Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 20 to March 26, 2023
Upasana Sajeev
26 March 2023 7:30 PM IST
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 93 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 102 NOMINAL INDEX Mr VB Selvaganapathy B.A B.L v. The Registrar (Administration) High Court of Madras and Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 93 AC Murugesan and others v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad)...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 93 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
NOMINAL INDEX
Mr VB Selvaganapathy B.A B.L v. The Registrar (Administration) High Court of Madras and Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
AC Murugesan and others v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
Periya Elayaraja and others v. The District General of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
Prashant Umrao @ Prashant Kumar Umrao v. Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
The Sports Development Authority v. The Tamil Radhesoami Satsang Association, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
V Shanmugham (Deceased) and others v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Royal Lands and Nest Cooperative Housing Society Ltd v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 99
Cont.P.No.2622 of 2022, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
Leena Manimekalai v. Susi Ganeshan, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
Santhosh vs. The Commercial Tax Officer & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
REPORT
Allotment Of Law Chambers Should Be As Per Procedure, Not Favouritism: Madras High Court
Case Title: Mr VB Selvaganapathy B.A B.L v. The Registrar (Administration) High Court of Madras and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
The Madras High Court has observed that favouritism while allotting law chambers should not be encouraged and the allotments should be made as per the established procedure. The court added that even if certain adjustments were to be made, they should not be unilateral decisions and the consent of the Lawyers concerned was necessary.
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that whenever any complaint was received with respect to the allotment, the allegations were to be enquired into in compliance with the rules of natural justice. The registry wsa expected to conduct an inquiry after affording an opportunity to all the parties.
Case Title: AC Murugesan and others v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
While refusing relief to a group of persons claiming benefit under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, the Madras High Court noted that rights under the Act cannot be claimed merely on the ground that the ancestors originally resided in the forests. For claiming rights under the Act, it was necessary to establish that the persons were solely dependent upon the forest for their bonafide livelihood.
Justice N Satish Kumar also agreed with an earlier view taken by the division bench where it was held that bonafide livelihood included ploughing, irrigation, and planting for the purpose of livelihood, but not for commercial exploitation of the land.
Case Title: Periya Elayaraja and others v. The District General of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
Refusing relief to 61 persons claiming to be practicing alternative medicine, the Madras High Court said that unqualified persons cannot claim any right to practice alternate medicines. The court was also critical of unrecognised institutions conducting six months medical courses and issuing diploma certificate and noted that the same would bring disastrous consequences for the society.
Justice SM Subramaniam said it is the duty of the State to ensure that these unrecognised institutions are dealt with properly and such invalid diploma certificates are cancelled.
Case Title: Prashant Umrao @ Prashant Kumar Umrao v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to UP BJP Spokesperson Prashant Umrao in an FIR lodged by the Tamil Nadu police against him for allegedly spreading false information on the alleged attacks against the migrant workers from Bihar in Tamil Nadu.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan granted anticipatory bail on the condition that Umrao will file an undertaking stating that he will to tweet or forward any such message to promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc., before the jurisdictional magistrate.
Case Title: The Sports Development Authority v. The Tamil Radhesoami Satsang Association
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the courts have the power to entertain petitions for condoning delay in execution petitions even though the same has not been specifically provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu followed an earlier decision of the Madras High Court in N.Rajendran v. SriramChits Tamil Nadu Private Limited where Justice V Ramasubramanian had traced out the history of the provisions regarding the execution petition and had held that though after the amendment of CPC, there was no specific provision for condonation of delay, as long as the provision was not inconsistent with the later amendments, the courts could follow the same.
Case Title: V Shanmugham (Deceased) and others v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Madras High Court recently awarded a compensation of five lakh rupees to the family of a 3rd Year Engineering Student who drowned in sea during a Coastal cleanup drive organised by the college.
Justice SM Subramaniam held that the college was not responsible for the drowning of the student, who had voluntarily taken a bath in the sea despite instructions against the same. However, the court noted that the college had failed to inform the authorities about the intended cleanup activity and obtain prior permission.
