Madras High Court Monthly Digest: October 2022 [Citations 419 - 447]

NOMINAL INDEX

P Senthil v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

Kaladi v. District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

K Seeni Thevar v. The Joint Commissioner and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. versus J. Vengatesh & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

SEEMAN and others Vs. IOP, CHENNAI, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

Ravichandran v. State [Crl.A.No.65 of 2020], 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

Mr N Nagarajan v. Mr. Schekar Raj, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425

T.Keeniston Fernando v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 426

Azizul Karim v. PS Kirubakaran and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 427

Murali v. The Inspector of Police ,2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

A. Irudayaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Adjudication Cell, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

Tamilselvi v. The Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

Asia (Chennai) Engineering Company Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

Abirami S v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 432

Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, O.P. No. 298 of 2019, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 433

Vikas Rambal and others v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 434

P Rajendran v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 435

Mrs Karthika v. Superintendent of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 436

Shiva Sankar Baba v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 437

M/s.Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

P Ramkumar v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 439

Balamurugan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 440

Sahil Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 441

M/s ES Mydeen and Co. v. The Designated Officer and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 442

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v The Branch Manager, Bank of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 443

RKR. Gold P. Ltd Versus ACIT, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 444

The Union of India v. R.K. Constructions, Arb. O.P. (Com Div) No. 148 of 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 445

Rahul Dinesh Surana v. The Senior Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 446

Tamil Nadu Pondy Plastic Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 447

REPORTS

1. [Matrimonial Disputes] Evidence Of Woman's Family Members Cannot Be Brushed Aside Merely Because They Are Interested Parties: Madras HC

Case Title: P Senthil v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

The Madras High Court recently observed that while deciding upon matters involving matrimonial disputes, the courts should not brush aside the evidence of the woman's family members merely because they are interested parties.

Justice P Velmurugan observed that in these types of matters, it is the family members who can notice the incidents and come forward to give evidence since a third party may not interfere in such matters thinking that it's a family dispute.

The court observed that mere non-production of a medical certificate or not lodging of the complaint soon after the occurrence was not fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially in matrimonial disputes. This was because a newly married girl will not immediately rush to the police station to lodge a complaint in a quarrel as she would take time to settle the issues instead.

2. Ambedkar & Periyar Respected Leaders, No Objection On Installing Their Statues In Tamil Nadu: High Court

Case Title: Kaladi v. District Collector and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

Directing the Thoothukudi District Collector to take a decision on a resident's representation seeking permission to install statues of social reformer Thanthai Periyar and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar at his property, the Madras High Court has said there cannot be any objection from anyone against it as both of them are respected by people in the state.

"As far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, there cannot be any objection from anyone for erecting the statues of Thanthai Periyar or Dr.Ambedkar. The people individually have respects for these leaders," said Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup.

3. Worshipping God Is Every Individual's Right: Madras High Court Directs HR&CE To Enquire Into Affairs Of Temple Closed For Over A Decade

Case Title: K Seeni Thevar v. The Joint Commissioner and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

The Madras High Court recently emphasized on the right of every individual to worship a god according to his personal faith. The court was dealing with a challenge against a notice issued by the "Fit Person" of Arulmigu Gurunathasamy Temple, which has remained closed since 2011, stating that the temple will be re-opened on 7th October 2022.

Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed,

In the light of the fact that the worshipping of a god is a right of every individual according to his personal faith, it would be appropriate to direct the 1st respondent herein to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the temple under the provisions of the HR & CE Act [The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act], and decide the rights of the parties in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

4. Arbitral Award Directing Specific Performance Of Contract, Cannot Be Set Aside On Ground Of Inequitable Nature Of Contract: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. versus J. Vengatesh & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award directing specific performance of a contract, cannot be set aside on the ground that the nature of agreement between the parties was not capable of specific enforcement. The Court added that the said issue related to the construction of an agreement, which cannot be made a ground for interference of the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Division Bench of Justices Paresh Upadhyay and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that an arbitral award cannot be interfered on the ground that it directed specific performance of a contract which was inequitable in nature and which gave an unfair advantage to a party.

