Madras High Court Monthly Digest - March 2023 [Citations 68 to 108]

NOMINAL INDEX

State of Tamil Nadu and others v. The Correspondent, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 68

2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 69

Dr. C Vijayabhaskar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 70

State v. Dadayutham @ Kannan and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 71

Star Channel v. The Secretary to the Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 72

Dr. R Hemamalini v. The Registrar, Annamalai University, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 73

Shiva Sankar Baba v. State and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 74

KC v. UK, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 75

V Ayyadurai v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 76

The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77

KS Manoj v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 78

The Superintendent of Police v. S Rajeshkumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 79

Saravanan and another v. Semmayee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 80

SR v. MCR, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 81

M/s.Re Sustainability Health Care Solutions Ltd v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 82

K Karthick and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

SKS Builders and Promoters Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 84

Kowsalya v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 85

P Sathish @ Sathish Kumar v. State and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

Surajlal v. Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

S Murugesan v. The Commissioner HR&CE and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

R Balasundaram v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

S Nithya v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

G Sundararajan v The Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

S Manoharan v. Reserve Bank of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

Mr VB Selvaganapathy B.A B.L v. The Registrar (Administration) High Court of Madras and Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

AC Murugesan and others v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

Periya Elayaraja and others v. The District General of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

Prashant Umrao @ Prashant Kumar Umrao v. Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

The Sports Development Authority v. The Tamil Radhesoami Satsang Association, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

V Shanmugham (Deceased) and others v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

The Royal Lands and Nest Cooperative Housing Society Ltd v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 99

Cont.P.No.2622 of 2022, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 100

Leena Manimekalai v. Susi Ganeshan, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

Santhosh vs. The Commercial Tax Officer & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 102

Paul Manoj Pandian @ PH Manoj Pandian v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

Deepa Traders Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

S Salma v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

Vetriselvi and another v. The Member Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

Angappan v Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

LK Charles Alexander v. Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

REPORTS

Once Teacher Is Appointed To Sanctioned Post In Aided School, Govt Cannot Refuse Approval Citing Fall In Student Strength: Madras High Court

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 68

While dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court recently observed that once a teacher is appointed to a sanctioned post in an aided school, the Government cannot refuse its approval.

Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi further noted that while deciding the number of teachers to be appointed, what has to be looked into is the number of sections and groups in the school and not the number of students.

Madras High Court Directs HR&CE Department Not To Acquire Any More Elephants, Asks State To Take Call On Rehabilitation Of Captives

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 69

Lamenting on the conditions in which the elephants are usually kept captive in Temples and even by private individuals, the Madras High Court recently directed the State to take a call regarding the rehabilitation of elephants.

Justice GR Swaminathan directed the Secretary of the Environment and Forest Department to coordinate with the Secretary of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department to consider shifting captive elephants to Government Rehabilitation Camps. The court also directed the HR&CE Department to issue directions to all the temples in Tamil Nadu not to acquire any more elephants.

ALSO READ: Madras High Court Judge Personally Inspects Health Condition Of 60-Yr-Old Captive Elephant, Suggests Measures

Jayalalithaa’s Death : Madras High Court Stays Arumughaswamy Commission's Recommendations Against Former Health Minister C Vijayabhaskar

Case Title: Dr. C Vijayabhaskar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 70

The Madras High Court has recently stayed the operation of Justice Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry report with respect to the remarks made against former Tamil Nadu health minister C Vijayabhaskar.

Justice GR Swaminathan allowed the interim prayer in a plea moved by Vijayabhaskar challenging the recommendations of the commission and seeking to quash the report as far as Vijayabhaskar was concerned and the Government order under which appropriate action was to be initiated based on the recommendations of the commission.

“Calling Assault Animalistic Would Be Injustice To Animals”: Madras High Court Reverses Acquittal In POCSO Case After 9 Years

Case Title: State v. Dadayutham @ Kannan and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 71

The Madras High Court recently reversed the findings of trial court and sentenced a man to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for sexually molesting an 8-year-old girl child.

