Madras High Court Monthly Digest - October 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

K Sethuraj v State of Tamil Nadu (and other connected cases), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

Suo Motu v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 372

M/s.Sterling Futures and Holidays Ltd. v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 373

AR Dairy Food Private Limited v The Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 374

G Prem Kumar v District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 375

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Department v. M/s. Supreme Coaters & Fabricators, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 376

V.Kannan @ Kanal Kannan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378

P Pappu v The Sub Registrar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

S.Srinivasan v The Assistant Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

M/s. Aqua Excel v. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

Muthukumar v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

M.S. Mohamed Siddique & Co. v. The Assessment Unit/Verification unit/ Technical Unit/Review Unit Income Tax Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 383

Harris Jayaraj v The Joint Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

K.A.Meeran Mohideen v Sheik Amjad and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

Abdul Gani Raja v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

Jacob v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

The Assistant Director (PMLA) v Ashok Anand, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

Tmt.S.Sindhu v Tamil Nadu State represented by Drugs Inspector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 389

A Shankar and Another v RS Bharathi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

Veera Bharathi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

G.Shrilakshmi v Anirudh Ramkumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

P. Ananda Kumar v The Director General of Police (Prison) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

S Porkodi v The Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

Ahmed Mansoor and Others v The State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

N. Manoharan v G Sivakumar and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

The Management v. R. Parthiban, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Offshore Infrastructures Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

MRB Nurses Empowerment Association v. The Principal Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

Rev.Fr.Savarimuthu and Others v V.S.Jeyapandi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

The Director, Directorate of Medical Education and Research and Others v Jubil Timothy and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

The Regional Officer, NHAI v K Vasuki and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

S.Harikumar v The Presiding Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

M/s Challani Rank Jewellery and Others v Ashok Kumar Jain, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

ABC v. XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

Mahalingam Balaji v. The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

The Assistant Director v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 409

K Jayakumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 410

DMK ICF Labour Union v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

Suo Motu v The Deputy Superintendent and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 412

S Kalavathi v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

R v B, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 414

REPORTS

Madras High Court Gives Nod To RSS Route March Proposed For Sunday, Says State Flouted Order Laying Down Guidelines For Future Marches

Case Title: K Sethuraj v State of Tamil Nadu (and other connected cases)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

The Madras High Court on Tuesday permitted the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct its proposed route march on the occasion of Vijayadasami.

A single judge bench of Justice G Jayachandran permitted the route marches to be carried out as per the earlier guidelines issued by the High Court in January this year for conducting the route marches. The court had also commented that despite detailed guidelines of the court previously, the government had flouted the orders forcing the organisers to approach the court again.

The court also orally remarked that the police were expected to protect the public as well as the organisers and could not avoid giving permissions for such permissions for route marches citing law and order problems. The court said that it expected the police in the state to follow the court orders at least in the future and not trouble the court by inventing new and fanciful reasons for rejection.

Madras HC Orders CBI Probe Into Sexual Abuse Of Minor After Her Parents Allegedly Beaten Up By Police, Audio Clip Of Victim's Statement Leaked

Case Title: Suo Motu v The Deputy Commissioner of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 372

The Madras High Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation of a case relating to the sexual assault of a minor girl in Anna Nagar in Chennai.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam asked the CBI to take over the case as the court was not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation was being carried out by the State police. The court noted that the victim's examination was conducted in the busy corridors of the Kilpauk Government Medical College and her parents were allegedly beaten up in the police station while the alleged accused was given a chair to sit.

The court also noted that the video and audio of the examination of the witness were publicized online and instead of finding the person who had shared the files in the first place, the police had merely registered FIRs against a Youtuber and a Journalist who had shared the files and who talked about the incident.

S.70 PMLA | Properties Purchased Prior To Scheduled Offence Can Be Attached Even If Not Purchased With Proceeds Of Crime: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Sterling Futures and Holidays Ltd. v Directorate of Enforcement,

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 373

The Madras High Court recently observed that under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the properties that are acquired even before the alleged scheduled offence could be attached when criminal activity has taken place outside the country. The court highlighted that the properties sought to be attached need not be purchased from and out of the proceeds of crime.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam also noted that as per Section 70 of the Act, a company could be prosecuted and the prosecution or conviction of the company, which is a legal jurisdictional person will not be dependent on the prosecution or conviction of any individual.

