Madras High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March, 2023 [Citation 1 - 108]
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 108 NOMINAL INDEX Manikandan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 P Geetha v. V. Kirubaharan , 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 M/s.Tirupur Sree Annapoorna Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 Easwaran Brothers India Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 4 M Kannadasan...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
NOMINAL INDEX
Manikandan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
P Geetha v. V. Kirubaharan , 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
M/s.Tirupur Sree Annapoorna Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
Easwaran Brothers India Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
M Kannadasan v Union Of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
M/s. Radha Meditech v. M/s Cook India Medical Devices Pvt Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
People’s Watch v. The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison) and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
PhonePe Private Limited v. DigiPe Fintech Private Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
B Ramkumar Adityan v. Additional Chief Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
M/s. Raju Construction & Ors. versus The Government of India & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
A Saravanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
Po.Mu.Iraniyan @ Muthu Murugan v. The Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
D Elumalai v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
M.Munusamy @ Chinnapaiyan v. The Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd and another v. B Rajeswari, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
Rathinam v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
M Mahalakshmi v. M Vijayakumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
Pugazendhi Thangaraj v. Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
Timothy Donald Archer v. The Foreigner Regulation Registration Offer and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Rajeshwari v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
G Shanmugasundar v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
Sankareswari and another v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
M/s AQJ Apparels Private Limited v. M/s Mmunna Garments and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
Tvl.Thiruvannamalaiyar Transport Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
Mr. AD Padmasingh Issac and others v. Karaikudi Achi Mess and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
The Designated Officer v. Jayavilas Tobacco Traders LLP, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
M/s. Paul Raj Engineering v. Assistant Commissioner (Circle), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
University Grants Commission and another v. Annamalai University and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Vatsala Jagannathan & Anr. versus Tristar Accommodations & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
G. Babu v. The District Collector and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
Eswari v. Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
RS Deva alias Kamadevan v. The Home Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
TR Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
Jeya Sudha v. Inspector of Police and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
P Amutha v Gunasekaran, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
Harina v. The Regional Passport Officer and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
P Markandan v. The Commissioner HR&CE Department, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
KC v. UK and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
KC v. UK, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
M/s. Amirta International Institute of Hotel Management v. The Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
S v. V, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
Abbotsbury Owners' Association v. The Member Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
Dr Sri Hari Vignesh R v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
Dr. Jayakrishnan MP v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
R Rajesh v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
P Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
G Subramanian v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS (batch cases), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
Sivankalai v. The State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
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
Jay Shah v. The Commissioner of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
M/s Galatea Limited v. The Registrar General and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
Lakshmanan v. The Secretary SHRC, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
C.Ve. Shanmugam v. Election Commission of India and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
State v. VD Mohanakrishnan, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
M/s. Transtonnelstroy – Afcons (JV) v. M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
C Kasthuriraj v. The State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Child rep. by her mother v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
M Narasimhan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
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
The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
KS Manoj v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
The Superintendent of Police v. S Rajeshkumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
Saravanan and another v. Semmayee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
SR v. MCR, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
M/s.Re Sustainability Health Care Solutions Ltd v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
K Karthick and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
SKS Builders and Promoters Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
Kowsalya v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
P Sathish @ Sathish Kumar v. State and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
Surajlal v. Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
S Murugesan v. The Commissioner HR&CE and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
R Balasundaram v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
S Nithya v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
G Sundararajan v The Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
S Manoharan v. Reserve Bank of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
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
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
Case Title: Manikandan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
While refusing to set aside the conviction of a man who was charged under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Madras High Court held that in POCSO cases, the description of the incident by the child assumes a lot of significance to come to a conclusion as to whether there was penetrative sexual assault in a given case. The bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that from the perspective of the child, a sexual assault may only be understood as a physical assault as the child is unaware of what a sexual assault is. Thus, the courts have to look into the description of the offence and come to a conclusion.
Case Title: P Geetha v. V. Kirubaharan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
While allowing a petition filed by a woman for transfer of a divorce petition from Poonamalle to Tiruchirappalli, the Madras High Court said parents are duty bound to maintain their minor children and in absence of a formal application, the courts also are bound to consider grant of interim maintenance to protect the interests of minor children.
Justice SM Subramaniam said though order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstances that the wife or husband, who makes the claim has no independent income sufficient for her or his support, it is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself.
Case Title: M/s.Tirupur Sree Annapoorna Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
The Madras High Court, while analysing the growing trend of tax evasion, has stated that companies, firms, or entities that evade tax payments are liable to be punished under criminal charges with substantial penalties.
The division bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the hotel business is the fastest-growing one in the world. Despite the growth, hotel and restaurant owners show no desire to pay taxes meant for the public, and a few hotels not only evade taxes but also pose a health risk to the public by intentionally degrading food quality by replacing food substances with undeclared alternative components.
Refund Or Carry Forward The ITC To GST Regime Is Dealer’s Choice: Madras High Court
Case Title: Easwaran Brothers India Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
The Madras High Court has held that the dealer has two options: refund or carry forward the ITC to the GST regime.