Finding the man guilty for the offences of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and for rape, sexual assault and criminal trespass under the Indian Penal Code, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the trial court had acquitted the man based on irrelevant considerations and materials while ignoring the relevant materials such as the deposition of the child and the corroborative evidence.

The court added that the findings of the trial court was perverse and was impossible given the nature of the offence.

Govt Employees Would Probaby Be More At Peace If They Are Denied TV Cable Connections In Entirety: Madras High Court

Case Title: Star Channel v. The Secretary to the Government and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 72

While refusing to interfere with an order of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board allowing a Cable TV operator to provide television cable connection to Government Officials Housing Unit in Goundampallayam, the Madras High Court observed that it would have been sensible to deny cable connection to the staff as they would be more at peace without viewing these channels.

Justice CV Karthikeyan was hearing a plea filed by a cable operator Star Channel challenging the order on the ground that they were denied opportunity to provide connection in a prejudicial manner.

Madras High Court Directs Annamalai University To Refund ₹10.5 Lakh To Student Who Discontinued MBBS, Says University Tried To Profit Itself

Case Title: Dr. R Hemamalini v. The Registrar, Annamalai University

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 73

The Madras High court recently directed Annamalai University to refund an amount of ₹10.5 lakh to a former student who had discontinued MBBS studies at the university and joined another college.

Observing that the vacant seat was subsequently filled and that the university did not suffer any loss, Justice K Kumaresh Babu of the Madurai bench noted that the institution could only retain the fee for the months during which the student had actually studied in the institution along with the processing fee. In the present case, however, the institution had withheld the entire fee for the first year.

Madras High Court Judge Says She Was Threatened After Reserving Order In Shiva Sankar Baba’s Plea For Quashing FIR In Sexual Harassment Case

Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 74

Justice RN Manjula of Madras High Court has revealed that she was sent “pseudonymous letters of threat” dissuading her from passing orders in a petition filed by self-styled godman Shiva Shankar Baba to quash the FIR filed against him in a sexual assault case.

Adding that such a cheap attitude only shows the cowardice of such persons, the Judge added that these attempts will not stand in her way of dispensing justice.

ALSO READ: Madras High Court Issues Guidelines For Extending Limitation Period In Criminal Cases

Single Judge 'Should Have Exercised Restrain', Its Observations Must Be Disregarded: Madras High Court Allows US Citizen To Take His Sons Abroad

Case Title: KC v. UK

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 75

A division bench of the Madras High Court recently “disregarded” the observations made by a single judge in his order granting interim custody of minor twins born in the US to their mother till the pendency of the matrimonial dispute in India. The single judge had disagreed with the earlier directions of a division bench asking the woman to hand over custody to the father who was residing in the US.

In a contempt petition filed by the father against non-compliance of the directions issued by the division bench, the bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the single judge set at nought the directions of the division bench even though it was not the subject matter before him.

“Cannot Reduce Legal Professional To A Contract Worker": Madras High Court Criticises State For Fixing Ceiling For Govt Advocates' Fees

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 76

The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the State of Tamil Nadu for its Orders determining a ceiling limit of fees payable to advocates appearing on behalf of the Government.

The government had determined that for pending arbitration matters, civil suits, original petitions, original side appeals, civil miscellaneous appeals and for regular cases, the fee which shall be payable would be 1 % of the award/decree subject to a ceiling of Rs. 10,00,000.

Calling such fee fixation arbitrary and irrational, Justice CV Karthikeyan held that the Government Orders gave an impression that legal professional was reduced to that of a contract worker. He added that the government should appreciate the work done by the Advocates in defending the policies of the Government in courts.

High Court's Administrative Side Cannot Seek Review Of Order Passed On Judicial Side: Madras High Court

Case Title: The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77

While dismissing a review application filed by the High Court of Madras on its administrative side, the Madras High Court held that the administrative side cannot seek a review of its own judgments on the judicial side as it would amount to undermining the judicial fibre.

Justice PT Asha noted that while an administrative order of the High Court can be subject to scrutiny, the vice versa was not true.

