Madras High Court Monthly Digest - October 2023
Upasana Sajeev
6 Nov 2023 9:30 AM IST
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 334 NOMINAL INDEX The Director General of Police v D Jayakumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296 The Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for Women (Autonomous) v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 297 Major General AK Gupta v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 298 Selva Muthukumar and Others v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad)...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
NOMINAL INDEX
The Director General of Police v D Jayakumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for Women (Autonomous) v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
Major General AK Gupta v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
Selva Muthukumar and Others v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
AS Shanmugha Rajan v Tamil Nadu Cricket Association and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
S Gurumurthy v S Doraisamy, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
Feeback Infra Pvt Ltd v. MSEF Council, Chennai – W.P. No. 25062 of 2023, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
TTF Vasan @ Vauikunthavasan v Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
M/s.Kaleeshwari Refinery Private Limited v Akshay A, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
G Moorthi v The Recovery Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
Ilampiraiyan v Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
IDFC Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Chennai District Collector and Others v T.V.S.Jaya Perumal (Died), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
N Ponnupillai v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
G Venkatesh v Bridge Federation of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
Arjunan Sampath @ Arjun Sampath v The Sub-Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
R Kumaraguru, Ex MLA v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
Praveen Kumar v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Shreya Bhattacharya v Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Dr.J.Kaja Moinudeen v The Authorization Committee (Transplantation), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
Tamil Nadu Football Association and Others v Pennar Junior FC and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
Dr Vinith v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
Mr K Ramachandran v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Tamil Nadu All Village Panchayat President Welfare Association v State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
Raja Desingu v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
Sutherson v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
V Senthil Balaji v The Deputy Director, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
B Mubeena v The State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
N.Uganchand Kumawat v The Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
M/s Jayapradha Cine Theatre v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
G.K.Reddy Versus DCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
Jemima Arumaithai and Another v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
Barakathullah and Others v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
P Prathap Kumar Nayak v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
S.Rajasekaran @ Satta Rajasekar v The State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
Dr.Pradeep Vasudevan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
Enforcement Directorate v TTV Dinakaran, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Additional Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s.N.C.Alexander, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
REPORTS
Case Title: The Director General of Police v D Jayakumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Madras High Court has recently observed that in cases where employees were suspended from service in connection with a crime, the suspension cannot continue endlessly without initiating disciplinary proceedings merely due to pendency of criminal case.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the employers could not continuously take a stand that it is not conducive to revoke the suspension of the employee while pendency of the criminal case. The court added that in every quarter of the year, the employer is to review the necessity for extending the suspension.
Case Title: The Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for Women (Autonomous) v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
The Madras High Court recently observed that the policy of reservation for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes cannot be implemented in Minority educational institutions.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu relied on the precedents laid down by the Supreme Court and reiterated that the exclusion of Minority Institutions from the ambit of Article 15(5), which empowers the state to make provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward communities, is not violative of Article 14 as minority institutions are a separate class.
Case Title: Major General AK Gupta v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of Major General AK Gupta for allegedly procuring supply/ration items during “Operation Pawan” of Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) troops in Srilanka in 1987, in violation of the prescribed procedures, rules, and regulations and thus causing heavy loss to the State.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the Investigating officer had filed the final report with truncated material and without scrutinising the materials in its entirety. The court also observed that the officer escaping from custody while being sent to face General court martial and thus getting the court martial proceeding time-barred had also weighed in the mind of the trial court. Thus, the court opined that benefit of doubt had to be extended to the officer.
Case Title: Selva Muthukumar and Others v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
While granting anticipatory bail to a group of students, the Madras High Court directed them to clean the classrooms for a week and to prepare handwritten notes on non-violence from the excerpts of Mahatma Gandhi, educational schemes promoted by former Chief Minister K Kamraj and dream and vision of Dr. Abdul Kalam.
Justice RMT Teeka Raman specifically directed the students to not prepare the articles using copy-paste from Google and asked the articles to be handed over to the School Principal of Montfort Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Yercaud who shall then host the articles on the school website for one year.
Case Title: AS Shanmugha Rajan v Tamil Nadu Cricket Association and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
The Madras High Court recently disposed of a Public Interest Litigation alleging that the authorities of the MA Chidambaram Stadium, commonly known as the Chepauk Stadium, overcharged people during the India-Australia One Day International Match on March 22.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that though the petitioner had claimed that food items were sold at a high price than the actual fixed market price, the details of the items were not submitted and thus the court could not arrive at a conclusion. The court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach any other authority for remedy.