The single bench of Justice M. Sundar has observed that the dealer cannot be compelled to opt for one of the two, i.e., refund or carry forward the ITC to the GST regime. It is, after all, an option given to the dealer. The provisional refund order issued by the department and the issuance of what is known as "Form-P" clearly defined the entitlement of the dealer.
Case Title: M Kannadasan v Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
The Madras High Court has rejected a plea by Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam challenging Governor RN Ravi's authority to continue to hold office.
Holding the petition to be non-maintainable, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the court cannot issue notice to the Governor as he enjoys immunity under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Case Title: M/s. Radha Meditech v. M/s Cook India Medical Devices Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
While disposing of a Section 11 application for the appointment of an arbitrator filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Madras High Court followed the procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in Bharat SancharNigam Limited and another Vs. Nortel Networks India Private Limited. In the above case, the Supreme Court had held that when there is no vestige of doubt that the claim was ex facie time barred, it must be referred to arbitration. However, when there was even the slightest of doubt, the rule was to refer to arbitration.
Justice M Sundar noted that in the present case, the primary consideration was whether the case was “ex-facie barred by limitation”. For this, the reckoning date had to be looked into.
Madras High Court Bats For Better Prison Culture, Orders Preparation Of Prisoners’ Rights Handbook
Case Title: People’s Watch v. The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison) and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
Noticing shortcomings in the manner in which prison administration is carried out at present, the Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State and the Prison Department for creating a better prison environment and prison culture.
The Madurai bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad directed the respondent authorities to also prepare a “Prisoners’ Rights Handbook” highlighting the rights of the prisoners and their grievance mechanisms. A copy of this Handbook is to be given to each prisoner upon their admission.
Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v. DigiPe Fintech Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained DigiPe Fintech Private Limited from using its mark 'DIGIPE' following a trademark infringement suit by popular digital payments company PhonePe.
Justice C Saravanan said the offending trademark 'DigiPE' is similar to the 'PhonePe' mark which stands registered in Class 9, 35, 36 and 42 by PhonePe Private Limited.
Sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor Only To Licensed Consumers: Madras High Court To State, TASMAC
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v. Additional Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
In an attempt to curb the menace of alcohol abuse and underage drinking, the Madras High Court has suggested imposing a licensing regime for the sale, purchase, and usage of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad asked the Centre to take the courts directions/suggestions into consideration and give instructions to the State of Tamil Nadu and Director General of Police to impose a licensing regime.
In turn, the State government was directed to give necessary instructions to the retail TASMAC outlets that only customer having an alcohol license could purchase IMFL.
Case Title: M/s. Raju Construction & Ors. versus The Government of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
The Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging Notification No.6/2015-Service Tax, dated 01.03.2015, which withdrew service tax exemption on services in nature of works contract, as granted under the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax, dated 20.06.2012.
The bench of Justices S. Vaidyanathan and C. Saravanan observed that “works contract” services are “declared services” under the Finance Act, 1994 and thus, the services provided by the petitioners attracted service tax. While holding that only a temporary reprieve was given to the petitioners by virtue of the Mega Exemption Notification, the Court concluded that there was no promissory estoppel involved in the grant of such exemption. Thus, the bench upheld the Notification No.6/2015, withdrawing service tax exemption.
Case Title: A Saravanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the employees of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) from going on a strike on January 10 or on any future date.
While allowing the petition filed by one J Elumalai, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that since electricity is an essential service, if the employees went on strike, it would affect the public at large. Thus, the court restrained the employees from going on a strike.
Case Title: Po.Mu.Iraniyan @ Muthu Murugan v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
While disposing of a petition seeking to take action against cultural programmes denigrating the Kuravar community, the Madras High Court directed the state to ensure that no dance performances are identified with a community, so as to denigrate the members of the community.
..ensure that no dance performance is identified using a caste/ tribal community's name so as to insult or degrade the persons belonging to such community.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad of the Madurai bench also directed the State and police authorities not to grant permissions to such cultural programmes depicting the Kuravar community in an obscene manner.
The court also directed the authorities to open a separate portal for the general public where any grievance with respect to obscene representation of the community could be raised and the related videos could be uploaded. The Cyber crime department could then look into the grievance and take appropriate action whenever necessary.
Madras High Court Stays Order Cancelling Appointment Of 25 Aavin Employees
Case Title: D Elumalai v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
The Madras High Court has stayed an order passed by the General Manager of Aavin cancelling the appointment of 25 employees. Aavin is a state government cooperative under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
While giving an interim stay on the operation of the impugned order, Justice Abdul Quddhose said the petitions are prima facie maintainable as the petitioners have approached the court only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
The petitioners contended that the order of cancellation of their appointment was arbitrary and illegal. The reason given by the authorities for cancellation of appointment is that the appointments were made in violation of the Special Rules. The petitioners, however, submitted that they were appointed after following due procedure and proper verification.
Case Title: M.Munusamy @ Chinnapaiyan v. The Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
The Madras High Court recently issued a set of directions to be followed while conducting cockfights in connection with Pongal festival at an event in Valakkanampoodi Pudur village of Tiruvallur district.
In a plea filed by a group of villagers for granting permission to conduct the cockfight as part of pongal celebrations and to celebrate the birth anniversary of former CM MG Ramachandran, Justice VM Velumani and Justice R Hemalatha issued the directions for regulating the fights.
The court has directed the event be supervised by the police and doctors from the nearby Government Veterinary Hospital.
The court also directed the petitioner to donate a sum of thirty thousand rupees to Prashanti Old Age Welfare Home, Chennai and to furnish proof of payment before the respondent authorities. It further directed the organisers to take precautionary measures to ensure that no untoward incident takes place.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd and another v. B Rajeswari
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
While dismissing an appeal preferred by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against a single judge order directing the organization to pay maternity benefits to a temporary employee, the Madras High Court recently held that welfare legislation like the Maternity Benefits Act cannot be denied merely on the basis of technicalities.
Highlighting the importance of maternity benefits for women, Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq went on to observe that a woman must not be forced to swing between motherhood and work like a pendulum and that even in Hindu mythology, women who sacrificed their lives for their families were considered at par with God.
Madras High Court Directs State To Compensate Man Detained For 8 Months Despite Acquittal
Case Title: Rathinam v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
The Madras High Court recently directed the State to award interim compensation to a man who was illegally detained in prison for more than 8 months even after the court had acquitted him of his murder charges.
Justice Sunder Mohan noted that since the man was not aware of his rights, he had not preferred an appeal and as such was not aware of his acquittal. Thus, it was necessary for the court to come to the aid of such persons.
ALSO READ: Ensure Prisoners Can Access Kiosks In Their Own Language: Madras High Court To State
Case Title: M Mahalakshmi v. M Vijayakumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
While hearing a petition to transfer a matrimonial dispute from Pudukottai to Ponneri in Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court noted that the father, who was working as a Village Administration Officer was not paying interim maintenance to his 10 year old daughter.
While directing him to make such payment irrespective of visitation rights, Justice SM Subramaniam also directed the District Collector to take strict action against the officer under service rules if he failed to pay such interim maintenance.
Case Title: Pugazendhi Thangaraj v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court has allowed a petition filed by director Pugazendhi Thangaraj and relaxed the conditions imposed on celebrating the birth anniversary of late LTTE Leader Prabhakaran.
Though the court relaxed the conditions imposed by the police, Justice G Chandrasekharan stressed that the event should not affect the sovereignty of the nation or its friendly relations with other nations.
Case Title: Timothy Donald Archer v. The Foreigner Regulation Registration Offer and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
The Madras High Court has directed the Centre to allow a UK national to return to his country without payment of any penalty for the overstay. The man was stranded in India due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court took note of a submission that Ministry of Home Affairs has clarified that the foreign nationals who got stranded in India on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, may apply for an exit permit which would be granted on gratis basis, without levy of any overstay penalty.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench directed the authorities to expeditiously grant exit permit to the UK national on his renewed passport, so that he can return to his parent country.
Case Title: Rajeshwari v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madras High Court has recently set aside the life imprisonment imposed on a mother for setting her minor daughter on fire and thereby causing her death.
Altering the charge from that under Section 302 to one under Section 304 of IPC, Justice PN Prakash (since retired) and Justice G Jayachandran noted that the primary question was whether the appellant mother had intended to commit the murder of her daughter.
Case Title: G Shanmugasundar v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
While directing demolition of an unauthorised construction in Tiruchirappalli, the Madras High Court said that though various enactments are in force to achieve planned development, it will remain a pipe dream because of continuous unauthorised constructions by builders and inaction of government.
The division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad of the Madurai bench ordered demolition of the unauthorised portion of a four-story building. The court also noted that by not taking any action, the officers concerned had indirectly encouraged the promoter to continue with the illegal construction.
Case Title: Sankareswari and another v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of two children who had suffered severe burn injuries in 2018 on account of an explosion near a water body in Sivakasi.
The explosion was a result of improper dumping of wastes from the firecracker industries nearby. The children, students of class X, were playing near the waterbody at the time of explosion.
Holding the State liable, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench directed it to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakh each to the victims.
Case Title: M/s AQJ Apparels Private Limited v. M/s Mmunna Garments and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
While hearing a plea praying for a leave to sue, the Madras High Court noted that the Registry was using Postal pin codes to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Justice M Sundar thus directed the registry to only use the Jurisdictional Limits Act and the Jurisdictional Limits Extension Act to determine the jurisdiction of the court.
The court also opined that, if necessary, a map could be drawn out of the territorial limits. Since an earlier attempt to follow the map was later discontinued, the court thought it fit to revisit the aspect and thus directed the Registry to place the matter before the Acting Chief Justice for suitable orders.
Case Title: Tvl.Thiruvannamalaiyar Transport Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
The Madras High Court has imposed a minor penalty and held that the expiry of the E-way bill does not create any scope for evasion.
