Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 21 To March 27, 2022
Upasana Sajeev
28 March 2022 9:35 AM IST
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 108 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 121NOMINAL INDEXDr. Esther, MBBS, DGO v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 108L. Ponnammal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 109Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited & Anr. v, T. Mohan & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 110P. Subburaj...
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 108 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr. Esther, MBBS, DGO v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
L. Ponnammal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited & Anr. v, T. Mohan & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
P. Subburaj v. The Principal Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam v. National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
R.R Saravana Balagursamy v. The Superintendent of Police and Ors, 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 113
The Divisional Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited v. A.C. Jagadeesann & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
SC Raja Rajeshwari v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
S. Ganeshan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Krishnamoorthy v. State Represented by Inspector of Police & Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
Malliga v. P. Kumaran, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil v. Pappayee & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
State rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID v. A Sivakumar & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
Case Title: Dr. Esther, MBBS, DGO v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
Madras High Court has observed that the Governor alone can execrcise the power conferred for granting premature release of a prisoner under Article Article 161 of the Constitution, upon advice rendered by the State Cabinet.
A bench of Justices P.N. Prakash and A.A. Nakkiran refused to reconsider the plea made by Dr Esther, mother of the John David, convicted prisoner in the 1996 infamous murder of Pon Navarasu, for premature release. John David was the prime accused in the murder of Pon Navarasu, a first-year MBBS Student in Annamalai University and the son of Madras University's former Vice-Chancellor. The public outcry after the heinous murder paved way for the first state legislation criminalising ragging in educational institutions, i.e, Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997.
"The State Level Committee which is composed of the Inspector General of Prisons and the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Headquarters) can only recommend a case to the State Government and cannot exercise the power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Governor of the State would exercise the power under Article 161, ibid., on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Thus, the Cabinet has the authority to accept or reject the recommendation of the State Level Committee and accordingly, give their advice to the Governor."
The court also observed that it cannot interfere with the Government Order under Article 226 since it does have any powers under Article 142, like the Supreme Court.
Case Title: L. Ponnammal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court has dismissed a lea challenging the amendments brought in by the Finance Act 2021 and the subsequent amendments made in the LIC Act 1956 which provided for the disinvestment of the Life Insurance Corporation.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the challenge was made to the amendments by way of Article 110 of the constitution without challenging the certificate issued by the Speaker of the House. Further, the procedure for certifying the Finance Bill as a money bill have been duly complied with and therefore there is no constitutional illegality.
The court also highlighted that the word "only" used in the definition of Money Bill has to be read along with Article 110(1) (g) of the constitution which provides for any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in (a) to (f) of Article 110(1) and therefore should not be given a narrow meaning.
"The intrusion or inference to the implementation of a public interest policy by way of legislation should be eschewed, as it directly impacts the economic growth of the country and interference therein may have far reaching consequences, because the receipt of money into the Consolidated Fund of India is to be used for the development of the country." the court added.
Case Title: Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited & Anr. v. T. Mohan & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
in a matter pertaining to th ewinding up of Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited, the Madras High Court has ordered an absolute interim injunction on the deletion of certain properties, for which the employees of Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited are PoA holders, from the auction sale process.
The single-judge bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy also placed an interim stay of the confirmation of the sale in respect of the properties for a period of eight weeks. The court also noted there is insufficient evidence to apply Sections 536 and 537 of the Companies Act and set aside the registered sale deeds in summary proceedings.
The dispute arose when two persons alleged that they had purchased the properties from the original owners in bona fide transactions. The alleged purchasers had also placed a challenge against Maxworth's claim on the title to these properties on the basis of Power of Attorneys (PoAs).
"From the PoAs, it is evident that the agent was authorised to sell the lands and receive consideration. A few receipts in respect of payment of consideration are also on record. Pursuant thereto, two sale deeds dated 17.07.1996 are on record, which indicate that the lands were sold by Maxworth through the PoAs to its customers", the court inferred.
However, the court concluded that there aren't enough relevant documents to infer that the immovable properties whose alienation is challenged by Maxworth are actually the assets of Maxworth.
