Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 13 to February 19, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 50 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 56

NOMINAL INDEX

Flora Madiazagane v GG Hospital and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 50

Tvl Metal Trade Incorporation Versus The Special Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 51

The Federal Bank Ltd. V The Sub Registrar and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 52

G Devarajan v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 53

V Kamala v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 54

Venkatesan @ Venkatesh v. State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 55

Hina Suneet Sharma & Anr. versus M/s Nissan Renault Financial Services India Pvt Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 56

REPORT

Botched Up Surgery: Madras High Court Directs Infertility Treatment Hospital To Pay ₹40 Lakh Compensation To Srilankan Woman

Case Title: Flora Madiazagane v GG Hospital and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 50

The Madras High Court recently directed a private infertility treatment hospital to compensate a Srilankan woman after a botched up surgery left her permanently disabled.

Justice G Chandrasekharan noted that the doctors and the hospital knew about the medical history of the woman and yet continued with the surgery with no proper precaution to avoid damage. The woman was left with a perforated colon and permanent disabilities following her surgery.

State GST Authority Can’t Prosecute If The Central Authority Has Already Initiated Action: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tvl Metal Trade Incorporation Versus The Special Secretary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 51

The Madras High Court has held that the State Authority cannot prosecute the petitioner once again as the Central Authority has already initiated action against the petitioner in respect of the very same subject matter.

The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has observed that the petitioner will have to participate in the personal hearing and state all his objections with regard to the action launched by the State Authority under the TNGST Act, 2017. Unless and until the petitioner participates in the impugned proceedings, viz., the summons dated October 18, 2022, the truth cannot be unearthed with regard to the petitioner's contentions.

Rule Empowering Registrar To Refuse Registration Of Property Under Mortgage, Attachment Beyond Scope Of Parent Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Federal Bank Ltd. V The Sub Registrar and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 52

The Madras High Court has held that the proviso to Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules is invalid and unconstitutional as it goes against the scope of its parent act – the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act.

Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the authorities under the Registration Act did not have such powers to make rules which directly went against the objectives of the parent acts such as the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act.

Madras High Court Asks State To Continue Monitoring Movie Ticket Prices

Case Title: G Devarajan v. The Chief Secretary and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 53

The Madras High Court has directed the State government to continue its measures to monitor the amount of fees charged by way of movie tickets in cinema theatres .

Justice Anita Sumanth was dealing with three writ petitions which had been filed seeking action against theatre owners for charging more than the actual ticket rate fixed by the government for three movies- Kabali, Singam III and Bairavaa. The court also directed the State to take a decision on dealing with the excess charges already collected by the theatres.

'Adjourned More Than 50 Times, Witnesses Are Senior Citizens': Madras High Court Expedites Trial In 2013 Murder Of BJP Leader Ramesh

Case Title: V Kamala v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 54

The Madras High Court has directed the Sessions Court for the exclusive trial of bomb blast/NIA cases, Poonamalle to complete the trial in the 2013 auditor Ramesh murder case within two months.

Justice RN Manjula noted that even though charges were framed in 2014, the case was pending for all these years. The court also expressed anguish over the fact that the case had been adjourned more than fifty times for counseling. The court added that even if the counseling was to be given to the victims, the same should not have affected the trial.

[Sample Analysis] Unless Mandatory Time Limits Prescribed In Concerned Statutes Are Complied, Test Results Will Be Unreliable: Madras High Court

Case Title: Venkatesan @ Venkatesh v. State and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 55

While quashing proceedings initiated against a man under Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the Madras High Court stressed that time limits prescribed under the Acts for sample analysis have to be adhered to.

Justice RN Manjula noted that the purpose of prescribing time limits for sending samples for analysis is to ensure that there is no further contamination in the chemical products. When these time limits are not complied with, the test results become unreliable.

Challenge Under S. 13 of Arbitration Act Not Raised, Party Can Challenge Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator Under S. 34: Madras High Court

Case Title: Hina Suneet Sharma & Anr. versus M/s Nissan Renault Financial Services India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 56

The Madras High Court has ruled that even if a party has failed to challenge the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator under Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) before the Arbitral Tribunal, it would not take away its right to challenge the award under Section 34 of the A&C Act on the ground that the Arbitrator was unilaterally appointed.

The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy reiterated that if any award is passed in violation of the provisions of the A&C Act, the same would be against the public policy of India.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Appointment Of Five Additional Judges Of Madras High Court As Permanent Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on Wednesday has recommended the names of five Additional Judges of Madras High Court to be made permanent judges.

The names are as follows:

1. Justice S Srimathy

2. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy

3. Justice R Vijayakumar

4. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq

5. Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad