Madras High Court Monthly Digest - December 2023

NOMINAL INDEX

G.Selvamoorthy v The Chief Engineer (Personnel), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 375

K Annamalai v V Piyush, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 376

T Ganesan v Government of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

State of Tamil Nadu v K Parvathy, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 378

S.Uttam Chand Versus ACIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

S Muthu Kumar v The Cabinet Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

M Palani v The State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Another v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

S Jagathrakshakan and Others v The Special Director, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 383

K Krishna and Another v The Managing Director and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

P.Maheswari v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

S. Panneerselvam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

State v RS Rajesh, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

Thol Thirumaavalan v The Principal Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

C Mani v Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 389

Sri Subramaniyaswami, Thirukovil Sundhanthirai Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha v. The Commissioner, HR&CE, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

Asif Musthaheen v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. G Sampath Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

R Sumathi v Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

J Vivek v Principal Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

CSI College of Dental Sciences and Research v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

State v K Ponmudi and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

C Alagappan v The State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

Ankit Tiwari v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

Eicher Motors Ltd v Nitin Service Point and Automobiles, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

P Mohanraj v The District Collector and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

VBR Menon v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

Mansoor Ali Khan v Trisha Krishnan and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

C.Chellamuthu Versus The Principal Commissioner, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

The Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan Primary Handloom Weaver's Cooperative Society Ltd v Income Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

Pandiarajan C v The District Collector and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

University of Madras v Dr. UT Manisundar (Died) and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

M/s.Cognizant Technology Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 409

PK Mukmuthu Sha v PS Mohammed Afrin Banu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 410

R Suresh Kumar v The Principal Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

A Vasanthi v S Jayakumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 412

M/s.Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Versus DCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

REPORTS

[Service Jurisprudence] When Two Views Regarding Punishment Or Penalty Are Possible, View Favouring Employee Must Be Adopted: Madras High Court

Case Title: G.Selvamoorthy v The Chief Engineer (Personnel)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 375

The Madras High Court has recently observed that in service jurisprudence when two interpretations could be given to rules relating to penalty and punishment, the one favourable to the employee should be given effect.

In allowing the plea by directing an enhancement in the petitioner's retirement benefits, Justice RN Manjula observed that since service jurisprudence was similar to penal jurisprudence due to the imposition of a penalty, such a view, akin to one taken in penal jurisprudence while giving the accused the benefit of doubt, could be imported to service jurisprudence as well.

'No Locus For Complainant': Madras High Court Stays Proceedings In Defamation Case Against BJP State Head K. Annamalai

Case Title: K Annamalai v V Piyush

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 376

The Madras High Court has recently stayed all further proceedings against Tamil Nadu BJP Head K Annamalai in the defamation case filed by one V Piyush.

Justice G Jayachandran observed that prima facie, a case had been made out to quash the defamation complaint, as Piyush failed to establish his locus standi.

The case pertains to alleged hate speech made by Annamalai against a Christian Missionary NGO. The leader is stated to have said that it was the Christian NGO that first approached the Supreme Court to ban crackers during Diwali.

In October this year, the Tamil Nadu Government had accorded sanction to prosecute Annamalai. In his legal opinion, State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah stated that Annamalai had intentionally and out of context uttered remarks about the Christian Missionary NGO which forced the missionary to file a petition before the Supreme Court.

Treat Sri Lankan Repatriate As Citizen, Extend Consequential Benefits: Madras High Court Urges India To Acknowledge Treaties With Sri Lanka

Case Title: T Ganesan v Government of India and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

The Madras High Court has recently directed the Union and State Governments to treat a Sri Lankan repatriate man and his family as Indian Citizens and to grant them all reliefs as announced by the Government of Tamil Nadu for Sri Lankan repatriates.

Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench was hearing the plea of a man, T Ganesan, who came to India 33 years ago, seeking confirmation of his Indian Citizenship by the authorities. It was his case, that though he had been registered as an Indian citizen with an Indian passport, his status as a citizen was not being recognised by the Indian authorities.