5. Madras High Court Quashes Case Against 13 Protestors Who Allegedly Raised Slogans Against National Education Policy 2020

Case title - SEEMAN and others Vs. IOP, CHENNAI

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

The Madras High Court recently quashed a case against 13 persons who had allegedly raised slogans condemning the implementation of National Education Police 2020 by the Union Government.

Quashing the proceedings the bench of Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan noted that the police officer was not a competent person to register an FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC and thus, the FIR or final report was liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.

Further, regarding the charge of Section 143, the Court observed that since the complaint did not state how the protest formed by the petitioners and others was an unlawful protest and also, it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC, therefore, the final report was liable to be quashed

6. Section 119 Evidence Act | Madras High Court Lays Down Principles For Examining Witnesses Who Are Unable To Speak

Case title - Ravichandran v. State [Crl.A.No.65 of 2020]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

The Madras High Court, in a judgment delivered in a criminal appeal, laid down certain significant principles relating to the examination of witnesses (who are unable to speak) under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court significantly held that wherein a witness is not able to either communicate verbally or give his evidence in writing and can only communicate through signs, then it is mandatory for the court to take the assistance of the interpreter and order recording of such statement by way of videography. In essence, the Court has held that the proviso to Section 119 applies only to such witnesses who give evidence by way of signs.

7. S.23 Senior Citizens Act: Madras HC Cancels Settlement Deed Executed In Favour Of Son After He Failed To Look After Aged Parents

Case Title: Mr N Nagarajan v. Mr. Schekar Raj

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425

Moved by the plight of an old couple, the Madras High Court recently upheld the judgement and decree of the trial court and cancelled a settlement deed executed in favour of their son, after the court was convinced that the son failed to look after the aged parents.

Even if the deed is considered as a settlement deed by virtue of Section 23 of the Maintenance Act the same has to be declared void in as much as the plaintiff has failed to comply with the obligations imposed upon him under the deed by ignoring the medical needs of the parents.

8. S.43D UAPA | Report of Public Prosecutor Contains Details of Investigation, Need Not Be Shared With Accused: Madras High Court

Case Title: T.Keeniston Fernando v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 426

The Madras High Court recently denied bail to two Srilankan nationals, who are accused of attempting to siphon off funds from the bank account of a deceased woman in Mumbai to fund LTTE.

The bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Teeka Raman denied bail after observing that the indefeasible right for default bail stood extinguished as the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had already submitted the final report.

9. Madras High Court Requests Advocate General To Consider Invoking Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act Against Chennai Resident

Case Title: Azizul Karim v. PS Kirubakaran and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 427

The Madras High Court recently requested the Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram to consider passing appropriate orders under the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act 1949 against a Chennai resident who is prima facie in the habit of filing vexatious litigations in different courts throughout the state.

The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy gave liberty to the Advocate General to consider the materials on record and pass appropriate orders as he deems fit.

10. Madras High Court Quashes NDPS Proceedings After Authorities Fail To Test Contraband Even After 5 Years

Case Title: Murali v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

The Madras High Court recently quashed FIR against a man booked under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 for possessing ganja after observing that there were serious lapses on the part of the investigating officer.

Justice G Jayachandran observed that the seized contraband had not been tested for its content even after 5 years. Further, in spite of directions by the court, the Investigating Officer had not taken steps to number the final report.

11. Detention Order not Passed based on Statutory Timelines: Madras High Court Directs Release of Vehicle

Case Title: A. Irudayaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Adjudication Cell

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

The Madras High Court has ordered the release of the vehicle as the department has failed to pass the detention order within the period as provided for under Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) and no show cause notice has been issued within the period of 7 days as set out under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that since the statutory show cause notice is to be issued within a period of 7 days from the date of interception, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to pass an order of detention prior thereto.

12. Third Gender Candidates Entitled To Special Reservation: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tamilselvi v. The Secretary to Government and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

The Madras High Court has directed the state Health and Family Welfare Department and Directorate of Medical Education to provide special reservation to the third gender/ transgender in the admissions for Post Basic (Nursing) Course.