Case Title: S Gurumurthy v S Doraisamy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
The Madras High Court has observed that in a democracy driven by free speech, the courts cannot insulate themselves from criticism and cannot use their contempt power as a "shield to choke the voice of citizens".
“In a democracy driven by free speech, the Court cannot seek the comfort of the cocoon or aim to insulate itself from criticisms, just or otherwise. Contempt power is not a shield to choke the voice of the citizen in a free country,” the court said.
Justice N Seshasayee added that the basis for contempt jurisdiction is to preserve public confidence in the judiciary but it is important to ensure that the power is not used as a privilege by the court to roam free. He added that the judiciary should speak through its performance and pass the scrutiny of the citizens with the quality of its performance. Thus, he added that the courts should not be hyper-sensitive to every statement made against the institution and waste time on it.
MSEF Council’s Order Without Following Due Procedure Can’t Be Termed As Award: Madras High Court
Case Title: Feeback Infra Pvt Ltd v. MSEF Council, Chennai – W.P. No. 25062 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
The High Court of Madras has held that an order passed by the MSEF Council without issuing notice of arbitration, opportunity to parties file their pleadings and recording evidence as per the provisions of A&C Act cannot be termed as award.
The bench of Justice S. Sounthar held that since such an order is not an award, it need not be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act r/w Section 19 of the MSMED Act as otherwise, the party aggrieved by such an order would have to deposit 75% of the awarded amount which would imbalance the equities.
The Court held that the aggrieved party can directly invoke the writ remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High court recently allowed a company to file a Statutory Appeal against the Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) even though the limitation period to file an appeal had expired after noting that the company failed to access the notice in the GST portal.
Justice C Saravanan observed that though the Supreme Court has held that orders could not be challenged under Article 226, the court was inclined to consider the company’s case and condone the delay of 58 days. The court thus directed the company to file the Statutory Appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of the order which shall then be considered by the Appellate Commissioner on merits.
Case Title: TTF Vasan @ Vauikunthavasan v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court has denied bail to YouTuber and biker TTF Vasan who was arrested in September this year for rash driving after he was injured while performing a "wheelie" in the Chennai-Bengaluru highway.
Justice CV Karthikeyan noted that the youtuber, who has around 4.5 million followers should learn a lesson. The court took note of the Additional Public Prosecutor's submission that the youtuber had a large influence on youngsters, who ended up asking their parents to buy expensive bikes, and ended riding them in a rash manner on public roads.
Case Title: M/s.Kaleeshwari Refinery Private Limited v Akshay A
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
The Madras High Court has directed YouTuber Akshay A, who own the channel “DiCapScoop”, to pay Rs. 7 Lakh as damages to Kaleeshwari Refinery Private Limited, makers of “Gold Winner” oil.
Justice RN Manjula made the order in a plea moved by the company saying that Akshay had misled his viewers in a recent video where he claimed that one litre 'Gold Winner' oil is selling 300 ml less and the consumers got only 700 ml of oil.
Noting that Akshay’s actions were with an intention to defame the product, the court observed,
“The damaging statements made by the defendant in the audio and visual mode has been transmitted in a social media like YouTube, which has large viewers base. So the defendant has not only made statements which are defamatory in nature but also transmitted it to be received and viewed by others. So the plaintiff has proved all the essential elements that should be proved in a case for defamation,” the court said.
Case Title: G Moorthi v The Recovery Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court recently observed that PAN particulars are only one of the modes to identify an individual and merely because a wrong PAN number was given in the order by the Adjudicating officer of SEBI, a person could not escape payment of interest.
Justice N Seshasayee observed that when the penalty itself was paid, the petitioner could not escape payment of interest which was merely incidental to the penalty, by claiming that the order had wrong PAN particulars.
Case Title: Ilampiraiyan v Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court recently observed that while taking cognisance of a complaint under Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate could not look into the veracity of the witnesses. The court added that at the cognisance stage, the Magistrate could only check whether prima facie materials were available to constitute an offence or not.
Justice P Dhanabal of the Madurai bench relied on an earlier decision of the High Court in Mukesh Jain S/o.Prem Chand vs. Balachander and observed that at the cognisance stage, the Magistrate had to look into the complaint and other documents along with the sworn statement to see if a prima facie case was made out.
Case Title: IDFC Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings against the IDFC as the department failed to produce any new or tangible information to justify the reopening of the assessment.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has observed that the information already on file that was examined in the first instance cannot satisfy the legislative requirement under Section 148 Explanation 1, which calls for the department to have such evidence that implies the income has escaped assessment.