In allowing the man's plea, the court noted that India had signed three repatriation agreements with Sri Lanka in which India was obliged to repatriate six lakh persons from Sri Lanka and grant them citizenship.

The court further noted that though half a century had elapsed since the numbers were drawn up, India had conferred citizenship to only around 4,61,639 Indian Origin Tamils and had still not fulfilled their treaty obligations.

When Special Rules Have Granted Age Relaxation To SC/ST Candidates, Further Relaxation Under General Rules Impermissible: Madras High Court

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v K Parvathy

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 378

The Madras High Court recently observed that when special rules for recruitment to a particular post, had already granted a five-year age relaxation to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, further relaxation under the General rules was impermissible.

The Court was seized of appeals by the State, challenging an order of a single bench which had set aside the cancellation of the appointment of some individuals to the post of “cook” under the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department. In doing so, the single bench extended the maximum age limit for application from 35 years to 40 years for candidates belonging to the SC/ST community.

In allowing the appeal, a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice R Kalaimathi observed that such relaxation was beyond the scope of judicial review and the courts could not extend such age limits fixed by the employer under the statutory rules.

Assessee Disclosed Sale Of Agricultural Land In ROI During Scrutiny Assessment: Madras High Court Quashes Reassessment Initiated Beyond 4 Years

Case Title: S.Uttam Chand Versus ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings as the petitioner had disclosed the information with regard to the sale of agricultural land, and all the particulars with regard to the sale of agricultural land were disclosed before the Assessing Officer in full extent.

The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that there is no failure on the part of the petitioner with regard to providing material facts, and the notice issued under Sections 148 and 149 of the Income Tax Act for reopening assessment for the Assessment Year 2013–14 is not sustainable, and the same is liable to be set aside.

Tamil Nadu A Pioneer In Implementing Welfare Measures For Third Gender Persons: State Tells High Court In Plea To Implement NALSA Judgement

Case Title: S Muthu Kumar v The Cabinet Secretary and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

The Government of Tamil Nadu recently informed the Madras High Court of the various schemes implemented in the State in compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court in National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India.

The submissions were made before the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice KK Ramakrishnan in response to a plea seeking the authorities to implement the NALSA judgment.

In its counter affidavit, the State informed the court that the Government has initiated many innovative steps for the welfare of the Third Gender such as Mobile Apps, Awards, Training programs etc. It was informed that the mobile app, created at a cost of ten lakh rupees was inclusive of information, education and communication activities for the welfare of the persons belonging to the third gender.

Orders Passed Under S.194 CrPC Purely Administrative, Cannot Be Questioned Unless Apparently Illegal: Madras High Court

Case Title: M Palani v The State and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

The Madras High Court recently observed that the orders passed under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are purely administrative in nature and cannot be challenged unless they are apparently illegal and passed without any application of mind.

Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench dismissed a plea preferred by an accused seeking for transfer of his trial from one court to another, upon court pointing out that the impugned order was one passed by the Principal Sessions Judge in the ordinary course of business and there was no reason to interfere with the same.

Madras High Court Rejects VK Sasikala's Plea Against Removal From Post Of AIADMK General Secretary

Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Another v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

The Madras High Court rejected an appeal preferred by VK Sasikala against an order upholding her removal as AIADMK General Secretary.

Justice R Subramanian and Justice N Senthilkumar rejected Sasikala's appeal to be recognised as the interim General Secretary of the party.

Sasikala was appointed as the interim General Secretary of the party in December 2016, after the death of former Chief Minister and then General Secretary of the party J Jayalalitha. However, following her conviction and imprisonment in February 2017 in a disproportionate assets case, disputes arose in the party.

Following this, a general council meeting was held and the council decided to remove Sasikala as the interim General Secretary of the party. The council instead created two new posts- Coordinator and Joint Coordinator and appointed O Paneerselvam and Edappadi K Palaniswami to these posts respectively.