The direction was passed after a transgender woman approached the court with a plea seeking quashing of the Prospectus issued for the Post Basic (Nursing) Course and Post Basic Diploma in Psychiatry Nursing Course for the academic year 2022-2023 after she was considered only a woman in the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee.

Justice R Suresh Kumar observed that the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the special category was not just a mere omission but against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

13. GST Dept. To Consider Reply to SCN Sent By Assessee Through post and Not Portal: Madras High Court

Case Title: Asia (Chennai) Engineering Company Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

The Madras High Court has held that the GST Department should consider a reply to a show cause notice even if it is sent by the assessee through the post and not the portal.

While rejecting the objection of the department that the postal/physical reply to them shall not be considered, the single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has directed the department to give an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner, hear the objections, peruse the documents submitted and the explanations.

14. Hindu Tamils Were Primary Victims Of Racial Strife In Srilanka; Principles Of CAA 2019 Applicable To Them: Madras High Court

Case title - Abirami S v. The Union of India and others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 432

In a significant observation, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has said that the principles of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 can very well be made applicable to the Hindu Tamils who were the primary victims of the racial strife in Srilanka.

The bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan observed thus as it took into account the fact that Srilanka does not fall within the ambit of CAA 2019, a parliamentary law that permits the persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh to get Indian Citizenship.

15. Limitation Qua Counter-Claim Stops On The Date Of Notice Of Arbitration: Madras High Court

Case Title: Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, O.P. No. 298 of 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 433

The High Court of Madras has held that the limitation period qua Counter-Claims would be arrested on the date on which the respondent issues the notice of arbitration and the date of filing of counter-claims would be irrelevant.

The bench of Justice M. Sundar further held that limitation is a facet of 'public policy' and an error in limitation clearly leaves an award hit by Section 34(2)(b)(ii) read with Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 thereat.

The Court further held that if the agreement includes pre-arbitration reference to Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) or Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the period of limitation for initiating arbitration commences only after dispute resolution fails before these panels.

16. All Directors Of Pharma Company Liable For Production Of Substandard Drugs: Madras High Court

Case Title: Vikas Rambal and others v. The State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 434

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by directors of Sunrise International Labs for quashing a criminal proceeding initiated against them alleging that the company supplied drugs of substandard quality.

Justice G Jayachandran rejected the contention of the directors that the prosecution should be quashed against them since they were not involved in the day to day functioning of the company.

The court observed that the decision to manufacture drugs was a collective decision of the board of directors and thus all the directors will be made liable. The directors could not merely claim that they were not involved in the production of the drugs.

17. Person Not Prosecuted For Predicate Offence Can Be Prosecuted For Money Laundering Under PMLA: Madras High Court

Case Title: P Rajendran v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 435

The Madras High Court has made it clear that Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others does not preclude the Enforcement Directorate from prosecuting a person for offence of money laundering under PMLA, merely because such person was not prosecuted for the predicate offence.

The bench of Justices PN Prakash and Teeka Raman found force in the submission that while a person may not be involved in the original criminal activity that had resulted in the generation of "proceeds of crime", such person may later help the main accused in laundering the proceeds of crime.

18. 'Ego' Is A Small Three Letter Word That Spoils Relationships: Madras High Court

Case Title: Mrs Karthika v. Superintendent of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 436

While dismissing a wife's habeas corpus petition claiming that her husband had kept their four year old son in illegal custody, the Madras High Court stressed that parents must keep aside their 'ego' for the welfare of the child.

Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice C Saravanan dismissed the petition observing that the child was not in the illegal custody of the husband. The court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and work out her remedy for the custody of the child.

19. Madras HC Quashes Sexual Harassment Case Against Godman Shivshankar Baba, Says Complaint Not Accompanied By Application To Condone Delay

Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 437

The Madras High Court has allowed the quashing petition filed by self-styled Godman Shivshankar Baba in a case pertaining to sexual harassment.

