Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 30 to November 5, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 332 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 338

NOMINAL INDEX

Dr.Pradeep Vasudevan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 332

Enforcement Directorate v TTV Dinakaran, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 333

The Additional Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s.N.C.Alexander, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 334

ML Ravi v The Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 335

Capt.Dr.VRC.Pandiyan v The Chairman and Managing Director, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 336

BR Aravindakshan v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 337

Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 338

REPORT

Quarantine Days During Covid-19 Duty Rendered By Medical PG Students Part Of Bond Service: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr.Pradeep Vasudevan v The State of Tamil nadu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 332

The Madras High Court recently observed that the period of quarantine during the covid duty rendered by post graduate medical students will be considered to be a part of the bond period.

Justice Anita Sumanth observed that the quarantine period was nothing but an extension of the covid duty itself and thus gave relief to a student who wanted his quarantine period of 150 days during the covid duty to be included in the mandatory bond period.

Penalty In Nature Of Recovery Under FERA Gives Rise To 'Enforceable Debt' Under Presidency Town Insolvency Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: Enforcement Directorate v TTV Dinakaran

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 333

The Madras High Court recently observed that the term 'decree' or 'order' used in the Presidency Town Insolvency Act 1909, is not limited to a decree of the civil court but would include an order passed by an empowered authority under a statute after following the adjudicatory process.

Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Kalaimathi were hearing an appeal preferred by the Enforcement Directorate against an order of a single judge setting aside an insolvency notice issued to former Tamil Nadu MLA TTV Dinakaran. The court also observed that the order passed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was one passed after proper adjudication and thus, the same would be an order/decree under the Insolvency Act giving rise to an enforceable debt.

Madras High Court Directs Customs Dept. To Release Fresh Apples Imported From New Zealand On Furnishing Of Bank Guarantee Towards Differential Duty

Case Title: The Additional Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s.N.C.Alexander

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 334

The Madras High Court has directed the customs department to release fresh apples imported from New Zealand on the furnishing of bank guarantees towards differential duty. The Madras High Court has directed the customs department to release fresh apples imported from New Zealand on the furnishing of bank guarantees towards differential duty.

The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that the nature of the subject goods, viz., fresh apples, which are perishable in nature and are meant for human consumption, made the court find it appropriate to order the release of the goods, however, subject to the condition that the assessee or respondent shall furnish a bank guarantee to the value of differential duty to be determined by the authority in order to safeguard the interests of the department.

"Political Parties Have A Right To Agitate": Madras High Court In Plea Against Signature Campaign Launched By DMK Against NEET

Case Title: ML Ravi v The Secretary and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 335

While hearing a public interest litigation filed against the signature campaign launched by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against the NEET exam, the Madras High Court remarked that every political party has a right to agitate against something and the same could be interfered with only if it was against the public policy.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Advocate ML Ravi.

"A person may launch a campaign against anything. How can you oppose that. If a particular party wants to agitate against something, they have the right to do that. You can't have a problem with that. But if a decision is taken, which according to you is against the public policy then you can challenge that. There should be a limit to filing these petitions," the court orally remarked.

The court questioned Ravi on how he was affected with a political party carrying out a campaign. The court then directed Ravi to deposit one lakh rupees after which Ravi informed the court that he'll withdraw the plea.

Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe After Litigant Produces "Suspicious" Notification Claiming He Is Additional Judge Of Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Capt.Dr.VRC.Pandiyan v The Chairman and Managing Director

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 336

The Madras High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Madurai to conduct an investigation into a notification produced by a litigant before it claiming he is an Additional Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench directed the Superintendent to verify the genuineness of a notification dated 19.09.2021, which the litigant, Captain Dr VRC Pandiyan presented before the court saying that he had been appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The court asked the Superintendent to take appropriate action against those responsible for fabrication of notification and to verify whether Pandiyan had availed any benefits out of the notification.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Steps To Remove "Future" Unauthorised Flag Poles By Political Parties

Case Title: BR Aravindakshan v The Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 337

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to remove all unauthorized flag-poles erected on public roads and other public places and to prevent the erection of unauthorized flag-poles by political parties and other organizations in Tamil Nadu.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the petitioner, BR Aravindakshan had not given any details of alleged unauthorized erection of flag poles and had filed the plea only to ensure that flag poles are not erected in the future. The court thus observed that it could not entertain any petitions anticipating future contingencies.

The court also noted that the court had already passed orders with respect to erection of hoardings and flag-poles in 2019. The court added that if people continued to erect hoardings despite orders of the court, the same would be a contempt of court for which a contempt proceeding would be a better remedy.

Coexistence Of Multiple Ideologies Identity Of Country, No One Has Right To Hold Meeting To Eradicate Any Ideology: Madras High Court

Case Title: Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 338

While denying permission to conduct a meeting to eradicate “Dravidian Ideology”, the Madras High Court recently observed that no one had a right to propagate divise ideas and conduct meetings to abolish or eradicate any ideology. The court added that co-existence of multiple ideologies was the identity of the country.

Talking about the recent meetings held for eradicating “Sanatana Dharma”, Justice G Jayachandran added that the failure of police to take any action against Ministers and members of the ruling party who had made inflammatory speeches was a dereliction of duty.

The court also added that a person in power should be aware of the ability of speech to divide people and must behave responsibly and restrain themselves from propagating such views. The court instead suggested that such persons could concentrate on eradicating other social evils like intoxicating drinks, drugs etc.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Cognizant Technology Challenges ITAT Order Upholding Dividend Distribution Tax Demand On Buyback Of Rs 19,000-Crore Shares Before Madras High Court

The Cognizant Technology has challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which upheld the dividend distribution tax demand on buyback of Rs. 19,000-crore shares before Madras High Court.

The issue relates to assessment year (AY) 2017–18, during which assessee, Cognizant acquired 94 lakh equity shares from its stockholders in the US and Mauritius for a face value of Rs. 10 apiece. A total of Rs 19,080.26 crore was paid for these shares, which were purchased at a price of Rs 20,297 per share. This transaction was completed in accordance with the scheme that the Madras High Court had approved.

RSS Route March: Madras High Court Issues Notices To TN Home Secretary, DGP In Contempt Plea Over Denial Of Permission

The Madras High Court on Wednesday criticised the Tamilnadu government for it's failure to comply with the court orders issued earlier in connection with granting permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct a route march.

Justice G Jayachandran was hearing a contempt petition filed by the party after the State denied them permission to conduct a route march in spite of an earlier order directing the police authorities in the State to grant permission.

The court opined that the State did not want to follow court orders and called the State "incapable of administration". The court then refused to passover the matter as requested by the State counsel and went on to issue statutory notices to Tamil Nadu Home Secretary P. Amudha, Director General of Police (DGP) Shankar Jiwal and other officers, returnable by four weeks.