Madras High Court Refuses To Set Aside ED's Show Cause Notice To DMK MP S. Jagathrakshakan Over FEMA Violations

Case Title: S Jagathrakshakan and Others v The Special Director

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 383

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by DMK MP S. Jagathrakshakan challenging the proceedings initiated against him and his family under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ("FEMA").

Justice N Seshasayee observed that the objections raised by Jagathrakshakan could not be considered at the present stage, and allowed taking of all the defenses before the Adjudicating authority.

The allegation against Jagathrakshakan (and other petitioners) was that he had subscribed to 70 lakh shares in a Singapore-based company and later transferred those shares to his wife and two children outside India in violation of Section 4 of FEMA. Following this, the Authorised Officer (Adjudicating Authority of ED) moved the Commissioner of Customs under Section 37A of the Act for seizure of Jagathrakshakan's assets.

Madras High Court Directs IRDAI To Treat AYUSH On Par With Allopathic Treatments For Medical Insurance Reimbursement

Case Title: K Krishna and Another v The Managing Director and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

In a significant move, the Madras High Court has asked the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to treat AYUSH treatments on par with Allopathy treatments while reimbursing expenses incurred during treatment.

Stressing the work done by AYUSH doctors during the pandemic, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that during COVID-19, traditional medicines were being recommended for infected persons and effective treatment was given under AYUSH, which provided relief to many patients.

The court thus opined that it was not reasonable to deprive policyholders of getting reimbursement for the amount spent on availing AYUSH treatments under their medical insurance.

Ambiguity May Lead To Denial Of Basic Rights: Madras High Court Calls For Increased Caution In Granting/Cancelling Community Certificates

Case Title: P.Maheswari v The Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

The Madras High Court recently observed that granting of a community certificate or its cancellation would have larger repercussions as it would affect the future generations of the family concerned and as such the authorities are expected to be more cautious while granting the certificate.

In setting aside the cancellation of the petitioner's community certificate, a bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan stressed that the authorities must go through every document carefully and remove ambiguity as any ambiguity would result in the denial of the basic right of the person seeking the community certificate.

Madras High Court Dismisses Building Owners' Plea Challenging Closure Of 500 TASMAC Retail Shops, Cites Involvement Of 'Personal Interest'

Case Title: S. Panneerselvam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by some building owners challenging decision of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited ("TASMAC") to close 500 TASMAC shops being operated in their leased-out properties.

Questioning the petitioners' locus standi, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that they were not the right persons to challenge the government decision and though the pleas were filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the motive seemed to be to achieve personal interest.

Unauthorized Dumping Of Bio-Medical Waste | Book Violators As "Goondas" Under State's Preventive Detention Laws: Madras High Court

Case Title: State v RS Rajesh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

While dealing with a case relating to the unauthorized dumping of bio-medical waste from Kerala to Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court recently noted that suitable amendments needed to be brought into the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (Preventive Detention Act) so that those violating the provisions of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016, are covered under the definition of “Goondas” under the Act.

Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench was informed that the Advocate General had given a positive opinion to bring the violators under the Detention Act for strict action to be taken against them. Noting that the steps taken by the government were appreciable, the court added that the state was expected to take necessary steps to bring suitable amendments to the Act.

The court was hearing a revision petition filed by the State challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, allowing interim custody of a vehicle involved in dumping of medical waste.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea For Reservation In Appointment Of Law Officers, Says Merit Should Be Sole Consideration

Case Title: Thol Thirumaavalan v The Principal Secretary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

The Madras High Court has held that while appointing Law Officers to the High Court and its Madurai Bench, merit should be the sole consideration, without any scope for reservation- vertical or horizontal.

In dismissing the pleas, a bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the appointment of Law Officers by the government was not a civil post and the officers were not employees of the Government. Thus, while selecting law officers, the Government had to select the most competent, capable, and meritorious lawyers to represent them as Law Officers.

The court noted that the government, being the custodian of public interest was obligated to protect the public interest to the optimum extent and in the best possible manner. To fulfill this duty, the Government was mandated to engage the best officers based on 'merit.'