The single bench of Justice M. Sunder has observed that assuming there was no breakdown and assuming the portal was active, the maximum penalty would be Rs. 5,000.
Case Title: Mr. AD Padmasingh Issac and others v. Karaikudi Achi Mess and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
While rejecting a plaint by Aachi Spices and Foods seeking an injunction restraining Karaikudi Achi Mess from using a trademark name or similar sounding expression in any media, websites and other platforms, the Madras High Court has highlighted that “pre-institution mediation” mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is a pre-suit legal drill and it cannot be ordered as a post suit exercise.
Justice M Sundar stressed that Section 12A is in the nature of a jurisdictional fact. This means that a party cannot plead that the pre-institution mediation will be carried out after the institution of the suit. Thus, any such attempt by the parties to dispense with pre-institution mediation is impermissible.
Case Title: The Designated Officer v. Jayavilas Tobacco Traders LLP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
The Madras High Court recently set aside a notification issued by the state Commissioner of Food Safety imposing a ban on sale of Gutka, Pan Masala, flavoured or scented food products or chewable food products that contain tobacco or nicotine.
While setting aside the notification, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Kumaresh Babu held that the commissioner had exceeded his powers while passing such a notification. The court agreed with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Commissioner (Food Safety) Government of Delhi.
Case Title: M/s. Paul Raj Engineering v. Assistant Commissioner (Circle)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court has referred to the division bench the issue of the power of the high court under Article 226 to condone the delay beyond the maximum time limit stipulated under the GST Act.
The single bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has observed that there were two contradictory views expressed by two judges of the Madras High Court.
Case Title: University Grants Commission and another v. Annamalai University and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
The Madras High Court has recently upheld the power of the University Grants Commission to impose Regulations for the conduct of Distance Education Programs by the universities.
While disposing of a series of appeals filed by the University Grants Commission and other universities and private colleges relating to power of the Commission to impose such a condition, the Madras High Court ruled that since the University Grants Commission has been given primacy in matters of University education, the commission was within its authority to determine the standards of the universities.
The court also lamented that such regulations came to be necessary since a lot of educational institutions have started to commercialise education by engaging in indiscriminate franchisee agreements with persons without any expertise.
Non - Signatory Can Be Referred To Arbitration Under ‘Doctrine Of Alter Ego’: Madras High Court
Case Title: Vatsala Jagannathan & Anr. versus Tristar Accommodations & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court has ruled that non-signatories to arbitration agreement can be referred to arbitration by invoking the ‘doctrine of alter ego’ only in exceptional cases where there is convincing evidence that the non-signatory is the ‘alter ego’ of the signatory.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy remarked that the doctrine of alter ego is applied in exceptional circumstances by piercing the corporate veil of the signatory Company in order to determine who lurked behind it at the relevant point of time.
Madras High Court Allows Brother To Be Appointed As Legal Guardian Of Woman With Mental Disability
Case Title: G. Babu v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Tuesday while permitting the brother of a schizophrenic patient to be appointed as her legal guardian, observed that “person suffering from multiple disability” in Section 2 (j) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 must be understood to mean “a person with benchmark disability” as defined in Section 2(r) of the 2016 Act.
The Court observed that this would enable the Local Level Committee constituted under Central 44 of 1999 to deal with cases of appointment of guardian for persons suffering from any kind of disability.
Justice G. R. Swaminathan observed that the Local Level Committee constituted under Central 44 of 1999 should not confine themselves to cases of congenital conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy and mental retardation alone and that they should also deal with other disabilities as it would enable easier and quicker access to justice.
Case Title: Eswari v. Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a candidate who is ineligible to participate in a recruitment process is a stranger to such process and cannot challenge the appointments made therein.
Justice Abdul Quddhose thus dismissed the plea of a sanitation worker who had challenged the appointments of candidates as Junior Assistants in Coimbatore Corporation.
Case Title: RS Deva alias Kamadevan v. The Home Secretary and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
The Madras High Court has recently allowed the Indu Makkal Katchi-Tamizhagam to conduct their State conference on 29th January 2023. Indu Makkal Katchi is a right-wing, Hindu nationalist party in Tamil Nadu. It was set up by the RSS as a front for its political activities in Tamil Nadu
Justice G Chandrasekharan allowed the plea filed by the party challenging the order of the Inspector of Police, Pudhu Nagar Police Station, Cuddalore rejecting permission to conduct the State conference and public procession.
While allowing permission for conducting a conference, the court however directed that the participants should neither sing songs or speak ill on any individual, caste or religion. Further, they should not talk or express anything in favour of organisations banned by the Government of India or disturb the sovereignty and integrity of the country.
Madras High Court Holds Special Saturday Sitting To Hear Case On Palani Temple Ritual Dispute
Case Title: TR Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
The Madras High Court held a special sitting to hear a matter related to the dispute about the manner in which rituals are to be carried out at the Palani temple.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy recorded that the parties have arrived at a consensus.
The petitioner TR Ramesh, president of Indic Collective Trust and Temple Worshippers Society, approached the court seeking directions to the State and the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Commissioner for performance of the rituals at Pazhani Sri Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple as per the Agamas.