Case Title: P. Subburaj v. The Principal Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
The Madras High Court has tabled a proposition to frame a scheme for allotment of houses in public quota on rental basis.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and State Government to frame a scheme in consultation with the Tamil Nadu & Puducherry Bar Council for reserving a certain percentage of residential accommodations in public quota by giving preference to practicing young lawyers until a prescribed age. the court also recommended another alternative to consider the financial status of advocate and give them residential accommodation for a limited number of years on rental basis.
The court was considering a petition filed by a former President of District Consumer Redressal Forum who was still not able to own a house and was applying for allotment of residential accommodation under public quota which was initially rejected.
Relying on the judgement of T. Sornapandian & Others v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development (HB(2) HB5(2)) Department, Chennai & Others (2019), the court remarked that there are no hard and fast rule about to whom the residential accommodation should be allotted under 'public quota'.
The court also discussed the plight of young Advocates coming from irregular income group and also highlighted the vital role played by young practicing advocates in assisting court and rendering justice.
Case Title: Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam v. National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High court bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy recently dismissed for non prosecution, a plea challenging the NGT Office Order which mandated that Pan India matters should be heard by the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
The plea was filed to quash the Office Order issued by Registrar General of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directing that suo motu matters having pan-India or inter-state implications will be henceforth listed before the Principal Bench of at least three members.
Case Title: R.R Saravana Balagursamy v. The Superintendent of Police and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court has observed that instead of repeated orders of the Supreme Courts and the High Courts, the Police Department is not equipped with CCTV Cameras to store the footage for at least a period of one year. This defeats the purpose for which the cameras are installed. The court also suggested storage points for keeping the CCTV footage at least for a minimum period of one year.
Justice S.M Subramaniam also took note of the fact that a number of writ petitions are being filed seeking initiation of action against public servants including police officials and a solution should be found.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited v. A.C. Jagadeesann & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court has highlighted that the deceased/ injured in a motor accident claim must be a third party to maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Justice P.T. Asha noted that an application under Section 163A of the Act against the Insurance Company of the vehicle driven by the injured/ deceased himself/herself/themselves is liable to be disimissed.
The court also held that usually the claimant does not have to establish the negligence of the owner of the vehicle which resulted in death or permanent disablement However, when the claimant himself was driving the borrowed vehicle that was insured. In such an instance, he would step into the shoes of the owner of a vehicle.
Case Title: SC Raja Rajeshwari v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy of Madras High Court recently allowed petitions filed by two students of Madha Dental College seeking similar reliefs against the college - to direct the college to issue course completion certificate and to permit the students to complete their internship/receive certificate without fail.
The court, satisfied that the college had manipulated the attendance registers of the students to get orders in their favour, condemned the act of college and directed it to pay a penalty of Rs. 3 crore to the university. The university was directed to utilize this fund for the purpose of providing scholarship to the poor students those who are undergoing BDS/MDS course under any existing Scheme. In the absence of such schemes, the university was directed to frame new schemes.
The court had also directed the college to pay a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs each to the students for depriving their opportunity to become dentists and to refund the excess fee collected from them with interest at 18% p.a.
Case Title: S. Ganeshan v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Madras High Court has held that the bar under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act against recalling a child (minor victim) is not applicable after such victim attains majority.
Justice A.D Jagdish Chandra, while allowing the petitioner-accused's plea held that the victim is now 21 years old and she will not fall within the definition of "child" so as to invoke Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Section 33(5) of the Act only mandates that the child witness cannot be called repeatedly to testify in the Court.
The court also relied on decision of Apex Court in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. (2017) and noted that it is mandatory for a court under Section 311 CrpC to recall witnesses for further cross-examination if their evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. the court also highlighted that the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has to be balanced with the right of the accused.
Case Title: Krishnamoorthy v. State Represented by Inspector of Police & Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
Justice A.D Jagdish Chandira recently lamented on the current pace of environmental deterioration and opined that it is society's collective responsibility to leave the planet in a better shape for future generations.
