Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 - December 11, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Murali Krishna Chakrala Versus Deputy Director, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 495

Ramesh Dugar v The Deputy Director and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 496

Shakil Ahamed v The Superintendent of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 497

Dr P Balakrishnan v The Tamil Nadu Medical Council and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 498

Karunyam Mission (Trust) rep. by Trustee v. H Ganapathy and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 499

J Nithya v The Director of Elementary Education, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 500

Ravi @ Virumandi v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 501

Molasi Primary Agricultural Versus ITO, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 502

Tax Recovery Officer Versus Union Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 503

REPORT

1. Ingenuine Documents Submitted By Clients For Form 15CB, CA Cannot Be Prosecuted Under PMLA: Madras High Court

Case Title: Murali Krishna Chakrala Versus Deputy Director,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 495

The Madras High Court has held that the chartered accountant (CA) is not required to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the documents submitted by his clients.

"A Panel Advocate, who has no means to go into the genuinity of title deeds and who gives an opinion based on such title deeds, cannot be prosecuted along with the principal offender. Applying the same anomaly, we find that the prosecution of Murali Krishna Chakrala, in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, cannot be sustained," the division bench of Justice P. N. Prakash and Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed.

2. Search And Seizure Does Not Give Jurisdiction To Court To Order Return Of Articles When Investigation Is Held In A Different Place: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Dugar v The Deputy Director and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 496

The Madras High Court has held that when the investigation is being carried out in a different place, the court does not have territorial jurisdiction to order the return of seized articles even though the search and seizure were carried out within its territorial limits.

It observed that the search and seizure was the effect of the investigation and not the cause of the investigation. Therefore, as the investigation by the CBI and the ED was being held in Delhi, the court could not interfere in the matter.

Thus, the court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum.

3. [NDPS Act] Investigating Officer's Request For Extension Of Time Not Substitute For Report Of Public Prosecutor: Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Shakil Ahamed v The Superintendent of Customs

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 497

While allowing a criminal revision petition and granting statutory bail to a petitioner in a NDPS case, the Madras High Court observed that even if the investigating agency has filed an application seeking an extension of time for completing the investigation, the public prosecutor has to file a separate report, showing that he had applied his mind and was satisfied with the investigation.

Even if the application is routed through the Public Prosecutor that will not be sufficient, he is expected to apply his mind independently, while seeking extension of time by the investigating agency Justice G Ilangovan observed.

4. High Court Directs State To Revamp "Archaic" Madras Medical Registration Act, Defers TN Medical Council Polls By 3 Months

Case Title: Dr P Balakrishnan v The Tamil Nadu Medical Council and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 498

The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the state to revamp the "archaic" Madras Medical Registration Act, 1914 after it was brought to the court's notice that the old Act was still being used by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council to conduct its elections and appoint office bearers.

Justice R Subramaniam directed the State government to revamp the old act within a period of three months and directed the Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC) to defer its elections till that time.

In the meantime, the court also directed that the present court order will not have an impact on the working of the present office bearers. The court directed them to continue till new rules are framed by the government.

5. Madras High Court Orders Police Inquiry Against Litigant For Filing False Affidavit In Court

Case Title: Karunyam Mission (Trust) rep. by Trustee v. H Ganapathy and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 499

The Madras High Court recently directed the Joint Registrar Original Side to lodge a police complaint against a litigant who had approached the court with false affidavit and other documents.

Justice CV Karthikeyan made the above direction after observing that the litigant had created a false death certificate, false legal heirship certificate, false Will with false signatures, all of which were evidently false and thus the petitioner tried to influence the flow of justice of the court.

6. 'Tamil Nadu In Need Of Quality Education': High Court Directs State To Revisit Scheme For Teachers' Appointment, Prioritize Campus Education

Case Title: J Nithya v The Director of Elementary Education

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 500

The Madras High Court has recently directed the State to revamp its scheme regarding appointment of teachers to ensure that candidates who have acquired qualifications through regular campus education are given priority.

Also noting that the State ranked 27th in providing quality education, Justice SM Subramaniam highlighted the importance of imparting quality education for overall development of the state.

7. Upholding Conviction In POCSO Case, Madras High Court Says It 'Eagerly Awaits' Amendment In Law For Cases Involving Teenage Relationships

Case Title: Ravi @ Virumandi v State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 501

Upholding the conviction and 10 years sentence of a man in a POCSO case, the Madras High Court recently said that it is "eagerly" waiting for an amendment in the law to appropriately deal with cases involving relationships of adolescents.

Justice P Velmurugan made the comment while upholding the conviction and sentence of one Ravi who was accused of kidnapping and forcibly marrying a 17 year old girl in May 2014. He was convicted by the trial court under Sections 366 of IPC, Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)(i) r/w 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.

8. TDS Exemption Not Applicable On Cash Withdrawal By Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Societies: Madras High Court

Case Title: Molasi Primary Agricultural Versus ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 502

The Madras High Court has held that the TDS exemption under Section 194N of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to cash withdrawal by primary agricultural credit co-operative societies.

The bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that the provisions of Section 194 N provide for a mandatory deduction of 2% of cash withdrawals and the object is to discourage and drive the move toward a cashless or cash-free economy.

9. Attachment By Tax Dept. Subsequent To A Mortgage Favouring Secured Creditors Has No Legs: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tax Recovery Officer Versus Union Bank of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 503

The Madras High Court has held that the orders of attachment passed by the Tax Recovery Officer or Income Tax Department were subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the secured creditors and have no legs.

The division bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that even if recovery proceedings are quashed for any reason, the bankers' and financial institutions' rights to claim priority in terms of Section 31 B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and Section 26 E of the SARFAESI Act would still be available. The right to recover under the Income Tax Act, of 1961, must yield to the provisions under the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the exercise of attachment may not serve any useful purpose.

OTHER DEVELOPMENT

1. Madras High Court: Two Division Benches At Madurai Dispose Of Over 8.6K Cases In 3 Months

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has set a new benchmark by disposing of more than 8,000 cases in just a span of three months, as reported by the Ministry of Law and Justice.

Two division benches - one of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad and the other of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Nisha Banu, later with Justice MS Ramesh together disposed of 8,612 cases between September 5 and December 2 this year.

2. Policy For LGBTQIA+ Community Will Be Finalized & Published In Three Months: TN Govt Tells High Court

The Tamil Nadu government on Friday informed the Madras High Court that it was in the process of finalising a policy for the LGBTQIA+ community. This policy is a first in the country as no State has yet come forward with policies for the well being of the LGBTQIA+ community. Although many states, including Tamil Nadu have policies for the welfare of Transgender community, this is the first time a state will bring in policy for the LGBTQIA+ community.

Additional Advocate General S Silambanan also informed the court that Draft Rules for Tamilnadu Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2022 has already been notified and the same has been forwarded for approval by the Law Department. These rules would then be notified in the official Gazette and would come into effect.

It was also submitted that the State Planning Commission had presented the draft policy for LGBTQIA+ community to the Chief Minister and it had been forwarded to the concerned department for further action. There was continuous follow up and Director of Social Welfare had been convening meetings with the stakeholders. The state further sought a time of 3 months for completing this exercise.