The State on the other hand submitted that it does not intend to go against the Agamas. The intention was to limit the scale of ritual keeping in mind the large number of devotees visiting the temple for the Pazhani Festival scheduled to be held on February 5, it said.
The HR&CE department assured the court that the Mandalabhishekam will be carried out everyday for a period of 48 days.
Case Title: Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
The Madras High Court has said that the Shariat Councils are neither courts nor arbitrators and thus they cannot pronounce or certify dissolution of marriage by Khula.
Justice C Saravanan quashed a Khula certificate issued by the Shariat Council and directed a woman and her husband to approach the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority or a Family Court to resolve their disputes.
The bench noted that even previously, the High Court in Bader Sayeed Vs. Union of India had restrained bodies such as Kazis from issuing certificates dissolving marriages by Khula.
Case Title: Jeya Sudha v. Inspector of Police and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
While noting that there are only seven Special Courts to deal with NDPS cases at present, the Madras High Court suggested setting up of Special Courts covering 100 km radius or a Special Court for every four districts.
Justice B Pugalendhi suggested the same after noting that the Investigating officers were finding it difficult to follow up with the cases as they had to continuously travel long distances. The court added that the possibility of designating Additional District Courts as Special Courts to deal with EC/NDPS cases can also be explored
Case Title: P Amutha v Gunasekaran
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madras High Court has held that the maintenance allowance that is granted to the wife would not come within the purview of debt and thus, the pension of the husband is not exempt from attachment towards payment of arrears of maintenance.
Highlighting that maintenance is a social justice to prevent destitution and vagrancy, Justice V Sivagnanam observed,
"Lawful claim due to a woman in distress should not be denied heartlessly and lawlessly. The conscience of social justice, the cornerstone of our constitution will be protected. Therefore, I hold that the maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as a debt and she is not a creditor. Hence, exemption under Section 11 of the Pension Act 1871 as well as the exemption provided in Section 60(1)(g) of Civil Procedure Code, cannot be granted to husband."
Case Title: Harina v. The Regional Passport Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the Central Government to consider issuing a passport to a woman, whose parents had escaped to India to save themselves from persecution.
Justice G. R. Swaminathan, noting that the process of applying for Indian Citizenship by naturalization under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act may not afford immediate relief, permitted the petitioner to submit an application under Section 20 of the Passports Act.
Case Title: P Markandan v. The Commissioner HR&CE Department
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
The Madras High Court has ordered closure of all illegal/unauthorised websites that have been created in the name of temples and which have been collecting funds from the devotees by misleading them.
Noting that temples are places of worship which people visit to get eternal peace and harmony, the bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad held that temples should not turn into places for gaining profits. Thus, the court held that apart from the official website of the temple, the third parties should not be allowed to maintain websites in the name of temples and collect funds.
Case Title: KC v. UK and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
While holding that the courts should always look into the best interest of the child in matters relating to custody, the Madras High Court has directed a mother to return her twin boys to their father in the US.
The division bench of Justice PN Prakash (since retired) and Justice Anand Venkatesh said the children are now living in an environment which is alien to them since for nearly 13 years, they were in the US.
The court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Rohit ThammanaGowda v. State of Karnataka and Others wherein the Apex Court observed that the question of 'what is the wish/desire' of the child is different and distinct from the question 'what would be the best interest of the child'. The court had to thus look into the welfare of the child.
Case Title: KC v. UK
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High court recently held that the law in India does not prohibit a person holding an Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card or person temporarily residing here from seeking relief under the Domestic Violence Act in the Indian courts.
Justice SM Subramaniam said upon Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act "unambiguously stipulates that aggrieved person temporarily residing or carrying out business or employed is also falling within the ambit of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, a person, who is temporarily residing in India or Overseas Citizen of India, if abused economically by the spouse, who is residing in other country, is entitled to seek relief under the Act. The cause of action arouses in India, since the aggrieved person is residing in India."
Case Title: M/s. Amirta International Institute of Hotel Management v. The Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed the pleas filed by music composers AR Rahman, GV Prakash and Santhosh Narayan challenging the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of the GST Department levying service tax on transfer of copyright in musical work for the period between 2013 and 2017.
Justice Anita Sumanth noted that to adjudicate the issue, it was necessary to look into the factual nature of the agreements between the petitioners and the third parties, and the authority was better equipped to look into the matter. The court added that the writ court could not go into interpretation of contractual clauses.
Case Title: S v. V
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court recently said that as far as grounds for dissolution of marriage are concerned, they are of continuing nature.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that when the cause of action is of continuing and recurring nature, the subsequent petition for divorce will not be hit by res judicata.
The court noted that as long as the cause of action remains different and the relief is founded on new facts, there is no bar on raising the same grounds again.
Land Shown As Common Area Belongs To Flat Owners, Builder Cannot Sell It: Madras High Court
Case Title: Abbotsbury Owners' Association v. The Member Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
The Madras High Court has recently observed that when a land is shown as a common area and is developed as a common facility, it belongs to the flat owners of the building.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Kumaresh Babu thus disposed of a petition by the flat owners' association by directing the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to handover the vacant non-FSI building to the flat owners.