Madras High Court Terminates Admission Of 3rd Year MBBS Student After Finding He Had Made Baseless Allegations Of Change In NEET OMR Answer Sheet

Case Title: KS Manoj v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 78

The Madras High Court has recently terminated the admission of a 3rd year MBBS Student who had participated in the NEET (UG) 2020 examination and claimed that the OMR Answer sheet uploaded on the official website was not his.

After extensive investigation into the matter, Justice CV Karthikeyan was satisfied that the original OMR Sheet as produced by the respondent agencies was the only one in existence in which the candidate had scored 248 marks out of 720.

Thus, the court found that the writ did not stand and the interim permission that was granted by the single judge, allowing the candidate to participate in the admission process would have to be interfered with.

Conviction As Juvenile Does Not Stigmatize Future Employment As Police Constable: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Superintendent of Police v. S Rajeshkumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 79

The Madras High Court has noted that rejecting a candidate’s appointment for the sole reason that he was acquitted/convicted as a minor would go against the objectives of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.

Justice R Subramanian and Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumarakurup came to the aid of a candidate who had applied for the post of Police Constable. His candidature was rejected when the authorities came to know that he was involved in a criminal offence. Hence, even though he got selected in the written test and the physical test, his name was rejected.

It noted that when a special enactment had sought to remove the stigma, the police should not be acting against the provisions of the Act and claim that the rejection was based on the Service Rules.

Hindu Succession Act Will Not Come In Way Of Inheritance By Tribal Women: Madras High Court

Case Title: Saravanan and another v. Semmayee and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 80

The Madras High Court has recently come to the support of tribal women in their struggle for equal succession rights. The court has noted that the Hindu Succession Law does not to exclude tribal women from its operation but only intends to positively include the customs.

Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act states that the Act shall not apply to the members of the Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government by notification in the official gazette otherwise directs.

Justice SM Subramaniam highlighted that the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act should not come in the way of inheritance by tribal women in areas where Hinduism and Buddhism were being followed.

'Husband Not Incapacitated': Madras High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order Asking Wife To Pay Interim Maintenance

Case Title: SR v. MCR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 81

The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Family Court directing the wife to pay twenty thousand rupees as interim maintenance to her husband during the pendency of their divorce petition.

Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi noted that the Family Court judge had "magnified" a small procedure and had misplaced sympathy. The family judge had noted that the husband had undergone angioplasty and had a stent fixed which made him incapable to work.

Madras High Court Issues Directions For Movement Of Biomedical Waste, Criticises Villagers Who Tried To Restrict Company From Moving Waste

Case Title: M/s.Re Sustainability Health Care Solutions Ltd v. The District Collector and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 82

The Madras High Court has recently issued a set of directions for the movement of bio medical waste. The court was hearing a plea filed by a company which was engaged in the business of collecting and disposing bio medical waste in five districts namely Madurai, Virudhunagar, Theni, Dindigul and Ramanathapuram.

The company had approached the court when a group of villagers restricted entry of the company vehicles after a plastic pocket containing amputated limb had fallen on the road in transit. Following this, a peace committee meeting was convened including revenue and police authorities. The company was directed to take a different route and its license was to be renewed only after ascertaining views of villagers.

Justice GR Swaminathan, however criticised the manner in which the villagers had restricted the company. The court noted that the right to carry on business was guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the constitution and the mob could not hold a person at ransom.

Madras High Court Quashes Temple Archaka Appointments Made Contrary To Agama

Case Title: K Karthick and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently set aside the appointment of three persons as the Archakas at the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil, Trichy, after noting that the appointments were not in terms of the Agama.

The Court noted that the temple was an agamic temple and was governed by Kamika Agama. Therefore, only Adi Saivars/Sivachariyars/Gurukkals who have gained knowledge in the Agamas alone are eligible and qualified to be appointed as Archakas for the said temple. However, the persons appointed do not belong to the denomination of Adi Saivars/Sivachariyars/Gurukkals. "Therefore they are ineligible to be appointed as Archakas in Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil, Kumaravayalur, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy which is governed by Kamika Agama", the Court held.