Medical Reimbursement Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because Treatment Was In A Non-Network Hospital: Madras High Court

Case Title: C Mani v Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 389

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a medical claim could not be rejected merely on the ground that treatment was undertaken in a non-networking hospital.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that when there was no dispute with respect to treatment and the treatment was found to be genuine, there was no reason to reject the medical claim.

Temple's Abodes Of Deities, Not Training Centres: Madras HC Restrains State From Conducting 'Knowledge Training' Under Temples' Chief Priests

Case Title: Sri Subramaniyaswami, Thirukovil Sundhanthirai Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha v. The Commissioner, HR&CE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

The Madras High Court has restrained the state government from conducting practical training under a Chief Priest for candidates who have completed courses from Archakar Training Schools run by temples under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.

During the course of the proceedings, Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench remarked that temples are abodes of deities where devotees come to offer worship and should not be treated as training centers or laboratories.

Whether Killing Of Hindu Religious Leaders Would Itself Constitute A Terrorist Act Is Debatable: Madras High Court

Case Title: Asif Musthaheen v State, Criminal Appeal No.542 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

While dealing with a bail plea of a man arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Madras High Court noted that the question of whether killing a Hindu religious leader would itself constitute a terrorist act was debatable.

The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that as per Section 15 of the UAPA, the act must have been done with an intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with an intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country. In the present case, the court noted that there was no evidence to conclude that there was a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.

Madras High Court Sentences IPS Officer Sampath Kumar To 15 Days Imprisonment In Contempt Plea By MS Dhoni, Suspends It To Allow Appeal

Case Title: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. G Sampath Kumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

The Madras High Court sentenced IPS officer Sampath Kumar to 15 days simple imprisonment in a contempt plea moved by cricketer MS Dhoni.

The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan however suspended the sentence for 30 days to allow Sampath Kumar to file an appeal.

Dhoni contended that the IPS officer made disparaging and derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court which is capable of shaking the faith of the common man in the judicial system and thus constitutes criminal contempt.

“Took A Larger Risk”: Madras High Court Directs Authorities To Consider Granting Accelerated Promotion To Constable Assigned To Collect Information About Veerappan

Case Title: R Sumathi v Secretary to Government

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government and police authorities to give accelerated promotion to Sumathi, a Grade I Constable who was assigned to collect information about the notorious Forest Brigand Veerappan.

Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the authorities had already given accelerated promotion to another Sub-Inspector of the Special Branch assigned with a similar task. The court noted that Sumathi had taken a larger risk and performed a better duty and thus declining promotion to her would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

ED Officer's Arrest By Tamil Nadu DVAC | Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Enquiry, Says State Has Power To Investigate

Case Title: J Vivek v Principal Secretary and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a PIL seeking CBI enquiry into the arrest of Ankit Tiwari, the Enforcement Directorate Officer arrested by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for allegedly collecting Rs 20 Lakh bribe from a government doctor threatening to reopen a case against him.

The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel dismissed the plea and remarked that the State investigating agency had the power to investigate when the officers in the central force were engaged in such wrongdoings.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By Kerala SRTC Against Use Of “KSRTC” Mark By Karnataka SRTC, Says Both PSUs Should Co-Exist Peacefully

Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a plea moved by Kerala State Road Transport Corporation against the registration of the word mark “KSRTC” by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that as per Section 33 of the Trade Marks Act, Kerala SRTC had acquiesced in the use of the mark by the Karnataka SRTC. Similarly, relying on Sub Section (2) of Section 33, the court added that Karnataka SRTC was not entitled to oppose the use of the earlier mark by Kerala SRTC. Thus, the court asked both the Public Sector undertakings to co-exist peacefully and continue their businesses.

Can State Insist On Fixing Quota For Seat Sharing In Self-Financing Minority Educational Institutions? Madras HC Refers Matter To Full Bench

Case Title: CSI College of Dental Sciences and Research v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

The Madras High Court has referred to the full bench the issue of whether the Government Order insisting on Minority Self Financing Education Institutions to fill up 50% of the seats based on the merit list prepared by the competent authority in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation case.