Tirupati Temple Laddu Case | Madras High Court Asks Licensing Authority To Issue Fresh Notice To Dairy Company, Give Reasonable Time To Respond

Case Title: AR Dairy Food Private Limited v The Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 374

The Madras High Court, on Thursday, directed the Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu to issue a fresh notice to AR Dairy Food Private Limited on allegations of supplying adulterated ghee to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam for making of laddu.

Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the authority had issued the show cause notices for suspending the license merely on the basis of a report from a laboratory in Gujarat, without following the due provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation 2011. The court noted that the authority should have given a reasonable time to the company to respond to the show cause notice.

The court also noted that the impugned notice issued by the authority contained vague allegations and did not contain details of the specific violation committed by the dairy unit. The court reiterated the Supreme Court's remark to conduct an investigation by keeping God away from politics. The court thus asked the authority to issue a fresh notice to the company, containing details of the allegations and to give a reasonable time to the company to respond.

National Highways Dept Cannot Deny Payment Of Compensation Amount MerelyBased On Objection Due To Title Dispute: Madras High Court

Case Title: G Prem Kumar v District Collector

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 375

The Madras High Court recently directed the National Highways Department to disburse the compensation amount to a man who had a better title to the property but was not given compensation due to a title dispute.

Justice N Satish Kumar noted that the objection was made after a long time which showed an attempt to make inroads the property sold in 1972.

Notice of Assessment Issued Within Limitation, Assessment Order Valid Even If Passed Beyond Three-Year Period: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Department v. M/s. Supreme Coaters & Fabricators

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 376

The Madras High Court stated that if notice for completing assessment issued within limitation, then assessment order is within time even if passed beyond period of three years.

The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “as per Section 24(5), no assessment shall be made after a period of three years from the end of the year to which the return under the Act relates. The test to be applied is whether the notice for completing the assessment was issued within limitation i.e., three years to which the returns relate to. If so, even if the Assessment Order is passed beyond the period of three years, it will be in time.”

Person Whose Actions Provoke Speech Cannot Take Advantage Of Such Provocation And Prosecute Others For Their Reaction: Madras High Court

Case Title: V.Kannan @ Kanal Kannan v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against Kannan @ Kanal Kannan for his statements on the statue of Periyar containing statements against believers, being placed outside a Hindu Temple.

Justice G Jayachandran noted that the statue contained provocative words against believers which was the cause of Kannan's speech and thus the person who provoked the speech could not seek prosecution for a reaction to his own provocation.

The court noted that after uploading the speech on YouTube, there had been no disturbance to public peace or tranquility, no riot, or no promotion of enmity between classes. The court further observed that before installing the statue, the members of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, of which the defacto complainant was a member, should have realized that the plaque on the statue would hurt the sentiments of the believers.

“Benevolent Object”: Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Leasing Of 2.5 Acres Temple Land For Building College

Case Title: TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378

The Madras High Court recently refused to quash an order leasing 2.50 acres of land belonging to Sri Somanathaswamy Temple in Kolathur to Sri Kapaliswarar Temple in Mylapore for 25 years to establish an Arts and Science College.

Justice M Dhandapani noted that on perusal, the impugned order appeared to be for a benevolent object. The court noted that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage when the petitioner had the option to raise his grievance before the appropriate authority. The court thus gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department with his objections/suggestions and directed the authorities to consider the same on merits.

Rule 55-A TN Registration Rules Has No Statutory Authority, Introduced Only To Enable Registrars To Refuse Registration Indiscriminately: Madras HC

Case Title: P Pappu v The Sub Registrar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

The Madras High Court recently observed that Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which gives powers to a Registrar to refuse registration had no statutory authority.

As per Rule 55A, The registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation.

Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel observed that the Rule was introduced only to enable Registrars to refuse to register instruments indiscriminately. The court added that the Registrars were conferred certain powers under Section 68 of the Registration Act, and the power to issue any order needed to be consistent with the Act.

Mere Possession Of 'Proceeds Of Crime' Sufficient To Invoke PMLA, HC Cannot Restrict Its Meaning To Restrain Authorities: Madras High Court

Case Title: S.Srinivasan v The Assistant Director

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

The Madras High Court recently observed that the expression money laundering, as defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has a wider meaning and the provisions of the Act could be invoked against a person for mere possession of proceeds of crime. The court added that since Section 3 is wider, the court could not restrict its meaning to restrain authorities from invoking the provisions of PMLA.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that the expression money laundering ordinarily meant placing, layering and integrating tainted property in the formal economy, since the Section has wider reach it would capture every process and activity dealing with proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly and not limited to happening of the final act of integration.

Goods Shall Be Released Provisionally If Assessee Demonstrates Inclusion Of Transaction In GSTR-1 Return: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Aqua Excel v. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

The Madras High Court stated that if the assessee is able to demonstrate that the transaction is included in the GSTR-1 Return, the goods shall be released provisionally.

The Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq directed the assessee to submit a copy of the GSTR-1 report, as it would reveal whether the subject transaction was disclosed as a zero-rated sale.

Samsung India Workers Strike: Madras HC Closes Plea Against Arrest Of Workers After State Informs That They Have Been Let Off

Case Title: Muthukumar v State and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

The Madras High Court has closed a habeas corpus petition filed against the illegal arrest and detention of workers agitating at the Samsung India unit in Chennai.

The bench of Justice PB Balaji and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after noting the submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor who informed the court that the arrested persons had already been let off on October 8^th after the Sriperumbudur Judicial Magistrate refused to accept the remand.

Noting the submission of the APP that there was no illegal custody and that the persons had already been set at liberty, the court noted that no further orders were required in the habeas corpus plea. The court also noted that the necessary safeguards had already been put in place in an earlier order of the High Court laying down certain directions to be considered at the time of the strike.

Income Tax Assessee Who Failed To Avail Option To Request Personal Hearing Can't Claim That Personal Hearing Was Not Provided: Madras HC

Case Title: M.S. Mohamed Siddique & Co. v. The Assessment Unit/Verification unit/ Technical Unit/Review Unit Income Tax Department

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 383

The Madras High Court ruled that if an assessee does not take advantage of the opportunity to request a personal hearing from the department, they cannot later claim that they were denied a personal hearing.

The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “……though the department has given liberty to the assessee to request for personal hearing, the assessee failed to avail such an option. Therefore, the question of violation of natural justice will not arise.”

The bench observed that after considering the reply, the assessment officer decided to take entire receipt as shown in the ITR as income of the assessee and decided to pass assessment order. On the other hand, the assessee filed the returns taking 28% as profit out of the total receipt in terms of Section 44A of the Act. When the (respondent) department rejected the reply of the assessee and decided to take entire receipt as income and proceeded to pass the assessment order, the department ought to have afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee.

Madras High Court Declines To Set Aside Show Cause Notice Issued To Musician Harris Jayaraj By GST Department

Case Title: Harris Jayaraj v The Joint Director and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

The Madras High Court has disposed of a petition filed by musician Harris Jayaraj challenging a show cause notice issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DCGI).

Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice C Saravanan observed that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had already ruled that show cause notices could not be challenged and the aggrieved persons could raise their objections before the adjudicating authority/assessing authority. The court thus held that the musician could raise his grounds and objections against the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority/ assessing authority/ revenue and the same could be decided on merits.

General Power Of Attorney Executed Jointly By More Than One Principal Doesn't Automatically Terminate On Death Of One Principal: Madras HC

Case Title: K.A.Meeran Mohideen v Sheik Amjad and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

The Madras High Court has ruled that when a general power of attorney is executed jointly by more than one principal, the death of one principal would not automatically terminate the agency.

Asnwering a reference, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel held that the question of termination would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and would depend upon the intention of the parties at the time of execution of the power of attorney.

The court observed that if the intention was to continue the power even after death, the agency would continue will the object sought to be achieved is complete and if there was a specific interest in the agency, the agency would be terminated in respect of the principal who dies.

Penetration With Male Organ Not Necessary To Constitute Rape, Penetration Could Be With Any Body Part, Object Or Even An Attempt: Madras HC

Case Title: Abdul Gani Raja v The State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that to constitute an offence of rape, penetration using the male organ is not necessary and any penetration using any body part or object or even an attempt to penetrate or manipulate a body part could be considered under rape.

Justice K Murali Shankar observed that post the 2013 amendment to the criminal laws, the definition of rape had become broader. The court noted that while the pre-amendment definition mandated penetration with a male organ to constitute sexual intercourse, this main ingredient was removed by way of the amendment. The court added that the use of fingers, objects or any body part to penetrate or manipulate was sufficient to constitute the offence of rape.

Criminal Accusation Doesn't Imply One Should Surrender All Comforts To Participate In Trial: Madras HC Grants Relief To Octogenarian Accused

Case Title: Jacob v The State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of an octogenarian with Parkinsons disease by directing Special Court for CBI cases to frame charges in a case against him through video conferencing, as per Section 355 of the BNSS.

Justice N Seshasayee observed that merely because a person was facing criminal accusations, it would not imply that he should surrender all his comforts and convenience to participate in the trial proceedings. The court added that it was imperative to make life of litigants least convenient. The court added that courts must always resort to technology whenever possible to make life more convenient for all concerned.

The court added that as per Explanation to Section 355 of BNSS, personal attendance of the accused also included his attendance through audio-video electronic means. The court noted that the explanation showed the need to incorporate and integrate technology into the procedure and it was appropriate for the courts to resort to the same.

Pendency Of Criminal Appeal Against Conviction In Schedule Offence Not Bar For Proceeding With PMLA Trial: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Assistant Director (PMLA) v Ashok Anand

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

The Madras High Court recently observed that pendency of a criminal appeal against the conviction in a schedule offence is not a bar to proceed wit trial in the PMLA case.

The court stressed that the schedule case and the PMLA case are distinct and different and thus the trial in money laundering case could not be postponed merely on the pendency of a criminal appeal in the schedule case.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that the offence of money laundering had wider ramifications and could not be equated with offence under penal laws. The court added that though schedule offence is a prerequisite for initiation of proceedings under PMLA, once initiated it became independent and had to be dealt with separately.

TN Siddha Medical Council Members Permitted To Practice Modern Medicine But Not To Store Allopathy Medicine Without License: Madras HC

Case Title: Tmt.S.Sindhu v Tamil Nadu State represented by Drugs Inspector,

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 389

The Madras High Court recently observed that while the Siddha practitioners in the State of Tamil Nadu were not barred from practicing modern medicine, they could not store allopathy medicine as the same would be in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The court thus refused to quash a case registered against a Siddha Doctor for storing allopathy medicines in contravention of the Act.

Justice G Jayachandran observed that while there was no bar on Siddha practitioners to practice modern medicine, the case against the doctor was that she had stocked drugs without a license which was in contravention of the Act.

The court noted that as per GO Ms.No.248, issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department on September 8, 2010, the registered members of the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council were permitted to practice modern scientific system of medicine. However, the court noted that as per Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, any drug could be stored for distribution, sale, exhibition etc only with license issued for the said purpose.

"Judges Can't Hide Behind Curtains": Madras HC Dismisses Savukku Shankar's Contempt Plea Against DMK Leader For Alleged Comments On Sitting Judge

Case Title: A Shankar and Another v RS Bharathi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

The Madras High Court, on Friday, dismissed a contempt petition filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar against DMK Organisation Secretary RS Bharathi for the latter's comment against Justice N Anand Venkatesh.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that Justice Venkatesh himself had expressed that he did not want to initiate contempt proceedings. The court also noted that the Advocate General had refused to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Bharathi.