The court added that the builder was not a novice and thus it was highly improbable to accept the contention of the builder that there had been a mistake in calculation of the undivided share of the land. Thus, the builders had tried to mislead the buyers by adopting a wrong formula.
Case Title: Dr Sri Hari Vignesh R v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
In a plea challenging the posting of non-service PG doctors in Urban Primary Health Centre (UPHC) and Additional Primary Health Centre (APHC), the Madras High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and directed the doctors to report to duty in the Centres allotted to them.
The main contention of the doctors was that the posting is not commensurate with the qualification and specialisation attained by them in the PG course. It was also argued that the health centres do not have the facilities to enable them perform their area of specialisation.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the 19 doctors, who were before the court, had opted for UPHC and APHC at the time of counselling and cannot be allowed to wriggle out by stating that they do not have the necessary facilities in those PHCs.
Case Title: Dr. Jayakrishnan MP v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
In a relief to five doctors, the Madras High Court has held that the period of service rendered by them during Covid-19 can be adjusted towards the two years of compulsory bond service.
Justice CV Karthikeyan held that the Government should extend an arm to the doctors as there was no refusal to undergo the compulsory bond period but only a request to adjust the period already served during Covid-19.
Case Title: R Rajesh v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court has quashed a notification issued by the Registrar of NCLT which made it mandatory for advocates appearing before any bench of NCLT to wear gowns.
The division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq in the judgment noted that as per Section 34 of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, only the High Court can frame rules for the dress code for the appearance of advocates.
The court added that the powers prescribed under Rule 51 of the NCLT Rules are merely for discharging functions as per the Act, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and equity. The same could not mean conferring power to prescribe the dress code, more so when it is contrary to the Bar Council of India rules, it said.
Case Title: P Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a batch of pleas challenging the premature release of 13 convicts who were convicted in the infamous Melavalavu Massacre.
While refusing to interfere with the order of the Government, the division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Sunder Mohan of the Madurai Bench noted that the order of premature release was made after due consideration exercising the State's power conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution. It included objections from the victim’s family and the conduct of the accused.
Case Title: G Subramanian v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS (batch cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court has allowed a batch of pleas challenging a single judge order imposing certain conditions on the route march sought to be carried out by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq noted that the State must uphold the citizens' right to freedom of speech and expression. The court thus directed the RSS to file fresh applications for carrying out the route march on three different dates and directed the Tamil Nadu police to permit the RSS to take out route marches on any of such dates in various districts across the State on public roads.
'Misbehaviour Caused In A Drunken Mood': Madras High Court Grants Bail To Accused In SC/ST Case
Case Title: Sivankalai v. The State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to a man arrested for misbehaving with a woman belonging to the SC/ST Community.
While Justice G Ilangovan agreed that the man was not having good conduct, the court noted that considering the period of incarceration and the fact that the alleged act was done in a drunken state, the man was entitled to bail.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case Title: Jay Shah v. The Commissioner of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
While granting relief to a hotel owner, the Madras High Court has recently held that there is no prohibition under law for providing Hookah services in restaurants if same is run conforming to the provisions of “Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, supply and Distribution) Act, 2003” and also “The Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008”.
The court noted that as per law, a separate smoking area, i.e. a separately ventilated smoking area with the board “Smoking Area” in English or one Indian language is a must. The restaurants should further display the Health advisory message against smoking at the entrance of the restaurant and that the entry of persons below 18 years should be prohibited.
Case Title: M/s Galatea Limited v. The Registrar General and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
The Madras High Court has directed the State government to notify the inauguration of its Intellectual Property Division.
Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the High Court registry has taken all possible steps to start the Intellectual Property Division and that the delay was on the part of the State.
The court also noted that the draft Rules were placed before the Full Court and approved. The Committee had also directed the Registry to approach the government to notify the rules. Following this, the registry addressed the State government for issuing the direction and has been constantly following up. However, the State was yet to notify the rules.
Case Title: Lakshmanan v. The Secretary SHRC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court has recently observed that though there are instances of human rights violation in police stations, every instance of casual police enquiry cannot be termed as a Human Rights Violation.
The bench of Justice VM Velumani and Justice R Hemalatha noted that accusing police officers of human rights violation at the drop of a hat may be demoralising for the entire police force.
Madras High Court Dismisses Youtuber Savukku Shankar's Plea To Donate Books To Prisoners
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by YouTuber Shankar @ Savukku Shankar challenging the Director General of Prisons' refusal to accept book donations made by him.
After noting that the petitioner himself has not read the books, Justice CV Karthikeyan dismissed the plea on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain how the books would be useful for the prisoners
Case Title: C.Ve. Shanmugam v. Election Commission of India and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court has disposed of a petition filed by AIADMK Organising Secretary C. Ve Shanmugam seeking a direction to the Election Commission to ensure free and fair conduct of the Erode (East) Bye Election. Shanmugam had sought for deployment of Central paramilitary forces and permitting identification of voters only through their identity cards and not the booth slips.
Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of the submissions made by the Election Commission listing out the steps taken to ensure smooth conduct of the election.
Case Title: State v. VD Mohanakrishnan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court recently found a court officer guilty of misusing his official position and cheating an illiterate man with a promise of securing a job for him and obtaining 40000 rupees for the same.
Justice P Velmurugan reversed the order of the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted the court officer under Section 420 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The court further disagreed with the defendant that a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act would clarify that the money given was in fact a loan amount. The court also found it improbable that the respondent, a public servant would seek financial assistance from the complainant who was poor and jobless.
Case Title: M/s. Transtonnelstroy – Afcons (JV) v. M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
While granting relief to the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL), the Madras High Court has noted that while an arbitral tribunal, which consists of experts in the field, is at liberty to apply its own knowledge and understanding to arrive at a conclusion, it should always allow the parties involved to present their case.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was adjudicating appeals filed by Transtonnelstroy-Afcons who had entered into an agreement with CMRL for carrying out the construction of Chennai metro.
Case Title: C Kasthuriraj v. The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court has recently held that an order of Magistrate directing to register FIR cannot be quashed merely in the absence of recoding reasons on how the Magistrate was satisfied about the prima facie case.
Justice RN Manjula held that only when a mechanical order is passed on a bald complaint, the same can be set aside for not listing out the reasons.
The court added that though it would have been better if the Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded reasons, it could not be the reason to set aside the order when the complaint contained material particulars. Thus, it could be said that the order was passed without application of mind.
Madras High Court Criticises School For Denying Admission To Child With Special Needs
Case Title: The Child rep. by her mother v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Coming down heavily on an educational institution for denying admission to a child with special needs, the Madras High Court observed that the institution had not only failed in performing its duty but had also brought bad repute to the Christian Missionary in whose name the institution was running.
Justice CV Karthikeyan noted that even though towards the end of the proceedings, the respondent school had remonstrated that it would appoint special educators and would also admit the child into their school, the same appeared to be a hollow submission.
Case Title: M Narasimhan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
While directing the Forest Range Officer to return a gun to a man accused under the Wildlife Protection Act, Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madras High Court noted that under Section 68 of the Forest Act 1927, when an offence is compounded, the person accused should be discharged and the property seized should be released.
The court thus, set aside the impugned order and directed the Forest Range Officer to return the gun and the bullets to the petitioner.
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.
Case Title: The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
While dismissing a review application filed by the High Court of Madras on its administrative side, the Madras High Court held that the administrative side cannot seek a review of its own judgments on the judicial side as it would amount to undermining the judicial fibre.
Justice PT Asha noted that while an administrative order of the High Court can be subject to scrutiny, the vice versa was not true.
Case Title: KS Manoj v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
The Madras High Court has recently terminated the admission of a 3rd year MBBS Student who had participated in the NEET (UG) 2020 examination and claimed that the OMR Answer sheet uploaded on the official website was not his.
After extensive investigation into the matter, Justice CV Karthikeyan was satisfied that the original OMR Sheet as produced by the respondent agencies was the only one in existence in which the candidate had scored 248 marks out of 720.
Thus, the court found that the writ did not stand and the interim permission that was granted by the single judge, allowing the candidate to participate in the admission process would have to be interfered with.
Conviction As Juvenile Does Not Stigmatize Future Employment As Police Constable: Madras High Court
Case Title: The Superintendent of Police v. S Rajeshkumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
The Madras High Court has noted that rejecting a candidate’s appointment for the sole reason that he was acquitted/convicted as a minor would go against the objectives of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumarakurup came to the aid of a candidate who had applied for the post of Police Constable. His candidature was rejected when the authorities came to know that he was involved in a criminal offence. Hence, even though he got selected in the written test and the physical test, his name was rejected.
It noted that when a special enactment had sought to remove the stigma, the police should not be acting against the provisions of the Act and claim that the rejection was based on the Service Rules.
Hindu Succession Act Will Not Come In Way Of Inheritance By Tribal Women: Madras High Court
Case Title: Saravanan and another v. Semmayee and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
The Madras High Court has recently come to the support of tribal women in their struggle for equal succession rights. The court has noted that the Hindu Succession Law does not to exclude tribal women from its operation but only intends to positively include the customs.
Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act states that the Act shall not apply to the members of the Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government by notification in the official gazette otherwise directs.
Justice SM Subramaniam highlighted that the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act should not come in the way of inheritance by tribal women in areas where Hinduism and Buddhism were being followed.
Case Title: SR v. MCR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Family Court directing the wife to pay twenty thousand rupees as interim maintenance to her husband during the pendency of their divorce petition.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi noted that the Family Court judge had "magnified" a small procedure and had misplaced sympathy. The family judge had noted that the husband had undergone angioplasty and had a stent fixed which made him incapable to work.
