Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 6 - June 12 2022
Upasana Sajeev
12 Jun 2022 3:00 PM IST
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247 NOMINAL INDEX K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239 S Nalini v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 240 P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241 S Gopikrishnan v. Regional Officer,...
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
NOMINAL INDEX
K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
S Nalini v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
S Gopikrishnan v. Regional Officer, CBFC and others, 2022 LiveLaw(Mad) 242
Deputy Commissioner of Police v. C Duraisamy, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
P. Sukumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai @ Duraimurugan and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Northern Arc Capital Limited v Sambandh Finance Private Limited and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
K Arumugam v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
REPORTS
Case Title: K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
Justice M. S Ramesh of the Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of employees of Co-operative societies and directed the Chief Secretary, the Secretary (Co-operation), and the Registrar of Co-operative societies, Government of Puducherry to pass orders for disbursement of unpaid salaries, earned leave encashment, EPF Contributions, ESI benefits, and other admissible entailments, due to them for their respective services. The court directed the dues to be paid within three months from receipt of copy of the order.
The court held that even though Society cannot be Characterized as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a writ was maintainable to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the Society. In the present case, since there was a public duty upon the Government, the petition was maintainable.
Case Title: S Nalini v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
S. Nalini, who was one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, recently withdrew an application she had moved before the Madras High Court seeking emergency leave for her husband- Sridharan alias Murugan, another convict in the case.
When the matter came up before the bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice A D Jagadish Chandra on Monday, the prison officials informed the Court that Nalini's representation was rejected in light of the prison offences committed by her husband Murugan. The Superintendent had passed the aforesaid order in terms of Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
In light of the same, the petitioner decided to withdraw the present writ petition and challenge the order of rejection passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons before the appellate authority.
Case Title: P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever complaints are made to the Statutory Authorities, they are expected to act upon the same and not keep it pending indefinitely. The authorities are expected to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders in reasonable time.
Justice MS Ramesh of the Madurai Bench observed as follows:
"It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time."
Case Title: S Gopikrishnan v. Regional Officer, CBFC and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Mad) 242
A litigant on Wednesday withdrew his petition in Madras High Court seeking directions to the Central Board of Film Certification to telecast statutory warning with the words "Knives and Sickles used in this movie are made of paper and colour water is used as blood" in forthcoming films.
The plea was withdrawn after the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala warned of dismissing the plea with costs. The bench observed that the petition was moved merely for publicity and without any materials.
Highlighting that the certification by CBFC is appealable, the court suggested that in case the litigant had a complaint regarding the certification of certain movies, he could challenge the same before the appropriate authority.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Police v. C Duraisamy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court on Wednesday commuted the death sentence of Marudupandian to life imprisonment in the Kannagi-Murugesan Honour Killing case. Marudupandian is Kannagi's brother. The Court also confirmed the life sentence of others including Kannagi's father Duraisamy. Further, two convicts were acquitted of the offence.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice AA Nakkiran passed the orders on a reference made by the Special Court, Cuddalore. The convicts had also appealed against the order of the special court.
"There are no castes, dear child. Identifying persons on the basis of upper caste and lower caste is a sin." the court quoted these words of Mahakavi Subramanya Bharathiyar, and expressed deep anguish over the fact that even after almost a century of his demise, these lines of the Mahakavi seem to remain only in the primary school textbooks and nowhere else. The court also suggested common burial for Dalits and non Dalits in the countryside as a means of annihilation of caste in the country.
Case Title: P. Sukumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed one Sukumar for forming an Investigation Team under the head of a retired High Court Judge for inquiring into the alleged irregularities committed by the Election officer cum Revenue Divisional officer while conducting the elections to the Water User Association.
While dismissing the petition, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the petition was not one for public interest but was a "private interest litigation". The court also held that a direction for investigation by a retired Judge cannot be issued unless it is determined that the matter requires serious investigation or is of great public interest.
Case Title: State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai @ Duraimurugan and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madras High Court recently observed that social media intermediaries operating in India are governed by the Acts and Rules of the land. They have a duty to ascertain that videos are in accordance with the policies and guidelines. If these videos are found to be in violation, they have a duty to block such channels without insisting on FIRs or any Court orders.