The court remarked that citizens were free to access and criticize the conduct of those holding public office. The bench added that transparency was the foundation of the judiciary and that judges could not hide behind curtains.

Governor Bound By Cabinet's Recommendation On Premature Release Of Life Convict: Madras High Court

Case Title: Veera Bharathi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Governor of a State is bound by the decision of the State Cabinet with respect to the recommendations regarding the premature release of convicts.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam observed that the power under Article 161 to is to be exercised by the State Government and not the Governor on his own. The bench added that the Governor was bound by the advice of the appropriate Government.

The court added that the Tamil Nadu government had issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms). No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department setting out the eligibility criteria for premature release of life convicts. The court noted that this GO was statutory in nature as it was passed under Section 432 of the CrPC giving power to the State to suspend or remit sentences. The court thus held that the power of remission under Article 161 was to be exercised by the State Government and the Governor was bound by the decision of the State.

Family Courts Should Not Insist On Physical Presence Of Parties While Presenting Petition And For Future Hearings: Madras High Court

Case Title: G.Shrilakshmi v Anirudh Ramkumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

In a significant decision, the Madras High Court has held that the Family Courts should not insist on the physical presence of the parties/spouses at the time of presenting the petition and for future hearings.

Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed that virtual proceedings provided an opportunity to modernize the system and make it more affordable and citizen-friendly. The court thus held that family courts should make use of the video conferencing facilities without insisting on the physical presence of the parties and should not raise technical objections by insisting on the physical presence at any stage.

The court noted that Section 530 of the BNSS emphasized holding even criminal trials through electronic mode. The court added that recently, the justice dispensation system has seen much advancement in the use of technology, and the family court's insistence on physical presence would defeat the very purpose of the video conferencing facility.

Mutual Respect Between Lawyers And Prison Authorities Paramount To Vindicate Grievances Of Prisoners: Madras High Court

Case Title: P. Ananda Kumar v The Director General of Police (Prison) and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

The Madras High Court recently observed that mutual respect between lawyers and prison authorities was paramount to vindicating the grievances of the prisoners. The court added that both the lawyers and the prison authorities were working for the benefit of the prisoners and must ensure mutual respect through the process.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam added that the prison authorities were expected to provide all reasonable facilities to the lawyers and treat them with dignity while the lawyers were also expected to respect the prison authorities while performing their duties in a lawful manner.

Plea Opposing Online Release Of Vikram Starrer 'Thangalaan' For Allegedly Targeting Vaishnavites Withdrawn From Madras High Court

Case Title: S Porkodi v The Secretary to Government of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

A plea challenging the online release of Vikram starrer 'Thangalaan' was withdrawn in the Madras High Court last week.

The withdrawal of the petition has paved way for the online release of the movie which has been directed by PA Ranjith.

A division bench of Chief Justice KR Sriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy in its October 19 order noted the submissions and dismissed the case as withdrawn. The plea claimed that the movie targeted Vaishnavites and had sought a stay on its online release.

The plea was filed by Porkodi of Thiruvallur District claiming that the movie speaks about Buddhism and shows religious variation between Vaishnavites and Buddhists by showing Vashnavism and Vaishnavites in a comic role and Buddhism and Buddhists in a sacred role.

UAPA | Requirements Of S.43B Met When Remand Requisition Report Containing Grounds Of Arrest Is Served On Accused: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ahmed Mansoor and Others v The State and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

The Madras High Court recently observed that the requirements under Section 43B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is met when the remand requisition report, containing the grounds of arrest is served on the accused.

As per Section 43B of the UAPA, any officer arresting a person under Section 43A shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.

A remand requisition report is a document prepared by the investigating agency seeking remand of the arrested persons under Section 167 before the Magistrate. It contains the grounds of arrest and copy of the police diary entries.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that when the grounds of arrest were made available in the remand requisition report which was served to the accused before arrest in the presence of his lawyer, the fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 43B of the UAPA were complied with.