The Court had observed that the FIR was registered in 2021 while the offence was alleged to have been committed in 2010-2011. Though the court found the allegations to be serious, since no application was filed under 473 CrPC to condone the delay, the prosecution was held to be barred by limitation.

20. Failure To Issue ASMT 10 In Respect Of Aspects Forming Subject Matter Of Proceedings Vitiates Entire Proceedings: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

The Madras High Court has held that ASMT 10 is mandatory before proceeding to issue GST DRC-01. Failure to issue ASMT 10 in respect of the discrepancies forming the subject matter in GST DRC-01 culminating in GST DRC-07 would vitiate the entire proceedings.

The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that any proceeding in GST DRC-01A/1 culminating in an Order in GST DRC-07, if pursuant to scrutiny under Section 61 of the TNGST Act, ought to be preceded by the issuance of Form ASMT 10.

21. Visually Challenged & Print-Disabled Persons Facing "Book Famine": Madras High Court

Case Title: P Ramkumar v State and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 439

The Madras High Court recently expressed concern over the "book famine" being faced by the present generation where people with print disabilities including visually challenged persons do not have access to printed works and books.

Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were hearing a plea for bringing out Braille Version of Thirukkural in Tamil and English languages to ensure that the visually challenged people could read, recite and enjoy the essence of Thirukkural.

Noting that the Central Institute of Classical Tamil had already taken steps to issue and distribute 45 Sanga Ilakkiya Noolgal including the Thirukkural in braille format to the Visually Challenged persons free of cost, the court directed the authorities to give wide publicity about the availability of the Sangam Literature in braille form so that more persons could enjoy the same.

22. Didn't Have Maturity To Accept Rejection, Killed Her By Pouring Petrol On Her: Madras High Court Dismisses Convict's Appeal In Murder Case

Case Title: Balamurugan v State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 440

Upholding the conviction of a 28-year-old man who set a class IX student on fire in 2018 merely because she rejected his proposal, the Madras High Court has said such incidents are on the rise and only reflect the fact that man considers woman chattel and wants to own or "forcibly take her under his control" without understanding that she is a human being, who is entitled to "decide on her wishes".

The division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Anand Venkatesh further observed:

"This loathsome act was committed by the appellant with the only motive that the girl who did not reciprocate the love proposal made by him, should not live in this world and she should not have any relationship with anybody else in this world."

23. Bank Account Cannot Be Frozen By Way Of Summons U/S 91 CrPC: Madras High Court

Case Title: Sahil Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 441

The Madras High Court has held that the police have no jurisdiction to freeze bank accounts while issuing summons under Section 91 of CrPC. While issuing such summons, the investigating officer can only summon a person to produce the document or other things.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus observed as under:

Thus, it is clear that the first respondent (Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime) has no jurisdiction. In the summons issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., the investigation officer summons the person to produce the document or other things. On the summons issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., account cannot be freezed.

24. Govt's Argument Against Tobacco Is Like Devil Quoting Scripture, When It Has Thousands Of Liquor Outlets Of Its Own: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s ES Mydeen and Co. v. The Designated Officer and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 442

Dealing with the State's argument that consumption of tobacco is causing a serious health hazard and Article 47 of the Constitution imposes a duty on it to improve public health, the Madras High Court said the government's contention would have impressed it had the law been enforced into totality.

"Unfortunately, that is not the case. The State has monopolized the privilege of selling liquor. The government of Tamil Nadu is raising huge revenue through liquor sale. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), a wholly government owned company, has thousands of retail outlets throughout the State," said the court

Justice G R Swaminathan compared the state's argument on Article 47 against tobacco to "devil quoting the scripture or pot calling the kettle black."

25. High Court Directs Madurai DRO To Take Possession Of Golden Armour For Thevar Jayanthi Celebrations Amid Dispute Between OPS And EPS Factions

Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v The Branch Manager, Bank of India and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 443

The Madras High Court has directed the District Revenue Officer (RDO), Madurai to take possession of the 13kg gold armour to be adorned on the statue of late freedom fighter Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar during the Guru Pooja Celebrations of his birth anniversary.