"There is a contract between the intermediaries and the channels. In case of any violation of the conditions, it is the duty of the intermediaries to remove or block the channel as per the terms of their agreement...The intermediaries are not expected to insist for FIR or any court orders to remove the videos which are in violation of their guidelines. If it is not blocked or removed even after it was brought to their knowledge, the intermediaries are committing the offence under Section 69A (3) of the Information Technology Act."
Case Title: Northern Arc Capital Limited v Sambandh Finance Private Limited and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
While discussing extensively the scope of issuing summary judgments, the Madras High Court recently observed that suits cannot be summarily decreed at the instance of a plaintiff unless such plaintiff satisfies the court that the suit claim stands duly proved.
The two requirements for the grant of summary judgments under Rule 3 Order XIII-A CPC are that the applicant should establish that the counterparty has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim/succeeding the claim and that there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording oral evidence.
With reference to an application for summary judgment, Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy observed that both the parties are required to set out the grounds on which the application is being prosecuted or defended, along with all documents proposed to be relied upon for such purpose. The court also observed that even though the Rules stands so, the burden of proof is primarily on the applicant. Thus, the applicant had to establish that the counterparty had no real prospect of defending the claim or succeeding in the claim.
Case Title: K Arumugam v State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court recently quashed the FIR against a man, who tried to reconcile the differences between a couple through compromise, but was himself dragged into the embroil with the filing of a FIR against him by one of the spouse.
"It is a classical case, good samaritan turned into foe in the process of conciliation between the husband and wife," Justice G Ilangovan observed at the outset.
The court also observed that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC would not stand in the present case as the alleged offence had taken place in the house of the accused and not in a public place or in public view. The court also opined that the allegation made against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 1998 would not attract.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
1. Two Additional Judges Take Oath In Madras High Court
Justice Sunder Mohan and Justice Kabali Kumaresh Babu were sworn in as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court on Monday. Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari administered the oath for the newly appointed judges.
The centre had notified their appointment as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court on June 3rd 2022.
With their swearing in, the Madras High Court now has a working strength of 58 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 75.
2. Rajiv Gandhi Assassination: Madras High Court Reserves Order On Convicts' Plea For Premature Release
Case Title: S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Case No: W.P 7615 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Monday reserved orders on a plea filed by S. Nalini and RP Ravichandran for their premature release.
When the matter came up before the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala, the court stated that the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 could not be compared to the powers of the High Court under Article 226.
The court stated that if the petitioner was seeking a release on the basis of the recent Supreme Court order releasing Perarivalan, the petitioner could move the Supreme Court.
The court also considered remanding the matter. This was objected by the counsel for the petitioner who contended that even in Perarivalan's case, the Supreme Court was against remanding the matter and that the same would be without any use.
Case Title: S Karthik Gopinath v. State and another
Case No: Crl OP 13166 of 2022
Youtuber S. Karthik Gopinath has moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the FIR filed against him for allegedly misappropriating funds worth several lakhs, collected for renovation of the Arulmigu Madhura Kaliamman Temple in Perambalur district. The Police had also filed an application for custodial interrogation.
When the matter came up before Justice N Sathish Kumar on Tuesday, the court adjourned the hearing while directing the Police to submit the details of misappropriation. In the meanwhile, the court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide upon the bail application moved by the petitioner on Wednesday itself.
4. Madras High Court Appoints First Woman Mace Bearer
In a first, the Madras High Court has appointed a woman mace bearer. Justice R.N Manjula is the first to utilise the services of the court's first woman mace bearer. Justice Manjula is also a member of the Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee-I (GSICC-I)
The Mace bearer/ Chobdar, a position traditionally held by men, is an officer who carries the mace and walks before a dignitary signifying the dignitary's power. In courts, the mace helps in the free passage of Judges between the court halls.
Case Title: Minor & Anr v. K Vijay
Case No: O.P No. 599/ 2018
A Full Bench comprised of Justice PN Prakash, Justice R Mahadevan, Justice M Sunder, Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice AA Nakkiran of the Madras High Court on Friday commenced hearing a matter pertaining to the original jurisdiction of High Court to hear child custody and guardianship matters, owing to the advent of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
On Friday, the court primarily heard arguments on how the decision in Mary Thomas case was still a good law and how the High Court continues to have simultaneous jurisdiction. The arguments against the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court will be considered on 13th June 2022 at 2:30pm.