Magistrate Can Take Cognisance Of Offence Based On Protest Petition Even If He Declined To Take Cognisance Of Police Report: Madras High Court

Case Title: N. Manoharan v G Sivakumar and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

The Madras High Court recently observed that the Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance of an offense based on a complaint or a protest petition after filing the final report even if he had earlier declined to take cognizance based on the police report.

Justice P Dhanabal observed that the Magistrate could take cognizance even if the accused persons were discharged. The court noted that while exercising this judicial discretion, the Magistrate was expected to apply his mind to the contents of the protest petition

Employer Must Substantiate Misconduct Charges With Documentary Evidence, Mere Allegations Without Proof Insufficient: Madras HC

Case Title: The Management v. R. Parthiban

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and C. Kumarappan upheld a Labour Court order reinstating an employee terminated on charges of theft and misconduct, holding that disciplinary action must be supported by substantial evidence rather than mere allegations. The Court emphasized that the employer's failure to produce essential records like stock registers to prove charges of theft and fabrication of accounts rendered the termination unjustified, despite the argument that criminal acquittal standards differ from disciplinary proceedings.

The court cited B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612 to reiterate that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to examining whether procedural fairness was followed. In this case, both the Labour Court and the Single Judge found that the inquiry was flawed due to a lack of substantial evidence. The court ruled that there was no basis to overturn these factual findings, as they were neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Labour Court's order reinstating Parthiban with back wages.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Probe Into Data Breach At Star Health Insurance

Case Title: Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by Cyber Security expert Himanshu Pathak seeking a probe into the alleged security breach at Star Health Insurance. Pathak had also filed an interim petition seeking to stay the online business of the company in light of the recent data leak.

Justice M Dhandapani dismissed the plea noting that a civil suit filed by the company against Pathak was already pending in which a single judge had already passed an interim injunction. Thus, noting that the issues were connected and there could not be parallel proceedings for the same issue, the court dismissed the plea. The court, however, gave liberty to Pathak to work out his remedy before the appropriate authority.

Award Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality If Decision Of Arbitrator Is Perverse Or Irrational: Madras High Court

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Offshore Infrastructures Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

The Madras High Court Bench of Justice C.Saravanan held that patent illegality as a ground for setting aside an Award is available only if the decision of the Arbitrator is found to be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take or that the view of the Arbitrator is not even a possible view.

At the outset, the court reiterated the settled law on section 34 of the arbitration act. It referred to the Supreme Court judgment in The Project Director, NHAI Vs. M.Hakim, (2021) wherein it was held that the power to set aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not include the authority to modify the Award. It further held that an Award can be set aside only on limited grounds as specified in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and it is not an appellate provision.

Provisions Of Maternity Benefits Act Prevail Over Contractual Conditions, Would Apply To Contractual Employees: Madras High Court

Case Title: MRB Nurses Empowerment Association v. The Principal Secretary and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act would prevail over any contractual conditions set up by the employer to deny maternity benefits to a woman.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the benefits of the Maternity Benefits Act would be applicable to contractual employees and the employer could not rely on the contract of employment to deny them such benefits.

The court ruled that as per the recent ruling of Dr Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and others, the Supreme Court had held that once a lady employee fulfils the eligibility criteria specified in Section 5(2), she would be eligible for full maternity benefits even if such benefits exceed duration of her contract.

Order Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC Is Judicial Order And Amenable To Revisional Jurisdiction: Madras High Court

Case Title: Rev.Fr.Savarimuthu and Others v V.S.Jeyapandi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

The Madras High Court has recently observed that an order granting leave under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is a judicial order and not an administrative order. The court added that being a judicial order, it was also amenable to revisional jurisdiction of courts. The court thus took a different stand than what had been previously taken by the Madras High Court.

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the power of the court to grant leave under Section 92 was judicial as it was wielded by a Civil Court and the court had to exercise its discretion on objective grounds as the matter involved rights of parties.

Madras High Court Allows Student To Continue In MBBS Course After Wrongly Choosing BDS Course During Counselling

Case Title: The Director, Directorate of Medical Education and Research and Others v Jubil Timothy and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a student, who despite having been allotted the MBBS course in the first round of counselling, had wrongly chosen the BDS course.