The court was dealing with a batch of pleas made for return of seized vehicles involved in illegal sand mining cases. The court noted that these vehicles are used for similar offences once released. The court also noted that the perennial rivers that were carrying clean water have now been converted into drainage channels for carrying effluents. The court issued direction for the conclusion of confiscation proceedings already initiated within 6 months.
Case Title: Malliga v. P. Kumaran
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
Madras High Court has held that a Will cannot be admitted in evidence unless it complies with the conditions laid down in Section 68 of the Evidence Act, even if the execution of the document is expressly admitted or not specifically denied by the opposite party.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the mandate of calling at least one attesting witness for the purpose of proving execution cannot be diluted. the court further added that Section 68 only excepts examining an attesting witness for the proof of execution of any document that requires to be attested under law, not being a will, if its execution is not specifically denied by the person who appears to have executed the document.
12. Even If 'GOD' Encroaches Upon Public Space, Will Order Its Removal: Madras High Court
Case Title: Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil v. Pappayee & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
The Madras High Court has observed that "even if GOD encroaches upon public space, Courts will direct removal of such encroachments". The court stated that it is not concerned by 'who or in what name' the encroachment takes place and that public interest and rule of law must be safeguarded and upheld.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was hearing an appeal filed by temple against the order of lower court restraining it from putting up construction in Mariamman Koil Street.
The court was also critical of the stand taken by respondent Municipality who refused to interfere with the encroachments by stating that the Government was in control of the street since it was a puramboke land. The bench reiterated that such hyper technical pleas wouldn't whitewash the public wrong committed by the temple.
Case Title: K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
Justice V Parthiban of the Madras High Court has held that there is no cap on the number of deliveries for grant of maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act. The only differentiation is on the period of maternity benefit available. For a woman employee having less that two surviving children, the maximum period of benefit is 26 wees while for a woman having more than two surviving children, the benefit is restricted to 12 weeks.
Relying on Madras High Court judgment in N.Mohammed Mohideen & Anr vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Inspection) Chennai, (2008), the court observed that as long as Article 42 of the Constitution read with the provisions of the M.B. Act, 1961, is available, every female worker covered by the Act is entitled to claim maternity benefit without any ceiling on the number of deliveries made by them. The court also mentioned a High Court judgment in Ruksana v. State of Haryana (2011) and noted that Maternity Benefit Act would have an overriding effect over any service rules.
Case Title: State rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID v. A Sivakumar & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Madras High Court has directed the Magistrate to issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the absconding accused police officials who were evading arrest in an extortion case.
Justice A.D Jagdish Chandra, while passing the order also added that:
"As stated above, the accused in the case are evading arrest and the only course left open to the Investigating Officer to ensure their presence, would be to seek the Magistrate to invoke his power under Section 73 of Cr.P.C. and only thereafter can proceed with the other procedures of proclamation and attachment. In such an eventuality, there is no bar for the Magistrate to legitimately exercise his power under Section 73 of Cr.P.C for the person to be apprehended during investigation since the respondents are accused of Non-Bailable offence and are evading arrest"
Other Developments
15. Centre Appoints Two New Additional Judges To Madras High Court
The Centre has appointed Advocates Nidumolu Mala and S. Sounthar as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court, for a period of two years.
The recommendation to elevate them was made by the Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 16th February, 2022.
Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari shall administer the oath of office to two new judges on Monday (28.03.2022) at a function which shall be held in the Meeting Hall, Additional Library Building of the High Court.
The Centre has appointed former Madras High Court Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana as Judicial Member of the National Green Tribunal. The appointment is for a period of four years.
Justice Sathyanarayana had retired from service last month after serving as judge in Madras High Court for nine years from 2013.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Pondy Plastic Association, Rep. by its President, Mr. G. Sankaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
The Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) has told Madras High Court shops that repeatedly sell goods in single-use plastic carry bags will be liable for Trade licenses cancellation, besides closure and sealing.