Case Title: The Chennai District Collector and Others v T.V.S.Jaya Perumal (Died)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a family struggling to secure family pension for the past 36 years. The court also observed that the authorities' conduct in making the family run from pillar to post for the past 36 years during which time the wife of the deceased employee had also died was not merely unlawful, arbitrary but “inhuman”.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice C Kumarappan also directed the State to make amendments to existing laws or bring in effective mechanisms to the existing laws to see that the retirement cum death benefits are paid to the families within a period of six months.
The court thus opined that the authorities could take the present case as a model case to streamline the issues pertaining to settling family pensions and to bring in a mechanism in tune with the existing laws.
Case Title: N Ponnupillai v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Noting that due respect must be shown to the departed souls who worked as frontline workers during COVID-19, the Madras High Court recently directed the State to pay just and adequate compensation to the family of the deceased family.
Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench observed that the compensation of Rs. 50,000 which was already paid to the family of the man, who was serving as a Scavenger in the Municipality during COVID-19 was not sufficient. The court thus directed the authorities that the issue shall be considered in light of any existing scheme and an enhanced compensation may be given respecting the departed soul.
Case Title: G Venkatesh v Bridge Federation of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
While refusing to interfere with an order denying permission to an Overseas Citizen of India to participate in International Bridge tournaments on behalf of the Bridge Federation of India, the Madras High Court observed that the policy framed by the Central Government clearly stated that only Indians could participate in such tournaments and in such cases, the courts could not be called upon to interfere.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji thus refused to interfere with an order of the single judge dismissing the writ filed by the overseas Indian citizen seeking to be treated on par with NRIs.
The court also observed that as per the notification, the overseas Indian citizens were given the same privileges of a foreigner only for specific clause and in the present case, the petitioner Vignesh did not fall in any of the clauses and thus he was not entitled to any other right or privilege that an Indian citizen or a Non-resident Indian enjoyed.
Case Title: Arjunan Sampath @ Arjun Sampath v The Sub-Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court has quashed the proceedings against the President of the Hindu Makkal Katchi party Arjun Sampath pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam for violating the Code of Conduct during the 2019 Parliamentary Elections.
It was alleged that on April 5, 2019, Arjun along with his driver were canvassing votes for their political party without seeking any prior permission and had thus violated the Code of Conduct and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. As per Section 4AA (1-a) of the Act, no person shall affix to inscribe or exhibit any motor vehicle, any poster or any effigy, or any bill, notice, document, paper or other thing containing any words, signs, or visible representation. Thus, the vehicle was seized and handed over to the police and a case was registered against the duo.
Justice D Nagarjun of the Madurai bench, however, observed that the offences under the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 will not be attracted in the present case as the police had failed to produce any poster, banner or bill which was allegedly affixed on Sampath’s motor vehicle.
Case Title: R Kumaraguru, Ex MLA v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
The Madras High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to AIADMK MLA Kumaraguru after noting that the MLA had tendered a public apology on October 9th to Chief Minister Stalin and State Minister Udayanidhi Stalin, for making derogatory remarks against them.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that considering the public apology and the fact that Kumaraguru had immediately shown regret for his speeches, anticipatory bail could be granted.
Kumaraguru had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail after a case was registered against him for allegedly making defamatory and derogatory statements against the Chief Minister and the Youth Welfare Minister in a public meeting held on September 19, 2023.
Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Expert Committee For Monitoring Rogue Elephant Arikomban
Case Title: Praveen Kumar v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking monitoring of the rogue elephant Arikomban and to forbear the authorities from using tranquilizers on the elephant.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan took note of the submission made by the authorities that all necessary steps were being taken to monitor the movements and health of the elephant at Periyar Tiger Reserve and dismissed the petition.
The petitioner, Praveen Kumar from Kerala had filed the plea to forbear the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Chief Conservator of Forest and Field Director from using tranquilizers to prevent Arikomban from entering into agricultural lands and to monitor his activities with the help of a satellite radio collar. The petition also called for the appointment of an expert team including Adivasis to monitor his movements and to pave pathways into deep forests
Case Title: Shreya Bhattacharya v Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Coming to the aid of a class 8 student, the Madras High Court recently directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to relax the age-criteria and to give admission to the petitioner student.
Justice N Seshasayee observed that an admission guideline regarding age restriction was only a guideline of the school and did not have the force of a statute. The court further held that the could not be seen as "commandments of solomon" and must be construed reasonably especially when its strict compliance brought hardship.
The court also observed that Kendriya Vidyalaya's policy putting age-bar for young children in Classes 1-11 and lifting the age-bar for students in Class 12 who were nearing adulthood was both baffling and disturbed the conscience of the court.