The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that it could not agree with the State's hyper-technical contention and give capital punishment for a genuine mistake committed by the student. The court also noted that the Instructions stated that once a candidate opts for upgradation and gets allotted an upgraded seat, he has to relinquish the seat from previous rounds and join the upgraded seat. The court observed that the Rule was not applicable in the present case, as it dealt with the degradation of the seat and not upgradation.

NHAI Empowered To Lay And Maintain Roads, Cannot Be Mulcted With Liability Under Motor Vehicles Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Regional Officer, NHAI v K Vasuki and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

The Madras High Court recently held that the National Highways Authority of India which was empowered with the responsibility of laying down and maintaining roads but it could not be mulcted with any liability under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the MV Act empowered the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to only pass an award against the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle and thus did not have jurisdiction to entertain a tortious claim against any person not named under Section 168 of the Act. The court thus set aside an order of the MACT which had imposed liability on the NHAI for the death of a person.

Disciplinary Proceedings Need Only 'Preponderance of Probability', Not 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt': Madras HC

Case Title: S.Harikumar v The Presiding Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice C. Kumarappan upheld the dismissal of two Greaves Cotton Limited workers accused of engine sabotage. The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings need only meet the “preponderance of probability” standard rather than criminal law's “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold. The court found the dismissal proportionate given the serious nature of industrial sabotage and its potential implications for public safety and company reputation. The bench validated the inquiry findings, ruling they were based on substantial evidence and proper cross-examination, not mere presumptions.

Cheque Bounce Complaint Maintainable Despite Freezing Of Account By ED/IT Dept If Complainant Establishes 'Insufficiency Of Funds': Madras HC

Case Title: M/s Challani Rank Jewellery and Others v Ashok Kumar Jain

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

The Madras High Court recently observed that even if an account is blocked or frozen by the Enforcement Department or the Income Tax Department, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be maintainable if the complainant is able to prove that dehors the freezing, the account did not have sufficient balance to honour the debt.

Justice G Jayachandran observed that the drawer of the cheque, in such cases could take a defence that the account was blocked or frozen. The court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012) and held that issuing a cheque without sufficient fund to honour it is the genus of the crime and the complaint would be maintainable.

The court also observed that a single complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable when all the cheques were presented on the same day and were returned on the same day relying on the earlier decision of the Madras High Court in Suryakant V Kanakia v. Muthukumaran and Manjula v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.

Madras High Court Quashes Defamation Complaint Against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu By AIADMK's Babu Murugavel

Case Title: Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

The Madras High Court on Friday quashed a criminal defamation complaint filed by AIADMK's Babu Murugavel against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu and which was taken on file by the Special Court for Trial of Cases relating to Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu.

Justice G Jayachandran noted that the complaint had been filed by Murugavel in his personal capacity and not in a representative capacity. The court added that Murugavel had failed to prove that he was aggrieved by the alleged speeches made by Appavu. The court observed that though Murugavel claimed to have filed the complaint on behalf od the AIADMK party, he had failed to provide any authorisation by the party allowing him to represent the party.

When Muslim Wife Disputes Issuance Of Talaq, It Is Upon Husband To Obtain Judicial Declaration For Dissolution Of Marriage: Madras High Court

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

The Madras High Court recently held that when a wife disputes the issuance of talaq by the Muslim husband, it is upon the husband to obtain a judicial declaration that marriage was validly dissolved.

Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Talaq under Muslim personal laws involved a certain procedure which had to be strictly complied. The court thus observed that if the husband claimed to have given talaq to the wife, and the same was disputed by the wife, the only appropriate and legally permissible course would be for the husband to obtain a judicial declaration that marriage is validly dissolved.

Court Not An Expert In History Of Origin Of Race: Madras High Court Asks State To Review Aryan-Dravidian Theory Taught In Schools

Case Title: Mahalingam Balaji v. The Secretary and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

The Madras High Court recently refrained from passing any orders on a plea questioning the Aryan-Dravidian race theory taught in educational institutions.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy remarked that the court was not an expert in the history of origin of race and thus could not grant the relief as requested for. The court thus observed that it was for the experts to determine whether the claims made by the petitioner on the two race theory was valid or not.