Justice Anand Venkatesh opined that the recent judgment of a division bench of the Madras High Court which had upheld the seat-sharing power of the State had not fully considered the judgment in PA Inamdhar's case, which, taking into consideration the judgment in TMA Pai, the Apex court had taken away the power of the State to fix quota for seat sharing.

S.43D UAPA | In Extraordinary Circumstances, High Courts Have Discretion To Grant Bail To A Person Who Is Not An Indian Citizen: Madras HC

Case Title: Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas v Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

The Madras High Court recently observed that in extraordinary circumstances, the High Courts had discretion to grant bail even to a person who is not an Indian Citizen.

The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan was hearing appeals preferred by persons whose bail was canceled by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act 2008. The court noted that bail was canceled for one of the appellants, Mohamed Rifas, alleging that he had suppressed his nationality and had obtained bail.

The court noted that even assuming Rifas was a Sri Lankan national, his liberty could not have been curtailed after 4 years merely because of an FIR. The court also noted the prosecution had not filed a petition for cancelling the bail immediately after the registration of FIR but had filed the application after 3 years without explaining the reasons for the delay.

Madras High Court Sentences TN Minister Ponmudi To 3 Year Imprisonment In Disproportionate Asset Case

Case Title: State v K Ponmudi and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

The Madras High Court has sentenced Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi and his wife Visalakshi to three year simple imprisonment and 50 lakh fine each in a disproportionate asset case.

Justice G Jayachandran gave 30 days to the parties to surrender and added that the parties could work out their remedies before the Supreme Court during this time. The court also said that any decision on an extension of the time would be considered later if the couple could not work out their remedies before the Apex Court. The court also remarked that if it was any other ministry the matter would have been different but the Minister had committed the offence being in charge of the Ministry of Higher Education which affected the future generation also.

On Tuesday, the court had set aside the acquittal of the Minister and his wife finding them guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. With this order convicting the Minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ponmudi will be disqualified as a legislator under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act 1951.

“Intention To Cheat Damsel Already In Distress”: Madras High Court Refuses Bail To Producer Accused In Property Fraud By Actress Gautami

Case Title: C Alagappan v The State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

The Madras High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to producer Alagappan and his family in a cheating case registered by Actress Gauthami.

Noting that there was prima facie material, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the facts not only revealed cheating but also misappropriation and siphoning of funds for personal gains. The court also remarked that Alagappan and his family intended to cheat a damsel, already in distress who was trying to provide security for her daughter.

High Court Denies Bail To ED Officer Arrested By Tamil Nadu DVAC For Allegedly Taking ₹20 Lakh Bribe

Case Title: Ankit Tiwari v State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

The Madras High Court rejected bail to Enforcement Directorate Officer Ankit Tiwari who was arrested by the Tamil Nadu Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing for allegedly collecting a Rs 20 lakh bribe from a government doctor by threatening to reopen a case against him.

Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench dismissed the bail plea moved by the officer.

Royal Enfield Is Well Known Trademark In Motor Industry: Madras High Court Restrains Service Centre From Using Mark For Goods & Services

Case Title: Eicher Motors Ltd v Nitin Service Point and Automobiles

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

The Madras High Court recently restrained a service centre from using the trademark “Royal Enfield” for selling or advertising its products or from replicating the look and feel of the exterior and interior of the authorized outlets of Royal Enfield.

Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that “Royal Enfield” was a well-known trademark as per the provisions of Section 2(1)(zg) read with Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act 1999. The court also directed the Registrar of Trademarks to notify “Royal Enfield” in the register of well-known marks.

Don't Bring Caste & Religion Into Jallikattu: High Court Directs Madurai District Admin & Municipal Corp To Jointly Conduct Jallikattu Festival

Case Title: P Mohanraj v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

The Madras High Court recently directed the Madurai District Administration and the Municipal corporation to jointly conduct the Jallikettu festival in Avaniyapuram.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the festival should be conducted peacefully without bringing in religion and caste.