The Court also explained that the Agamic prescription is not a violation of Article 17 of the Constitution by pointing out that a Smartha Brahmin is not eligible to be appointed as an Archaka of the temple. The Agama is not unconstitutional as there is no disqualification on the sole ground that a person belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

Personal Hearing To Be Granted In All Matters Prior To Finalisation Of Assessment: Madras High Court

Case Title: SKS Builders and Promoters Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 84

The Madras High Court has held that personal hearings shall be granted in all matters prior to the finalization of assessments, except where the stand of the assessee is intended to be accepted by the department.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the officer has grossly erred in proceeding to finalize the assessment in violation of the principles of natural justice.

[Udumalai Sankar Honour Killing] Madras High Court Permits Wife To Conduct Honorary Meeting To Raise Awareness About Inter-Caste Marriages

Case Title: Kowsalya v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 85

The Madras High Court has permitted Kowsalya, wife of Sankar who was hacked to death for marrying from a different caste, to conduct a meeting in memory of Sankar. Kowsalya had approached the court after State denied permission for the meeting citing law and order problems.

Justice G Chandrasekharan noted that the offense of Honour killing was increasing every day and that honour killing was not eradicated in Tamil Nadu.

In such a situation, the court noted that the scope of starting the Sankar Social Justice Trust and organising a meeting to disseminate information against honour killing and promoting inter caste marriage was laudable. The court added that such object should not be prevented and prohibited by the court.

Madras High Court Quashes GOs Allowing Police To Exercise Power Of Executive Magistrate, Make Habitual Offenders Execute Bonds

Case Title: P Sathish @ Sathish Kumar v. State and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

The Madras High Court has held that appointing Deputy Commissioners of Police as Executive Magistrate is violative of the Constitution and the District Police Act.

A bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Anand Venkatesh thus declared two Government Orders as unconstitutional, which gave Deputy Commissioners the powers of an Executive Magistrate while dealing with bonds for keeping peace.

The court added that if the police were allowed to continue with such powers, it would lead to anarchy as the entire process of investigation, prosecution and adjudication will be done by one branch of the executive - the police.

Order Of High Court Granting Leave To Institute Commercial Suit Will Be An Order Passed Under Commercial Courts Act: Madras High Court Full Bench

Case Title: Surajlal v. Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

The Madras High Court has recently held that an order passed by the High Court granting leave to institute commercial suit will be an order passed under the Commercial Courts Act.

The full bench of Justice R Subramanian, Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan thus noted that an order granting leave or refusing to revoke the leave granted is not appealable.

While Students Appearing For Board Exams Should Not Be Inconvenienced, Stopping Temple Festival Not The Solution: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Murugesan v. The Commissioner HR&CE and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by a man seeking postponement of Panguni festival celebrations in light of the public examination.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that while it was important not to cause any inconvenience to the students preparing for the exam, stopping an annual temple festival was not the solution. The court however directed the concerned village authorities not to use loudspeakers on the days of the examination.

Reservation Is A Matter Of Pride For Diversity, Its Exploitation Or Misuse Even If Detected Late Cannot Be Justified: Madras High Court

Case Title: R Balasundaram v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

While criticizing a retired Upper Division Clerk for fabricating a false community certificate, the Madras High Court held that reservation policy was a matter of great pride and its exploitation could not be justified even if it was detected late.

Justice VM Velumani and Justice R Hemalatha added that at present there were systems for determining the genuineness of a person’s SC/ST lineage which did not exist earlier. Thus, when a vigilance committee had clearly established with sufficient proof that the person in question did not belong to the ST community as claimed by him at the time of employment, the court had no reason to sit in judgment or examine the full-fledged report.

“Neglected Duty”: Madras High Court Imposes 10K Cost On Revenue Officer For Rejecting Certificate To Children Claiming Mother's Community Status

Case Title: S Nithya v. The District Collector and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

The Madras High Court recently imposed ten thousand rupees cost on a Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate who had rejected the community certificate for two kids belonging to the Kattunayakan community.

The cost was imposed on a plea by the kid’s mother seeking to quash the rejection order and to direct the authorities to issue the community certificate. In the present case, the mother of the kids belonged to the Kattunayakan Community (a Scheduled Tribe community) while their father belonged to the Pallar Community (a Scheduled Caste community).