Case Title: The Royal Lands and Nest Cooperative Housing Society Ltd v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 99
The Madras High Court recently observed that the exemption from payment of stamp duty granted by the government under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act is not applicable to societies registered under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 2002.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act is a State enactment whereas the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act is a central enactment.
Case No: Cont.P.No.2622 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
The Madras High Court recently ordered the Law Secretary of Tamil Nadu government to take disciplinary action against C Nagarajan, the Deputy Secretary of Law Department, for allegedly misbehaving with government pleaders inside court.
Calling the act “scandalizing” and “lowering the authority of the Madras High Court”, Justice MS Ramesh asked the Principal Secretary to place Nagaraj under suspension from service in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings.
Case Title: Leena Manimekalai v. Susi Ganeshan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Madras High Court recently ordered the transfer of a criminal defamation case against filmmaker Leena Manimekalai from a Metropolitan Magistrate Court to a different court within Saidapet. Director Susi Ganeshan had filed the criminal defamation case against Manimekalai after she accused him of sexual harassment during the MeToo movement.
Justice G Chandrasekharan noted that the magistrate had committed two procedural violations — the court had received proof affidavits of witnesses instead of examining the witnesses under oath in the open court and recording the chief examination, and the court had done examination of some witnesses (through proof affidavit) even prior to questioning the accused under Section 251 CrPC.
The court also noted that the Magistrate had permitted scrapping of evidence of certain witnesses even without giving opportunity to the petitioner to oppose the memo filed for scrapping the evidence.
Case Title: Santhosh vs. The Commercial Tax Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the guarantor of the assessee for failing to pay the tax dues of the latter to the Commercial Tax Department.
The Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate against the assessee as well as the petitioner, who stood as a guarantor with respect to the tax arrears of the business done by the assessee.
The Court remarked that though the petitioner had executed an undertaking or a guarantee in favour of the assessee to the Commercial Tax Department, the same was merely an agreement for which the petitioner can be attached only with contractual liability and not criminal liability.
The bench of Justice R.N. Manjula added that the guarantor cannot be implicated as an accused for the default committed by the assessee, since the guarantor was not an assessee in the eyes of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
[Jayalalithaa’s Death] Madras High Court Seeks Details Of Steps Taken By Govt On Arumugasamy Report
Case Title: RR Gopaljee v Union of India and others
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy made the inquiry in a plea filed by RR Gopaljee, publisher of a Tamil newspaper.
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of five advocates and three judicial officers as Judges of the Madras High Court.
The resolutions by the Collegium Of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph recommended the following persons:
1. Shri R Sakthivel
2. Shri P Dhanabal
3. Shri Chinnasamy Kumarappan and
4. Shri K Rajasekar
Feces Mixed In Water Tank: Madras High Court Mulls Appointing Retired HC Judge To Monitor Probe
Case Title: K Rajkamal v. Secretary to government and other
Case No: WP 8925 of 2023
The Madras High Court has called for the Case Diary with respect to the investigation being carried out in relation to the unfortunate incident of mixing human feces in overhead tank which resulted in the hospitalisation of persons belonging to scheduled caste community in Pudukottai district.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy also stated that the court would appoint a retired judge of the High Court to monitor the investigations being carried out by the CB-CID.
Case Title: Paul Manoj Pandian @ PH Manoj Pandian v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others
Case No: OA 235 of 2023 (and other connected)
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on pleas filed by expelled leaders of the AIADMK party - O. Panneerselvam, P.H. Manoj Pandian, R. Vaithilingam and J.C.D. Prabhakhar challenging the party resolution dated July 11 2022 by which they were removed. The leaders had also challenged the elections to be held for the post of General Secretary of the party.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu heard the parties in detail on a special sitting. Earlier, the court gave nod for conducting the general secretary elections but directed the party not to declare the results till the challenges were disposed.
The Central Government today notified the transfer of two Judges to Madras High Court - Justice Battu Devanand (From Andhra Pradesh High Court) and Justice Devaraju Nagarjun (Telangana High Court). Judicial officer P.Vadamali has also been appointed as an additional judge of the High Court.
