9 months as contemplated under Section 144C (12) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad further observed that in matters of transfer pricing, when the matter was remanded to the DRP, the Assessing Officer had to pass a denova draft and complete the entire proceedings within 12 months as otherwise the very purpose of extension would become meaningless.
Case Title: Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram and others v. Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of the Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and held that gold/silver ornaments that are worn in person and exceed Rs. 50,000 in value have to be declared before the Customs Authority.
Justice C Saravanan opined that the law was unambiguous in this regard. Though exemptions were provided under the Baggage Rules, 2016 it was limited to the extent permitted under the Rules. The court also opined that import of jewelry worth more than Rs. 50,000 could not be considered as bonafide baggage and could not be exempted from paying customs duty.
Case Title: S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by S. Nalini and RP Ravichandran, convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, seeking premature release.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the High Court did not have special powers that the Supreme Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution. Thus, it cannot order their release, like the Supreme Court did for Perarivalan, another convict in the assassination case. Hence the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
8. Gift Deed Not Effective When Possession Not Handed Over; Can Be Cancelled: Madras High Court
Case Title: S. Manjula v. G. Shoba and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Madras High Court recently upheld the cancellation of a gift deed after noting that the possession was not handed over and that the deed was not acted upon by the parties. Hence, the High Court agreed with the trial court's decree dismising a suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed.
The bench of Justice AA Nakkiran agreed with the finding of the court below that the possession was not handed over and the gift deed was not acted upon hence, it was not a valid gift deed.
Case Title: Tvt.LAF Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has held that Section 129 of the CGST Act provides for the detention and seizure of the vehicle upon condition that an order of detention/seizure shall be passed at the time of detention/seizure and duly served upon the person transporting the goods.
Case Title: Udhaya Kumar v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
While quashing criminal proceedings against a person who was arrayed as an accused during a raid of a Massage centre which was allegedly a brothel, the Madras High Court bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that merely because the petitioner was in the place, he could not be fastened with penal consequences.
The court opined that since there was no evidence to show that there was coercion by the petitioner on the sex workers to commit the act, he could not be penalised for his mere presence at the place.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: S. Annapoorni v. K Vijay
Case No: Application No 5445 of 2018
On day two of the hearing pertaining to the original jurisdiction of the High Court to hear child custody and guardianship matters owing to the advent of the Family Courts Act 1984, the Additional Solicitor General for Madras High Court R. Sankaranarayanan made his submissions favouring the ouster of High Court's jurisdiction.
At the outset, the ASG stated that he was not appearing for the government but in his personal capacity.
He stated that if there was a law that was enacted by the Parliament or the Legislature providing something different from that provided in the Letters Patent, the same shall have authority over the Letter Patent, as provided under Clause 44 (which would prevail over Clause 17).
2. Ayodhya Case Mediator Sriram Panchu Moves Madras High Court Against Withdrawal Of Police Protection
Case Title: Sriram Panchu v. The State and others
Case No: W.P No. 14503 of 2022
Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu, who was the Supreme Court-appointed mediator in the Ayodhya Case, has recently approached the Madras High Court against withdrawal of police protection granted to him.
Mr. Panchu was given Z Category protection following an order of the Supreme Court in 2019. However, the Security Rearrangement Committee had withdrawn this security recently.
Case Title: U. Manickavel v. State rep. by Secretary and others
Case No: WP No. 2627 of 2014
Coming down heavily on the abuse of power among higher police officials, the Madras High Court has observed that indiscipline amongst higher officials of the police department causes disaster consequences. When the higher officials are not maintaining the expected level of discipline, they may not be in a position to control the force, which would result in the force losing morale.
Justice SM Subramaniam also cited instances of allegation in the public domain, as follows:
"Already there are several such allegations in the public domain regarding the usage of black film in the official vehicles by the higher officials of the police department, misuse of the department's name in the private vehicles, abuse of police force in the name of orderly in their residences or otherwise and several such allegations are either unnoticed or no action has been taken by the Government."
Case Title: G.Karthick v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP No. 12929 of 2022
A public interest litigation filed recently before the Madras High Court against the installation of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi's statue was withdrawn on Tuesday.
The petitioner, G. Karthick, had contended that one of the respondents, A Rajendran, in collusion with Government authorities, secured patta over and above the land owned by him in the given survey number and was now attempting to put up construction on the land.
Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v. State Commissioner for persons with disability and another
Case No: WP No. 11041 of 2020
The Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) on Wednesday informed the Madras High Court that it had taken steps to retrofit thirty-two metro stations to make them disabled-friendly and the same will be completed within six weeks' time.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala was considering an application filed by a cross-disability rights advocate to direct the state and CMRL to retrofit its existing metro stations to comply with the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons With Disabilities and Elderly Persons issued by the Ministry of Urban Development in 2016 and to strictly comply with Section 41 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 read with Rule 15 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.
6. Covid-19 On The Rise: Madras High Court Issues Preventive Directions
Amid rising covid cases in the State, Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari of the Madras High Court has issued directions to be followed by Advocates and others while appearing in courts.
These preventive directions are as follows:
1. Advocates, parties appearing in person, Advocates' Clerks, Officers, and Staff members shall strictly adhere to the COVID-19 protocols, such as wearing face masks, washing hands frequently, sanitizing, and maintaining social distance inside the High Court campus.
2. Entry of Litigants is restricted inside the High Court campus unless their presence is specifically required by the courts concerned in relation to the court proceedings.
3. All the entrants shall sanitize their hands and undergo thermal scanning for temperature before frisking.
4. Gathering in the corridors or any other place within the High Court campus, shall be avoided.