The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of two Government Orders passed by the State in 1975 and 2021 which clarifies that when a child is born out of marriage between parents of two different caste, the children would be considered to belong to either of the caste based on the declaration by parents

Exemption From Entertainment Tax To Encourage Tamil Film Titles Cannot Be Extended Merely On Using Single Tamil Letter: Madras High Court

Case Title: G Sundararajan v The Secretary and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

The Madras High Court has recently observed that exemption from payment of entertainment tax is a concession granted by the government for promoting usage of Tamil language and merely using Tamil letter in the title of the movie is not a ground for claiming exemption from payment of entertainment tax.

Justice SM Subramaniam was hearing a plea by G Sundararajan, proprietor of Sri Vijalakshmi Films and producer of the 2015 tamil movie "I".

High Court Cannot Expand Definition Of 'Individual Borrower' To Grant Waiver Of Foreclosure Charges: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Manoharan v. Reserve Bank of India and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

The Madras High Court recently observed that when “individual borrower” was clearly defined by the Reserve Bank Of India as per law, only the RBI could consider expanding the scope of the definition and not the High Court. The court was hearing a plea filed by famous food chain Murugan Idli Shop's proprietor.

Allotment Of Law Chambers Should Be As Per Procedure, Not Favouritism: Madras High Court

Case Title: Mr VB Selvaganapathy B.A B.L v. The Registrar (Administration) High Court of Madras and Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

The Madras High Court has observed that favouritism while allotting law chambers should not be encouraged and the allotments should be made as per the established procedure. The court added that even if certain adjustments were to be made, they should not be unilateral decisions and the consent of the Lawyers concerned was necessary.

Justice SM Subramaniam noted that whenever any complaint was received with respect to the allotment, the allegations were to be enquired into in compliance with the rules of natural justice. The registry wsa expected to conduct an inquiry after affording an opportunity to all the parties.

No Forest Rights Merely Because Ancestors Resided In Forest, Must Establish Sole Dependency On Forest For "Bonafide Livelihood Needs": Madras High Court

Case Title: AC Murugesan and others v. The District Collector and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

While refusing relief to a group of persons claiming benefit under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, the Madras High Court noted that rights under the Act cannot be claimed merely on the ground that the ancestors originally resided in the forests. For claiming rights under the Act, it was necessary to establish that the persons were solely dependent upon the forest for their bonafide livelihood.

Justice N Satish Kumar also agreed with an earlier view taken by the division bench where it was held that bonafide livelihood included ploughing, irrigation, and planting for the purpose of livelihood, but not for commercial exploitation of the land.

Madras High Court Orders Police Action Against Unqualified Alternative Medicine Practitioners, Says State Must Act Against Unrecognised Institutes

Case Title: Periya Elayaraja and others v. The District General of Police and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

Refusing relief to 61 persons claiming to be practicing alternative medicine, the Madras High Court said that unqualified persons cannot claim any right to practice alternate medicines. The court was also critical of unrecognised institutions conducting six months medical courses and issuing diploma certificate and noted that the same would bring disastrous consequences for the society.

Justice SM Subramaniam said it is the duty of the State to ensure that these unrecognised institutions are dealt with properly and such invalid diploma certificates are cancelled.

Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To BJP's Prashant Umrao In FIR Over Tweets Regarding Bihar Migrant Workers In TN

Case Title: Prashant Umrao @ Prashant Kumar Umrao v. Inspector of Police

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to UP BJP Spokesperson Prashant Umrao in an FIR lodged by the Tamil Nadu police against him for allegedly spreading false information on the alleged attacks against the migrant workers from Bihar in Tamil Nadu.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan granted anticipatory bail on the condition that Umrao will file an undertaking stating that he will to tweet or forward any such message to promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc., before the jurisdictional magistrate.

Can Entertain Delay Condonation Applications In Execution Proceedings Even In Absence Of Specific Provision: Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: The Sports Development Authority v. The Tamil Radhesoami Satsang Association

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the courts have the power to entertain petitions for condoning delay in execution petitions even though the same has not been specifically provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Justice K Kumaresh Babu followed an earlier decision of the Madras High Court in N.Rajendran v. SriramChits Tamil Nadu Private Limited where Justice V Ramasubramanian had traced out the history of the provisions regarding the execution petition and had held that though after the amendment of CPC, there was no specific provision for condonation of delay, as long as the provision was not inconsistent with the later amendments, the courts could follow the same.