The court was hearing a plea moved by Mohanraj, a resident of Avaniyapuram area. Mohanraj had approached the court seeking directions to the authorities to conduct the festival. He claimed that several petitions had been filed before the district administration seeking permission to conduct the Jallikattu festival, which, if allowed, would create a law and order problem and hamper the smooth conduct of the festival.

Transport Commissioner Not Superior To District Authority, Cannot Be Appellate Authority Under Petroleum Rules 2002: Madras High Court

Case Title: VBR Menon v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

The Madras High Court recently set aside a Government Order appointing the Transport Commissioner as the Appellate Authority under the Petroleum Rules.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that as per the new Petroleum Rules 2002, the Appellate Authority ought to have been the immediate superior authority to any District Authorities as defined under the Rules. Since the Transport Commissioner was not a superior authority, the court noted that the appointment would be against the rules. The court thus directed the State to appoint an appellate authority as per rules within a period of 12 weeks.

Madras High Court Declines Mansoor Ali Khan's Plea To File Defamation Suit Against Actors Trisha, Khushboo & Chiranjeevi, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs

Case Title: Mansoor Ali Khan v Trisha Krishnan and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

The Madras High Court refused to grant leave to Actor Mansoor Ali Khan to file a defamation suit against actors Trisha Krishnan, Khushboo Sundar, and Chiranjeevi for their social media comments about the former.

Justice N Satish Kumar remarked that the actor had approached the court for publicity and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh to be paid to Adyar Cancer Institute. The court also remarked that it was normal for humans to react in the manner in which the actors had reacted when such derogatory comments were made against women and the same did not call for filing of a defamation suit.

Khan had made misogynistic and disrespectful remarks against his co-actor Trisha in a press meeting following the success of the Tamil movie “Leo”. The remarks were widely criticized with Trisha, Khushboo, and Chiranjeevi commenting on social media expressing their displeasure and condemning the statements.

Madras High Court Quashes Assessment Order Passed Without Considering Assessee's Request Of Personal Hearing Through Video Conference

Case Title: C.Chellamuthu Versus The Principal Commissioner

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment order passed without considering the assessee's request for a personal hearing through video conference.

The bench of Justice S.Srimathy has observed that since it was a high-pitched assessment, the petitioner has sought a video conference hearing. Therefore, the non-granting of opportunity was clearly a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Distribution Of Relief Funds Should Be Directly Routed To Beneficiaries' Bank Accounts To Avoid Swindling Of Money: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan Primary Handloom Weaver's Cooperative Society Ltd v Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

The Madras High Court recently suggested that benefits like flood relief, Pongal gifts etc could be directly paid to the bank accounts of the beneficiaries without making cash payments. The court remarked that rooting the payments through the bank accounts would minimize the chances of swindling of funds by those in charge.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy also observed that such acts would save valuable time of members of the Co-Operative Societies as they would not have to go through the process of approaching the society or ration shop to register and collect the money which would have caused them unnecessary hardship. The court added that when a way was available to minimize the mishandling of money, the Government and societies must follow the same.

'Can't Restrain A Person From Performing Religious Duties': Madras HC Asks HR&CE Dept To Conduct Temple Festival Including People Of All Castes

Case Title: Pandiarajan C v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

The Madras High Court recently directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to conduct the Margazhi festival in the Arulmighu Chelliyaramman Temple in Virudhunagar District while ensuring that all the devotees including people belonging to the scheduled caste community are permitted in the temple.

The court passed this direction while hearing a plea of a man alleging that the scheduled caste members were not being permitted inside the temple.

Justice B Pugalendhi further directed the Tahsildar to ascertain if any issue of untouchability prevailed in the Village and submit a report to the District Collector for taking appropriate action. The court also stressed that no person or any group could restrain a person from performing his religious duties which was a right guaranteed under the constitution.

