Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 27 to April 2, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 103 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

NOMINAL INDEX

Paul Manoj Pandian @ PH Manoj Pandian v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

Deepa Traders Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

S Salma v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

Vetriselvi and another v. The Member Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

Angappan v Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

LK Charles Alexander v. Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

REPORTS

EPS vs OPS: Madras High Court Rejects Applications By Expelled AIADMK Leaders For Stay Of General Council Resolutions

Case Title: Paul Manoj Pandian @ PH Manoj Pandian v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

The Madras High Court has rejected the applications filed by expelled AIADMK leaders seeking a stay on the operation of the General Council resolutions by which they were dismissed from the party. The court also rejected the applications filed by the leaders seeking a stay on the General Council elections.

Justice Kumaresh Babu passed the orders on pleas 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 single judge noted that the Supreme Court, in its order dated 23.02.2023 had already held that the convening of the General Council was valid. That being so, the unanimous decision taken by the members of the General Council, which had the powers to amend the party bye-laws was valid.

Errors Committed Are Inadvertent, Rectification Would Enable Proper Reporting Of The Turnover And ITC: Madras High Court

Case Title: Deepa Traders Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

The Madras High Court has held that errors committed are inadvertent and, the rectification would, in fact, enable proper reporting of the turnover and input tax credit (ITC) to enable claims to be made in an appropriate fashion by the assessees.

The single bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has observed that the petitioners must be permitted the benefit of rectification of errors where there are no malafides attributed to the assesses.

Section 46(4) CrPC: Madras High Court Directs State To Frame Guidelines For Obtaining 'Prior Permission' Of Magistrate To Arrest Women At Night

Case Title: S Salma v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

The Madras High Court has directed the State government to ensure compliance with Section 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and frame guidelines for obtaining 'prior permission' of Judicial Magistrate to arrest women at night in exceptional circumstances.

Justice Anita Sumanth noted that the provision is mandatory; legislature took a restrictive approach in the construction of Section 46(4), perhaps in the face of possibilities for abuse in case of police discretion. However, since even the Supreme Court has noted the procedural difficulties with respect to obtaining prior sanction, the court thought it fit to direct framing of appropriate guidelines for arrest of women in such exceptional circumstances and obtaining of prior permission from Magistrate.

“Degree In Medicine” Should Be Understood Expansively: Madras High Court Permits Siddha And BDS Graduates To Apply For Food Safety Officer

Case Title: Vetriselvi and another v. The Member Secretary and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

The Madras High Court has recently held that a “Degree In Medicine” which has been specified as a qualification for appointment to the post of Food Safety Officer should be understood expansively. The court thus noted that the term “medicine” would include Siddha and BDS system of medicine also.

Emphasizing the importance of the Siddha system of medicine, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench noted that the system was ancient and unique to Tamil Nadu. Further, even when dengue struck or during the Covid crisis, the Government has promoted Siddha medicine. Thus, disqualifying Siddha medicine amounted to branding the system as un-modern.

Alteration In Vehicle For Persons With Disability Exempted From Payment Of Tax, Vehicle Need Not Be Driven By Such Person: Madras High Court

Case Title: Angappan v Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

The Madras High Court recently noted that under the GO by Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Transport -T) Department exempting payment of tax on all motor vehicles specially designed or adapted for the use of physically handicapped persons, the only condition was that the vehicle should be adapted for the "use" of the physically handicapped person. Thus, it was not a condition that the vehicle must be driven by such person.

Justice PT Asha of the Madurai bench looked at the meaning of adapted vehicle under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act and Rules regarding alteration of motor vehicles. The court found that the law does not specify that the person should ride the vehicle.

The court added that when a rule or regulation granted certain rights to particular sections of the society, such rule or regulation must be given a purposive interpretation to ensure that its benefits reaches the intended section. Thus, the State should ensure that such persons who are granted exemption enjoy the same.

Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Action Against Director Mani Ratnam For Allegedly Distorting History In Ponniyin Selvan

Case Title: LK Charles Alexander v. Secretary to Government and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking action against Director Mani Ratnam for allegedly portraying the wrong history of the Chola empire in his movie Ponniyin Selvan: I.

Advocate L.K. Charles Alexander had alleged that the director has distorted the history of the Chola dynasty for commercial purposes and has used the names of the historical figures in his movie to "intentionally defame the history" "being preserved" by the Central Government.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy however dismissed the plea after observing that the movie was based on the novels written by Author Kalki and not based on the actual historical characters themselves.