ALSO READ: “Lackadaisical Attitude”: Madras High Court Imposes Cost On Sports Development Authority For Delay In Filing Applications To Set Aside Ex-Parte Order

Madras High Court Asks College To Pay Rs 5 Lakh Compensation To Family Of Engineering Student Who Drowned In Sea During Coastal Cleanup Drive

Case Title: V Shanmugham (Deceased) and others v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

The Madras High Court recently awarded a compensation of five lakh rupees to the family of a 3rd Year Engineering Student who drowned in sea during a Coastal cleanup drive organised by the college.

Justice SM Subramaniam held that the college was not responsible for the drowning of the student, who had voluntarily taken a bath in the sea despite instructions against the same. However, the court noted that the college had failed to inform the authorities about the intended cleanup activity and obtain prior permission.

Exemption From Stamp Duty Granted Under Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act Not Applicable To Multi-State Cooperative Societies: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Royal Lands and Nest Cooperative Housing Society Ltd v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another

Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 99

The Madras High Court recently observed that the exemption from payment of stamp duty granted by the government under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act is not applicable to societies registered under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 2002.

Justice SM Subramaniam observed that Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act is a State enactment whereas the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act is a central enactment.

Madras High Court Orders Action Against State's Deputy Law Secretary For Creating Ruckus Inside Court

Case No: Cont.P.No.2622 of 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 100

The Madras High Court recently ordered the Law Secretary of Tamil Nadu government to take disciplinary action against C Nagarajan, the Deputy Secretary of Law Department, for allegedly misbehaving with government pleaders inside court.

Calling the act “scandalizing” and “lowering the authority of the Madras High Court”, Justice MS Ramesh asked the Principal Secretary to place Nagaraj under suspension from service in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings.

Madras High Court Transfers Criminal Defamation Case Against Filmmaker Leena Manimekalai To Different Magistrate, Says Decide Within 3 Months

Case Title: Leena Manimekalai v. Susi Ganeshan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

The Madras High Court recently ordered the transfer of a criminal defamation case against filmmaker Leena Manimekalai from a Metropolitan Magistrate Court to a different court within Saidapet. Director Susi Ganeshan had filed the criminal defamation case against Manimekalai after she accused him of sexual harassment during the MeToo movement.

Justice G Chandrasekharan noted that the magistrate had committed two procedural violations — the court had received proof affidavits of witnesses instead of examining the witnesses under oath in the open court and recording the chief examination, and the court had done examination of some witnesses (through proof affidavit) even prior to questioning the accused under Section 251 CrPC.

The court also noted that the Magistrate had permitted scrapping of evidence of certain witnesses even without giving opportunity to the petitioner to oppose the memo filed for scrapping the evidence.

Madras High Court Quashes The Criminal Proceedings Against Guarantor Of Assessee, For Assessee’s Failure To Pay Tax; States It's Only Contractual Liability And Not Criminal

Case Title: Santhosh vs. The Commercial Tax Officer & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 102

The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the guarantor of the assessee for failing to pay the tax dues of the latter to the Commercial Tax Department.

The Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate against the assessee as well as the petitioner, who stood as a guarantor with respect to the tax arrears of the business done by the assessee.

The Court remarked that though the petitioner had executed an undertaking or a guarantee in favour of the assessee to the Commercial Tax Department, the same was merely an agreement for which the petitioner can be attached only with contractual liability and not criminal liability.

The bench of Justice R.N. Manjula added that the guarantor cannot be implicated as an accused for the default committed by the assessee, since the guarantor was not an assessee in the eyes of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007.

EPS vs OPS: Madras High Court Rejects Applications By Expelled AIADMK Leaders For Stay Of General Council Resolutions

Case Title: Paul Manoj Pandian @ PH Manoj Pandian v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

The Madras High Court has rejected the applications filed by expelled AIADMK leaders seeking a stay on the operation of the General Council resolutions by which they were dismissed from the party. The court also rejected the applications filed by the leaders seeking a stay on the General Council elections.