High Court Asks Madras University To Frame Statutes To Govern Service Conditions Of Employees To Bring Transparency In Appointment & Promotion

Case Title: University of Madras v Dr. UT Manisundar (Died) and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

The Madras High Court recently directed the Madras University to frame statutes to govern the service conditions of its employees. The court added that it was painful that the University, with such a stature and standing and having been established a century ago did not have any such service conditions already in place.

The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu directed the University to frame the guidelines within six months and also directed the State Government to govern the service conditions of the employees. The court also pointed out that such regulation would not govern the teaching faculty as they are governed by the University Grants Commission.

Cognizant Technology Rs. 19,000 Crore Buyback Dividend Distribution Tax Controversy: Madras High Court Stays Rs.9403.09 Crores Demand

Case Title: M/s.Cognizant Technology Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 409

The Madras High Court has stayed the tax demand of Rs. 9403.09 crore in the case of Cognizant Technology's Rs. 19,000 crore buyback dividend distribution tax controversy.

The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has directed that the assessee, Cognizant Technology, make a payment of Rs. 1500 crores in cash or give a letter to the bank to remit Rs. 1500 crores to the credit of the respondent or department from the fixed deposits available and furnish property security for the balance tax liability with interest and penalty to the respondent within a period of four weeks. On the payment and deposit of title deeds pertaining to the property, the department shall release the lien on the remaining fixed deposits lying in the banks.

Although Islamic Law Allows Polygamous Marriage, Husband Must Treat All Wives Equally: Madras High Court Allows Dissolution of Marriage By First Wife

Case Title: PK Mukmuthu Sha v PS Mohammed Afrin Banu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 410

The Madras High Court recently observed that although Islamic Law allowed a husband to have polygamous marriages, he was obligated to treat all the wives equally.

The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji thus confirmed a family court order allowing dissolution of marriage finding that the husband had treated the wife with cruelty by not treating her on par and equally with the second wife.

State Govt Has Power To Appoint Public Prosecutors Besides Regular Cadre: Madras HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Prosecutors' Appointment

Case Title: R Suresh Kumar v The Principal Secretary to Government

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

The Madras High Court recently upheld the State Government's power to appoint Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors under Section 24 (6A) of the CrPC. The court added that this power was dehors the regular cadre and the appointment of special Public Prosecutors for particular cases.

The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel was hearing a plea by Advocate, Suresh Kumar challenging the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors in District courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madurai bench. It was contended that the Government was appointing District Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors without taking recourse to recruitment of cadre Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors.

Relook At Compensation In Hit & Run Cases; Avoid Closing FIRs For Non-Filing Final Reports Within Prescribed Time: Madras High Court Tells State

Case Title: A Vasanthi v S Jayakumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 412

The Madras High Court recently directed the State government to re-look the scheme for payment of compensation to victims in hit-and-run cases. Noting that the compensation that was currently being awarded was terribly low compared to the compensation awarded to road accident victims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the court added that this prompted people to plant vehicles to claim higher compensation.

Justice R Subramaniam and Justice N Senthil Kumar also noted that in some cases, the police connived with the victims of road accidents as the investigation relating to road traffic accidents was not done as seriously as in other crimes and thus resulted in slackness. To avoid these situations, the court also suggested the Director General of Police ensure that FIRs are not closed for non-filing of final reports within the time prescribed under Section 468 of CrPC thus requiring the police to file a final report in all cases.

Empty Liquor Bottles Can't Be Included In Scrap, TCS Not Applicable: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Versus DCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

The Madras High Court has held that empty liquor bottles cannot be included in scrap, and TCS is not applicable.

The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the petitioner is neither the owner of the bottle nor generates scrap as is contemplated under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The activity of opening and uncorking is not a “mechanical working of material." Therefore, the invocation of Sections 206C, 206CC, and 206CCA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was wholly misplaced and unwarranted under the circumstances against the petitioner for the alleged failure to collect tax at 1% on 99% of the license fee payable to the government and 1% retained as agency commission.