PMLA | Enforcement Directorate Is Well Within Rights To Challenge Closure Report In Predicate Offence: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Assistant Director v The State and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 409

The Madras High Court recently held that once a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was registered, the Enforcement Directorate was within its right to challenge the closure report filed in the Predicate Offence if the same resulted in miscarriage of justice.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam reiterated that the PMLA was a standalone offence and that when a closure report was filed in the predicate offence, it would not automatically close the PMLA proceedings also. The court thus quashed a closure report filed by the State police and taken on file by the Magistrate in connection with a cases involving lottery baron Santiago Martin and his wife.

Madras High Court Directs State To Ensure That Persons Holding Diploma In Siddha Medicine Do Not Practice It

Case Title: K Jayakumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 410

The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government and the Director General of Police to ensure that those having a diploma certificate in Siddha Medicine are not practicing Siddha Medicine. The court added that such a situation would create havoc in the society which was already dealing with several cases of quacks.

Justice B Pugalendhi was hearing a petition filed by K Jayakumar, claiming to be a doctor practicing Siddha Medicine seeking directions to the police not to harass him or interfere with him running the Siddha clinic.

Secret Ballot Mandatory For Union Recognition In Railway Production Units; Madras HC Sets Precedent

Case Title: DMK ICF Labour Union v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice C. Kumarappan directed the Integral Coach Factory (ICF) to implement a Secret Ballot System for trade union recognition, replacing the existing Staff Council model. The Court found that the current system, which splits representation equally between management-nominated officials and worker-elected representatives, impedes effective worker representation and violates Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Court mandated that the Railway Board establish procedures for secret ballot elections within three months, ensuring democratic union representation in the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM).

Gross Impropriety And Abuse of Judicial Power: Madras HC Sets Aside Discharge Of Former CM Panneerselvam In DA Case

Case Title: Suo Motu v The Deputy Superintendent and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 412

The Madras High Court has set aside the discharge of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselavm in a disproportionate assets case in 2012.

While setting aside the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai permitting the prosecution to withdraw the case, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the order of special judge smacked of gross impropriety and abuse of judicial power.

The court noted that a modus operandi was followed the present case, similar to that followed in other cases involving the Ministers. The court noted that once Panneerselavm was back to the political saddle as the Finance Minister, he lost no time in setting the entire investigation machinery as well as the high constitutional functionaries like the Advocate General and the Public Prosecutor to find out ways and means to diffuse and self-destruct the prosecution case.

Prisoners Are Not Slaves, Cannot Be Tortured In Inhuman Ways To Punish Them For Their Crimes: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Kalavathi v State and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

The Madras High Court recently observed that the prisoners were not slaves and could not be treated in inhuman ways to punish them for their crimes. The court added that torturing inmates would only propagate crimes and not mitigate them.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam made the observations in a plea by a prisoner's mother alleging that he was being treated inhumanly by the prison authorities and was even made to do household work of the officers.

The court also observed that the power given to the jail authorities must be exercised with care and caution as abuse of power would create havoc and undermine the ethos of criminal justice system. The court emphasised that nobody could unduly exrcise power over another and such misuse of power had to be dealt with seriously.

Fundamental Right Of Privacy Includes Spousal Privacy, Law Cannot Permit Snooping By Spouses: Madras High Court

Case Title: R v B

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 414

The Madras High Court has observed that the fundamental right of privacy includes spousal privacy. The court noted that the law could not permit or encourage snooping by one spouse on another. The court thus observed that the evidence that was obtained by invading the privacy of the partner was inadmissible in the court.

Justice GR Swaminathan thus came to the rescue of a wife against the order of the Paramakudi Subordinate Court refusing to reject the call records of the wife that was submitted by the Husband during the trial of a marital dispute. The court noted that the husband had stealthily obtained the information pertaining to the call history of his wife and thus had breached the wife's privacy.