Justice Kumaresh Babu passed the orders on pleas by expelled leaders of the AIADMK party - O. Panneerselvam, P.H. Manoj Pandian, R. Vaithilingam and J.C.D. Prabhakhar challenging the party resolution dated July 11 2022 by which they were removed.

The single judge noted that the Supreme Court, in its order dated 23.02.2023 had already held that the convening of the General Council was valid. That being so, the unanimous decision taken by the members of the General Council, which had the powers to amend the party bye-laws was valid.

Errors Committed Are Inadvertent, Rectification Would Enable Proper Reporting Of The Turnover And ITC: Madras High Court

Case Title: Deepa Traders Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

The Madras High Court has held that errors committed are inadvertent and, the rectification would, in fact, enable proper reporting of the turnover and input tax credit (ITC) to enable claims to be made in an appropriate fashion by the assessees.

The single bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has observed that the petitioners must be permitted the benefit of rectification of errors where there are no malafides attributed to the assesses.

Section 46(4) CrPC: Madras High Court Directs State To Frame Guidelines For Obtaining 'Prior Permission' Of Magistrate To Arrest Women At Night

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

The Madras High Court has directed the State government to ensure compliance with Section 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and frame guidelines for obtaining 'prior permission' of Judicial Magistrate to arrest women at night in exceptional circumstances.

Justice Anita Sumanth noted that the provision is mandatory; legislature took a restrictive approach in the construction of Section 46(4), perhaps in the face of possibilities for abuse in case of police discretion. However, since even the Supreme Court has noted the procedural difficulties with respect to obtaining prior sanction, the court thought it fit to direct framing of appropriate guidelines for arrest of women in such exceptional circumstances and obtaining of prior permission from Magistrate.

“Degree In Medicine” Should Be Understood Expansively: Madras High Court Permits Siddha And BDS Graduates To Apply For Food Safety Officer

Case Title: Vetriselvi and another v. The Member Secretary and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

The Madras High Court has recently held that a “Degree In Medicine” which has been specified as a qualification for appointment to the post of Food Safety Officer should be understood expansively. The court thus noted that the term “medicine” would include Siddha and BDS system of medicine also.

Emphasizing the importance of the Siddha system of medicine, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench noted that the system was ancient and unique to Tamil Nadu. Further, even when dengue struck or during the Covid crisis, the Government has promoted Siddha medicine. Thus, disqualifying Siddha medicine amounted to branding the system as un-modern.

Alteration In Vehicle For Persons With Disability Exempted From Payment Of Tax, Vehicle Need Not Be Driven By Such Person: Madras High Court

Case Title: Angappan v Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

The Madras High Court recently noted that under the GO by Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Transport -T) Department exempting payment of tax on all motor vehicles specially designed or adapted for the use of physically handicapped persons, the only condition was that the vehicle should be adapted for the "use" of the physically handicapped person. Thus, it was not a condition that the vehicle must be driven by such person.

Justice PT Asha of the Madurai bench looked at the meaning of adapted vehicle under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act and Rules regarding alteration of motor vehicles. The court found that the law does not specify that the person should ride the vehicle.

The court added that when a rule or regulation granted certain rights to particular sections of the society, such rule or regulation must be given a purposive interpretation to ensure that its benefits reaches the intended section. Thus, the State should ensure that such persons who are granted exemption enjoy the same.

Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Action Against Director Mani Ratnam For Allegedly Distorting History In Ponniyin Selvan

Case Title: LK Charles Alexander v. Secretary to Government and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking action against Director Mani Ratnam for allegedly portraying the wrong history of the Chola empire in his movie Ponniyin Selvan: I.

Advocate L.K. Charles Alexander had alleged that the director has distorted the history of the Chola dynasty for commercial purposes and has used the names of the historical figures in his movie to "intentionally defame the history" "being preserved" by the Central Government.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy however dismissed the plea after observing that the movie was based on the novels written by Author Kalki and not based on the actual historical characters themselves.