The Madurai bench of Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan observed that since there were claims and counter-claims going on between AIADMK factions of O Paneerselvam and Edappadi Palanisamy, it was difficult to operate the locker facility of joint account along with the Pasumpon Thevar Ninaivalayam and receive the golden armour that has been kept in the locker facility of the respondent bank.

26. In The Absence Of A Full And True Disclosure, Reassessment Is Not Barred By Limitation: Madras High Court

Case Title: RKR. Gold P. Ltd Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 444

The Madras High Court has held that the criminal investigation wing is separate and distinct from the assessment wing and that disclosure made before one wing will not exonerate the assessee from the requirement of making a "full and true disclosure" before the assessing officer in an assessment.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that in the absence of full and true disclosure in the first instance, the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing authority beyond the period of four years is not barred by limitation, and cannot be faulted.

27. Arbitral Tribunal Can Award Interest On Security Deposit If The Clause Prohibiting Such Interest Was Not Specifically Pleaded: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Union of India v. R.K. Constructions, Arb. O.P. (Com Div) No. 148 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 445

The Madras High Court has held that the arbitral tribunal can award interest despite there being a contractual prohibition if no pleading as to the prohibition was made by the aggrieved party.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that a party cannot rely on a Clause under GCC for challenging the arbitral award for awarding interest contrary to the said clause if it had not taken such an objection before the arbitral tribunal during the arbitral proceeding.

28. White-Collar Crimes Not Committed By Sudden Provocation But With Deep Understanding Of Consequences: Madras High Court

Case Title: Rahul Dinesh Surana v. The Senior Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 446

Denying bail to the former CEO of Surana Group of Companies in the alleged case of defrauding various banks to the tune of Rs 10,000 Crore, the Madras High Court recently observed that white-collar crimes are particularly harmful to the society as they are committed by well-educated and influential persons who understood the consequence of their actions.

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira in the order said:

Among other crimes, this sort of white-collar crimes are particularly harmful to society as they are committed by not just literated, but, well educated and influenced persons, who are expected to set a moral example and behave responsibly. The fraudulent activity in siphoning of pubic money by defrauding the financial institutions is unlike any other offence which could have been committed by sudden provocation as it is a well calculated one with the deep understanding as to the consequences and with the ideology to conquer them.

29. 'Enrolment Functions Turning Into Festivities': Madras High Court Wants State Bar Council To Keep Candidates' Family Members, Friends Out

Case Title: Tamil Nadu Pondy Plastic Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 447

Lamenting the manner in which the venue of a recent enrolment ceremony was turned into a litter zone, the Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council to submit a report on how it proposes to ensure that such functions in future are conducted without the presence of the family members and friends of candidates.

The court has issued the direction in a matter related to the ban on use of plastic in Tamil Nadu. Noting that it had earlier instructed the Bar Council and bar associations to ensure that hgh court also should march towards an eco-friendly and plastic-free zone, the division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice PT Asha said:

"However, it has been brought to our notice on the very same day, the Bar Council has held its Enrolment Ceremony at the Auditorium within the precincts of the High Court. The entire place after the Enrolment Ceremony was turned into a litter zone. SUP, garlands, papers, etc. were strewn not only before the Auditorium, but around the entire campus. This is a very serious matter which requires attention."

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

1. Madras High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea For Digitisation Of Medico-Legal Documents

The Madras High Court recently sought the response of the Central and the State government on a plea seeking computerisation of medical records having legal importance, including postmortem report, accident/injury report, etc.

The case came up before the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar.

The petitioner sought directions from the court to implement Medico-Legal Examination and Postmortem Reporting (MedLeaPR) software in all Government hospitals.

2. Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Disposes Of 2000 Cases In 20 Days

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently disposed of over 2000 cases in just 20 working days. This speedy adjudication in the cases was done by the division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad of the Madurai Bench.

