Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 27 To March 5, 2023
Upasana Sajeev
6 March 2023 11:00 AM IST
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 67 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 76 NOMINAL INDEX Saminathan v Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 67 State of Tamil Nadu and others v. The Correspondent, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 68 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 69 Dr. C Vijayabhaskar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 70 State v. Dadayutham @ Kannan and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad)...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 67 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
NOMINAL INDEX
Saminathan v Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
State of Tamil Nadu and others v. The Correspondent, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
Dr. C Vijayabhaskar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
State v. Dadayutham @ Kannan and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Star Channel v. The Secretary to the Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
Dr. R Hemamalini v. The Registrar, Annamalai University, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
Shiva Sankar Baba v. State and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
KC v. UK, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
V Ayyadurai v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
REPORT
Case Title: Saminathan v Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
The Madras High Court recently came down heavily upon a student for claiming admission both as a native of Puducherry and Kerala. The court added that the student had filed a false declaration while securing admission to JIPMER Puducherry by submitting that he had not claimed the benefit of residence in any other State.
Justice CV Karthikeyan held that by doing so, he had denied an opportunity to another student who would have applied only under one state. According to the court, such an act had to be taken note of seriously.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and others v. The Correspondent
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
While dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court recently observed that once a teacher is appointed to a sanctioned post in an aided school, the Government cannot refuse its approval.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi further noted that while deciding the number of teachers to be appointed, what has to be looked into is the number of sections and groups in the school and not the number of students.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
Lamenting on the conditions in which the elephants are usually kept captive in Temples and even by private individuals, the Madras High Court recently directed the State to take a call regarding the rehabilitation of elephants.
Justice GR Swaminathan directed the Secretary of the Environment and Forest Department to coordinate with the Secretary of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department to consider shifting captive elephants to Government Rehabilitation Camps. The court also directed the HR&CE Department to issue directions to all the temples in Tamil Nadu not to acquire any more elephants.
Case Title: Dr. C Vijayabhaskar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The Madras High Court has recently stayed the operation of Justice Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry report with respect to the remarks made against former Tamil Nadu health minister C Vijayabhaskar.
Justice GR Swaminathan allowed the interim prayer in a plea moved by Vijayabhaskar challenging the recommendations of the commission and seeking to quash the report as far as Vijayabhaskar was concerned and the Government order under which appropriate action was to be initiated based on the recommendations of the commission.
Case Title: State v. Dadayutham @ Kannan and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
The Madras High Court recently reversed the findings of trial court and sentenced a man to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for sexually molesting an 8-year-old girl child.
Finding the man guilty for the offences of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and for rape, sexual assault and criminal trespass under the Indian Penal Code, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the trial court had acquitted the man based on irrelevant considerations and materials while ignoring the relevant materials such as the deposition of the child and the corroborative evidence.
The court added that the findings of the trial court was perverse and was impossible given the nature of the offence.
Case Title: Star Channel v. The Secretary to the Government and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
While refusing to interfere with an order of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board allowing a Cable TV operator to provide television cable connection to Government Officials Housing Unit in Goundampallayam, the Madras High Court observed that it would have been sensible to deny cable connection to the staff as they would be more at peace without viewing these channels.
Justice CV Karthikeyan was hearing a plea filed by a cable operator Star Channel challenging the order on the ground that they were denied opportunity to provide connection in a prejudicial manner.
Case Title: Dr. R Hemamalini v. The Registrar, Annamalai University
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
The Madras High court recently directed Annamalai University to refund an amount of ₹10.5 lakh to a former student who had discontinued MBBS studies at the university and joined another college.
Observing that the vacant seat was subsequently filled and that the university did not suffer any loss, Justice K Kumaresh Babu of the Madurai bench noted that the institution could only retain the fee for the months during which the student had actually studied in the institution along with the processing fee. In the present case, however, the institution had withheld the entire fee for the first year.
Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
Justice RN Manjula of Madras High Court has revealed that she was sent “pseudonymous letters of threat” dissuading her from passing orders in a petition filed by self-styled godman Shiva Shankar Baba to quash the FIR filed against him in a sexual assault case.
Adding that such a cheap attitude only shows the cowardice of such persons, the Judge added that these attempts will not stand in her way of dispensing justice.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Issues Guidelines For Extending Limitation Period In Criminal Cases
Case Title: KC v. UK
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
A division bench of the Madras High Court recently “disregarded” the observations made by a single judge in his order granting interim custody of minor twins born in the US to their mother till the pendency of the matrimonial dispute in India. The single judge had disagreed with the earlier directions of a division bench asking the woman to hand over custody to the father who was residing in the US.
In a contempt petition filed by the father against non-compliance of the directions issued by the division bench, the bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the single judge set at nought the directions of the division bench even though it was not the subject matter before him.
Case Title: V Ayyadurai v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the State of Tamil Nadu for its Orders determining a ceiling limit of fees payable to advocates appearing on behalf of the Government.
The government had determined that for pending arbitration matters, civil suits, original petitions, original side appeals, civil miscellaneous appeals and for regular cases, the fee which shall be payable would be 1 % of the award/decree subject to a ceiling of Rs. 10,00,000.
Calling such fee fixation arbitrary and irrational, Justice CV Karthikeyan held that the Government Orders gave an impression that legal professional was reduced to that of a contract worker. He added that the government should appreciate the work done by the Advocates in defending the policies of the Government in courts.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Madras High Court To Have Hybrid Hearing Every Friday From March 3rd
The Madras High Court has recently announced that it will commence virtual hearings for all the cases starting from March 3rd.
In a notification issued by the Registrar General, it was informed that this facility is in addition to the already available facility at request on any day. Thos facility has been introduced with an objective of providing the benefit and option of virtual access to High Courts to all.
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on appeals preferred by 126 forest officials, 84 police personnel and five revenue officials against conviction by a sessions court finding them guilty for various crimes that took place in Vachathi in 1992.
Justice P Velmurugan, who had been hearing the appeals told the counsels that he would be visiting the village on March 4th before delivering his verdict.
The Gingee Police in Villupuram has informed the Madras High Court that inmates of the Anbu Jothi Ashram were administered psychiatric drugs, chained, and physically and sexually assaulted by the ashram staff.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a status report based on directions issued by the court earlier.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Nirmal Kumar had sought the report while hearing a Habeas Corpus petition with respect to the missing of a 70-year old inmate Zafirullah from the Ashram.
The Madras High Court has temporarily stayed the single judge order allowing solemnization of marriage through virtual mode with the groom in the USA and the bride in India. The court had observed that the bride could affix a signature in the certificate for both herself and the groom as she had a power of attorney to that effect.
The division bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice Victoria Gowri was hearing the appeal preferred by Sub Registrar Manavalakurichi against the order of Justice GR Swaminathan.
Five Additional Judges Of Madras High Court Made Permanent
The Central Government has issued a notification appointing Justices S Srimathy, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, Justice R Vijayakumar, Justice Mohammed Shaffiq and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad as Permanent judges of the Madras High Court.
The Collegium had recommended the names of the judges in a meeting held on February 15 2023.
Expelled AIADMK leader Manoj Pandian has moved the Madras High Court challenging the resolutions passed by the AIADMK Party in its meeting held on July 11 2022 and to stay its operation. Through the resolutions, Pandian, along with others including former CM O Paneerselvam were expelled from the party and Edappadi Palaniswami was appointed as the interim general secretary.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the application, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the court was not inclined to pass any ex parte interim orders. The court also directed the respondents to file their counters.