Case Title: Dr.J.Kaja Moinudeen v The Authorization Committee (Transplantation)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that as per Section 9(3) of the Transplantation Of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Rules 14 and 19 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, transplantation has been permitted from non-relative donors and hospitals denying such transplants is plainly illegal.
Justice N Seshasayee also commented that the apprehensions of the hospitals is mostly due to inadequate awareness of the law on the subject. The court was thus of the opinion that proper legal education on the subject was necessary for physicians and hospitals and the government had to ensure the same.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Football Association and Others v Pennar Junior FC and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
The Madras High Court recently appointed an administrative committee headed by Justice AK Rajan (Retd) and consisting four other members to look into the affairs of the Tamil Nadu Football Association till a new administrative committee was appointed.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq was hearing an appeal preferred by the association again the order of a single judge finding it guilty of wilfully disobeying an earlier court order with respect to the management of the association and conduct of election to the association. Noting that disputes between the associations were depriving opportunities for young players, the court stressed that sports symbolises the spirit of brotherhood, tolerance, mutual respect, leadership quality, command and communication, fostering the spirit of accepting victory and defeat as one and the same.
Case Title: Dr Vinith v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a Doctor allegedly for causing the death of a patient due to a hair transplant.
Justice Sivagnanam said the matter needs to be adjudicated on the facts of the case which the High Court could not do under Section 482 CrPC. The court added that questions such as fitness of the centre to do hair transplants and competency of the doctor to perform the surgery had to be looked into, which required enquiry. Thus, finding that the plea did not meet the parameters for quashing the proceedings as laid down by the Supreme court, the court dismissed the petitions.
Case Title: Mr K Ramachandran v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to consider permitting the screening of the upcoming Vijay starrer 'Leo' movie from 7 a.m. instead of 9 a.m.
Justice Anita Sumanth made the directions on a plea filed by K Ramachandran, producer of the film seeking permission for screening of a special show from 7 a.m. and to permit an additional special show on the date of release at 4 am.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu All Village Panchayat President Welfare Association v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
While hearing a plea seeking to give powers to the Panchayat Presidents to invite and accept tenders in the Jal Jeevan Mission scheme, the Madras High Court commented that work in such schemes falls within the domain of the local bodies and the panchayat presidents should not be bypassed and reduced to the level of a rubber stamp.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus took a different view than the one already taken by a single judge pertaining to the same facts. The judge, however suggested that since a single judge had already rejected a plea in this regard, it was not appropriate for him to allow the petition and thus directed the registry to place the papers before the Chief Justice to take a call on the matter.
Case Title: Raja Desingu v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
While directing the police authorities in the State to grant permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to carry out route marches, the Madras High Court observed that the State’s decision to deny permission in the first instance was against the secular and constitutional principles in the State.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the state had denied permission to RSS by merely stating that there were other structures and places of worship in the intended route which was against the constitutional principle of Secularism.
Case Title: Sutherson v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High Court recently directed the trial of a murder case to be conducted inside the prison premises keeping in mind the life threat to the accused and the victims in the case. Noting that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary remedies, the court added that its powers were not fettered and could be used in extraordinary situations.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan was hearing an appeal by one Sutherson against the rejection of bail by the Special Court in Thoothukudi. The allegation against Sutherson was that he was involved in the murder of one Muthukumar, a practicing advocate in the Thoothukudi and the Tirunelveli Bar Association.
Madras High Court Refuses Bail To Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji On Medical Grounds
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
The Madras High Court on Thursday rejected the bail plea by Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June this year in connection with a cash-for-job money laundering case.
Justice G Jayachandran dismissed the application made by the Minister seeking bail on Medical grounds. The court observed that Balaji's medical condition was not one that could be taken care of only if he was released on bail.
The court also added that Balaji's present position as a Minister without portfolio, abscondance, and non-cooperation by his brother and co-accused Ashok Kumar and the attacks on the income tax officials during the time of the raid would all lead to a conclusion that he could directly or indirectly influence the witnesses.
Case Title: B Mubeena v The State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court has granted interim bail to SA Basha, founder of the banned terrorist organization Al-Ummah and one of the convicts in the 1998 Coimbatore Blasts case.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan decided to grant him interim bail for a period of 3 months after noting that he is bedridden and undergoing treatment in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. The court thus granted bail on the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Considering that Basha was taking treatment for his illness, the court also deemed it fit to dispense his reporting before the local police station. The court however directed the State authorities to submit a report regarding his conduct before the expiry of the three-month period and asked Basha not to leave the State of Tamil Nadu without informing the local police station in writing.
Case Title: N.Uganchand Kumawat v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
The Madras High Court recently emphasised that as per Section 52(A) of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, the samples have to be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate and merely producing the samples before the court after seizing it is not sufficient to fulfil such condition.
Justice P Dhanabal thus set aside the conviction of a man under the Act as the prosecution agency had failed to follow the procedures laid down under the Act and by the Apex Court.
Case Title: M/s Jayapradha Cine Theatre v. Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
The Madras High Court has refused to suspend the sentence against actress and former Member of Parliament Jayaprada and others in a case pertaining to non-payment of dues under the Employee State Insurance Act.
Jayapradha and other partners of the Jayaprada Cine Theatre were sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000 in April this year by a Metropolitan Magistrate Court. Though they had sought for suspension of sentence, the Principal District and Sessions Judge had dismissed the applications.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the appellate court was right in refusing to suspend the sentence when the accused had not surrendered or appeared before the trial court on the date of judgment. Looking into the history of the case and the conduct of the case, the court observed that the track record of the case justified the order.
Case Title: G.K.Reddy Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Madras High Court has directed the income tax department to lift the attachment of the pension account of the assessee considering his age and ailment.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq passed this order noting that the entire pension amount, with arrears, is lying in the bank account of the appellant or assessee. It is also seen that only a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 lying in that account relates to other amounts.
Case Title: Jemima Arumaithai and Another v The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of two Tamil women claiming compensation for the death of their husbands in Nigeria.
Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the court was not in a position to issue any positive direction as Nigeria was not included in the compendium issued by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs for getting reliefs for Indian Nationals who died abroad. However, considering that the petitioners were young poor widows who could not pursue litigations in Nigeria, the court directed the Centre and the respective embassies to pursue representation with the company where the husbands were employed as per the compensation rules in Nigeria.
Case Title: Barakathullah and Others v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to eight men, who were allegedly office bearers, members and cadres of the Popular Front Of India (PFI) and were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for conspiring to commit terrorist act in various part of India.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan opined that the documents collected by the prosecution did not link any of the appellants directly to the offences alleged and hence the special court had erred in denying them bail.
Case Title: P Prathap Kumar Nayak v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of an Army Jawan who was sentenced to ten years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 by a POCSO Court.
Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup observed that though the prosecution had claimed that there was insertion resulting in bleeding, there was no evidence to prove aggravated sexual assault and thus the allegations were without any medical evidence. The court further observed that when the charges were not proved by medical evidence, mechanical application of presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would result in the miscarriage of justice.
Case Title: S.Rajasekaran @ Satta Rajasekar v The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant bail to a man who had misrepresented himself as being a lawyer and cheated a client, the complainant.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan dismissed the appeal preferred by the man against conviction by a Special Court by observing that the special judge had rightly denied bail in the interest of society.
The court noted that Rajasekaran had committed serious offences by abusing the defacto complainant using a caste name in public places, receiving fees by claiming himself to be an Advocate and refusing to repay the fee already collected.
Relying upon the precedent laid down by the Apex court with respect to considering bail applications, the court opined that the special judge was right in dismissing the bail plea in the interest of society and thus dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Dr.Pradeep Vasudevan v The State of Tamil nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
The Madras High Court recently observed that the period of quarantine during the covid duty rendered by post graduate medical students will be considered to be a part of the bond period.
Justice Anita Sumanth observed that the quarantine period was nothing but an extension of the covid duty itself and thus gave relief to a student who wanted his quarantine period of 150 days during the covid duty to be included in the mandatory bond period.
Case Title: Enforcement Directorate v TTV Dinakaran
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Madras High Court recently observed that the term 'decree' or 'order' used in the Presidency Town Insolvency Act 1909, is not limited to a decree of the civil court but would include an order passed by an empowered authority under a statute after following the adjudicatory process.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Kalaimathi were hearing an appeal preferred by the Enforcement Directorate against an order of a single judge setting aside an insolvency notice issued to former Tamil Nadu MLA TTV Dinakaran. The court also observed that the order passed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was one passed after proper adjudication and thus, the same would be an order/decree under the Insolvency Act giving rise to an enforceable debt.
Case Title: The Additional Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s.N.C.Alexander
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court has directed the customs department to release fresh apples imported from New Zealand on the furnishing of bank guarantees towards differential duty. The Madras High Court has directed the customs department to release fresh apples imported from New Zealand on the furnishing of bank guarantees towards differential duty.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that the nature of the subject goods, viz., fresh apples, which are perishable in nature and are meant for human consumption, made the court find it appropriate to order the release of the goods, however, subject to the condition that the assessee or respondent shall furnish a bank guarantee to the value of differential duty to be determined by the authority in order to safeguard the interests of the department.