The bench disposed of 2085 cases since its sitting on September 5. Of these, 938 were main cases including 776 writ petitions, 147 writ appeals and 1147 miscellaneous cases. The bench also disposed of cases that had been pending for more than six years.

3. Tamil Nadu Advocates' Association Condemns Malicious Campaign Against Justice DY Chandrachud

The Tamilnadu Advocates' Association on Monday issued a statement condemning the recent malicious campaigns led against Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud.

The association stated that the recent allegations levelled by one RK Pathan were completely erroneous and based completely on assumptions with a malicious intent.

"There seems to be a hidden motive and agenda behind these letters which are only addressed to derail the majesty of Indian Judiciary" the association stated.

4. Madras High Court Seeks State's Response To Plea For Dedicated Anti-Terrorism Squad

The Madras High Court on Monday directed the state government to file its response to a plea seeking to set up a dedicated Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in the state. The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar adjourned the case by four weeks for the state's counter.

The petitioner, B Jagannath, submitted that for maintaining law and order it is necessary to have foolproof technological and counter-terrorism support. Thus, it is necessary to set up an ATS. He contended that Tamilnadu is a very vulnerable geo-political geographic area and that it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens against any threats of LTTE, Radical Islamic Terrorist acts.

5. How Is Govt Permitting Life Damaging Online Games Despite Ban? Madras High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance

The Madurai bench of the Madras High recently took suo moto cognizance of increased addiction of online gaming among teenagers. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition relating to a missing girl, who was later found to be addicted to playing an online game called "free fire".

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad wondered how these online games were permitted despite being banned by the Government of India.

6. Are Pharmaceutical Companies Indulging in Illegal Activities To 'Spread' Viral Diseases? Madras High Court Seeks Report From State

The Madras High Court on Friday directed the State government to file a report on the reasons behind the frequent 'spread' of viral diseases in Tamil Nadu.

Justice SM Subramaniam passed the order while hearing a plea of a Medical Store officer who was accused of procuring excess medicine beyond permissible limit, which expired and caused great financial loss to the State Exchequer.

The court at the outset noted that there are "wider allegations in the public domain" that expired medicines are supplied to the poor patients in government hospitals. Justice Subramaniam also said that the public has doubts whether any miscreants are committing some illegalities "in the matter of spreading such diseases" for personal gain "in an organised manner.

7. Madras High Court Dismisses Thirumavalavan's Plea To Review Order Granting Permission For RSS Route March

The Madras High Court on Tuesday rejected a review application filed by Thol. Thirumavalavan, leader of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, seeking a review of the September 22nd order passed by the court granting permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct their route march.

The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the petitioner was not a party to the Writ Petitions and if he had any grievances over the order, he could very well file an appeal in the manner known to law.

8. Procure Equipment For Social Media Surveillance, Establish Special Cells At Earliest: Madras High Court to State

Stating that many individuals on Youtube are propagating "wrong and deceitful" information, the Madras High Court has said that the use of digital media "to vent ire" against constitutional functionaries and senior officers of the state and centre government "would not only be a personal attack on their privacy and prestige" but would also damage their reputation and have cascading effect on their work.

"The opinion among the public about the said officials would be blown to smithereens, which would not be in the interest of the Nation," Justice M. Dhandapani said.

The bench further said it had directed the constitution of Special Cells so that as and when complaints are received, the same could be dealt with and "the scurrilous acts" could be nipped in the bud.

9. PhonePe Trademark Suit: Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains MobilePe From Providing BHIM/ UPI Services

In a trademark infringement suit filed by Indian digital payments and financial technology company PhonePe, the Commercial Division of Madras High Court has temporarily restricted "MobilePe" from offering any UPI or BHIM services.

Justice M Sundar passed the interim order after prima facie satisfaction that a case of deception has been made out by PhonePe, which is in similar business. The Court said that instead of a side by side comparison, it stepped into the shoes of an average man with "ordinary prudence"and "imperfect recollection" and found a prima facie case of deception against MobilePe.