The Madras High Court bench of Justices S. Vaidyanathan and P.T Asha were hearing a plea filed by TN & Puducherry Plastic Manufacturers Association against the 2018 Govt order banning a list of plastic items. The June 2018 order was issued by the Department of Environment and Forests by exercising the power conferred under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The order banned manufacturing, storing, supplying, selling and distributing of 'use and throw away plastics'.
Case Title: Preethika C. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Other Connected Cases
In a plea challenging the constitutionality of the State Act providing horizontal reservation of 7.5 per cent seats in medical colleges for students passing out of government schools, the State Higher Educational Department represented by Senior Counsel P. Wilson, in their written submissions have stated that the allocation of 7.5 per cent seats for students from Government Schools cannot even be called 'reservation', but only to be construed as creating a source of admission for which the state is empowered under Entry 25, List III of the Constitution's Seventh Schedule.
The counsel also contended that such categorisation of seperate sources of entry/admission is based on intelligible differential.
Previously, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakaravarthy had asked the department why it was not uplifting the standard of schools so that the students didn't need tuition.
19. Pardoning Power- Article 161 Does Not Give Any Power To Council Of Ministers: Madras High Court
While considering the petition filed by Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case Convict S Nalini for her prerelease without waiting the approval of the Governor, the Madras High Court Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that Article 161 does not provide for binding the decision of the Council of Ministers and that power is given to the Governor under this section.
The court had previously disinclined from hearing the bail application citing that there was no legal provision for a convict to seek bail. The court had asked the petitioner to first establish that a bail application was maintainable after which the court shall hear the bail application.
A congress worker has recently moved the High Court seeking to implead him as the respondent in the petition.
The bench has directed the registry to number the petitions filed by Nalini and list the same for hearing.
20. Madras High Court Grants Regular Bail To Former ABVP Chief Dr. Subbiah Shanmugam In Harassment Case
Case Title: Dr. Subbiah Shanmugham v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police
Justice G. Jayachandran of the Madras High Court recently granted regular bail to former ABVP Chied Dr. Subbiah Shanmugham, who was arrested in relation to an incident of urinating before a woman neighbour's house in 2020.
The court was unsatisfied with the statements made by the Additional Advocate General that there were no malafide intention in the arrest. Previously while granting interim bail, the court had stated that the arrest was patently erroneous, leading to violation of his fundamental right.
Case Title: S. Karthieyan & Anr v. District Collector & Ors.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy stated that officers can't be allowed to promote encroachers by allotting alternative lands elsewhere.
The Bench noted that allotment of such alternative lands would only promote the tendency to encroach Government/ Poramboke land and water bodies. The court also reiterated about the 'total failure' of officers in the removal of encroachments in water bodies and catchment areas.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed for removal of encroachments from a water tank in the centre of Karadivavi Village in Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District. In the status report filed by the state, it was mentioned that many encroachers have been removed and the rest of them can't be removed until alternative lands are allotted to them.
22. Seal The Shops Selling Banned Plastic Items : Madras High Court Directs Nilgiris District Collector
Case Title: Solaimalai @ Sivasolaimalai v. Chairman and Ors
The Madras High Court on Friday directed the District Collector, Nilgiris to conduct surprise inspection and whenever they find any shop selling banned plastic items, the authorities shall close and seal the shop immediately. The court further opined that imposing fine will not deter the shopkeepers from selling plastic bottles.
The bench of Justice V, Bharathidasan and Justice N. Sathish Kumar were hearing a batch of pleas concerning the protection of Western Ghats area.
The court also directed the collector to ensure proper functioning of water ATMs and to install new ATMs.
In a Twenty20 (T20) fraternity cricket match between the judges of Madras High Court and Kerala High Court, the former has emerged victorious, winning the match by 7 wickets.
The entire program arrangements were made by the Non-Playing Captain Justice V. Bharathidasan and his team comprising of Justice Krishnakumar, Justice A D Jagadish Chandira, Justice M. Dhandapani, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar and Justice PT Asha. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan was the Commentator at the play ground. Play ground facility was arranged by IIT Madras Registrar Dr. Jane Prasad.