10. Coimbatore Car Blast: Litigant Approaches Madras HC Challenging BJP Bandh On October 31

A litigant has approached the Madras High Court against the alleged call for Bandh in the Coimbatore District by the Bharatiya Janata Party following the Car Cylinder Blast that happened on 23rd October.

Senior Advocate Mr. V Prakash appearing for the petitioner Mr Venkatesh, a resident of Coimbatore submitted before a bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy that following the Blast, BJP called for a bandh on the pretext that the State government has failed to take stern action against the terror attacks and the offenders.

11. Tamil Nadu Govt Seeks Recall Of Madras High Court's Order Quashing Sexual Harassment Case Against Godman Shivshankar Baba

Nearly two weeks after a case of sexual harassment was quashed against the self-styled godman Shiv Shankar Baba, the Tamil Nadu government has approached the Madras High Court seeking recall of the decision.

Additional Public Prosecutor A Damodaran on Friday made a mentioning before the bench of Justice RN Manjula for an urgent hearing. The bench agreed to hear the matter and decided to take it up on Monday.

On October 17, the bench had allowed a questioning petition filed by Baba after observing that no application to condone the delay was filed under Section 473 of CrPC.

12. Cannot Quash FIRs Merely On Basis Of Preliminary Enquiry Report: Tamil Nadu Govt To Madras High Court On SP Velumani's Quashing Petition

On the second day of the hearing of former minister SP Velumani's petitions seeking quashing of the two FIRs alleging irregularity in grant of tenders, the State argued that he cannot rely on the preliminary inquiry report to state that he was innocent.

The submission was made by Advocate General R Shunmughasundaram before a division bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice RMT Teeka Raman. The AG also argued that the court cannot make a decision in the quashing petitions only on the basis of a preliminary report, adding same would set a bad precedent.

Also Read: FIR Against Former AIADMK Minister SP Velumani Prima Facie Malafide, Court No Place For Political Parties To Score Over One Another: Madras HC

13. Tamil Nadu SHRC Asks Authorities To Provide Basic Amenities To Village With No Electricity For Over 4 Decades

Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) recently asked the government authorities to provide basic amenities to the residents of Thirupanipuram, observing that the villagers have been denied potable drinking water and electricity connection for the past several years.

The Commission said the constitutional right to access to clean drinking water can be drawn from the right to food, the right to clean environment and the right to health, all of which have been protected under the broad heading of the right to life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution

14. Instructions Issued by DGP To Permit RSS March On Nov 6: Tamil Nadu Govt To Madras High Court

The Tamil Nadu government on Monday told the Madras High Court that authorities have been directed to grant permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for its November 06 Route March, subject to the law and order situation prevailing in the area.

The submission was made before Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan in a batch of contempt cases filed by the members of the RSS alleging that the authorities had failed to comply with the court orders on grant of permission to it for conducting a route march at various places in Tamil Nadu.

The court was told that state Director General of Police (DGP) has instructed all Commissioners & Superintendents across Tamil Nadu to grant permission for the Route March on November 6 in compliance with the orders of the court. At the same time, the officers have been given liberty to impose conditions based on the law and order situation prevailing in the area.

15. Man Who Set Himself Ablaze In Madras HC Over Denial Of Tribal Certificate To Son Actually Belonged To SC Community: State Claims

Additional Advocate General J Ravindran on Monday told the Madras High Court that the man who set himself ablaze in the court premises over non issuance of community certificate to his son actually belonged to the Scheduled Caste (Hindu Kuravan) community and not the Scheduled Tribe community (as he had claimed in his application).

The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Krishnakumar had previously directed the District Revenue Officer to conduct a field enquiry and ascertain the facts related to the caste of the deceased Velmurugan.

AAG J Ravindran submitted the status report informing the court that the District Revenue Officer had conducted a detailed enquiry as per the directions of the court. He had sought information from the neighbours, school authorities and villagers of the deceased who confirmed that he belonged to Hindu Kuravan (SC) community. The villagers also confirmed that the ancestors of the deceased also belonged to this community.