Case Title: M/s.Re Sustainability Health Care Solutions Ltd v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Madras High Court has recently issued a set of directions for the movement of bio medical waste. The court was hearing a plea filed by a company which was engaged in the business of collecting and disposing bio medical waste in five districts namely Madurai, Virudhunagar, Theni, Dindigul and Ramanathapuram.
The company had approached the court when a group of villagers restricted entry of the company vehicles after a plastic pocket containing amputated limb had fallen on the road in transit. Following this, a peace committee meeting was convened including revenue and police authorities. The company was directed to take a different route and its license was to be renewed only after ascertaining views of villagers.
Justice GR Swaminathan, however criticised the manner in which the villagers had restricted the company. The court noted that the right to carry on business was guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the constitution and the mob could not hold a person at ransom.
Madras High Court Quashes Temple Archaka Appointments Made Contrary To Agama
Case Title: K Karthick and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently set aside the appointment of three persons as the Archakas at the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil, Trichy, after noting that the appointments were not in terms of the Agama.
The Court noted that the temple was an agamic temple and was governed by Kamika Agama. Therefore, only Adi Saivars/Sivachariyars/Gurukkals who have gained knowledge in the Agamas alone are eligible and qualified to be appointed as Archakas for the said temple. However, the persons appointed do not belong to the denomination of Adi Saivars/Sivachariyars/Gurukkals. "Therefore they are ineligible to be appointed as Archakas in Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil, Kumaravayalur, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy which is governed by Kamika Agama", the Court held.
The Court also explained that the Agamic prescription is not a violation of Article 17 of the Constitution by pointing out that a Smartha Brahmin is not eligible to be appointed as an Archaka of the temple. The Agama is not unconstitutional as there is no disqualification on the sole ground that a person belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Personal Hearing To Be Granted In All Matters Prior To Finalisation Of Assessment: Madras High Court
Case Title: SKS Builders and Promoters Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
The Madras High Court has held that personal hearings shall be granted in all matters prior to the finalization of assessments, except where the stand of the assessee is intended to be accepted by the department.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the officer has grossly erred in proceeding to finalize the assessment in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Kowsalya v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
The Madras High Court has permitted Kowsalya, wife of Sankar who was hacked to death for marrying from a different caste, to conduct a meeting in memory of Sankar. Kowsalya had approached the court after State denied permission for the meeting citing law and order problems.
Justice G Chandrasekharan noted that the offense of Honour killing was increasing every day and that honour killing was not eradicated in Tamil Nadu.
In such a situation, the court noted that the scope of starting the Sankar Social Justice Trust and organising a meeting to disseminate information against honour killing and promoting inter caste marriage was laudable. The court added that such object should not be prevented and prohibited by the court.
Case Title: P Sathish @ Sathish Kumar v. State and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
The Madras High Court has held that appointing Deputy Commissioners of Police as Executive Magistrate is violative of the Constitution and the District Police Act.
A bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Anand Venkatesh thus declared two Government Orders as unconstitutional, which gave Deputy Commissioners the powers of an Executive Magistrate while dealing with bonds for keeping peace.
The court added that if the police were allowed to continue with such powers, it would lead to anarchy as the entire process of investigation, prosecution and adjudication will be done by one branch of the executive - the police.
Case Title: Surajlal v. Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
The Madras High Court has recently held that an order passed by the High Court granting leave to institute commercial suit will be an order passed under the Commercial Courts Act.
The full bench of Justice R Subramanian, Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan thus noted that an order granting leave or refusing to revoke the leave granted is not appealable.
Case Title: S Murugesan v. The Commissioner HR&CE and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by a man seeking postponement of Panguni festival celebrations in light of the public examination.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that while it was important not to cause any inconvenience to the students preparing for the exam, stopping an annual temple festival was not the solution. The court however directed the concerned village authorities not to use loudspeakers on the days of the examination.
Case Title: R Balasundaram v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
While criticizing a retired Upper Division Clerk for fabricating a false community certificate, the Madras High Court held that reservation policy was a matter of great pride and its exploitation could not be justified even if it was detected late.
Justice VM Velumani and Justice R Hemalatha added that at present there were systems for determining the genuineness of a person’s SC/ST lineage which did not exist earlier. Thus, when a vigilance committee had clearly established with sufficient proof that the person in question did not belong to the ST community as claimed by him at the time of employment, the court had no reason to sit in judgment or examine the full-fledged report.
Case Title: S Nithya v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
The Madras High Court recently imposed ten thousand rupees cost on a Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate who had rejected the community certificate for two kids belonging to the Kattunayakan community.
The cost was imposed on a plea by the kid’s mother seeking to quash the rejection order and to direct the authorities to issue the community certificate. In the present case, the mother of the kids belonged to the Kattunayakan Community (a Scheduled Tribe community) while their father belonged to the Pallar Community (a Scheduled Caste community).
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of two Government Orders passed by the State in 1975 and 2021 which clarifies that when a child is born out of marriage between parents of two different caste, the children would be considered to belong to either of the caste based on the declaration by parents
Case Title: G Sundararajan v The Secretary and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
The Madras High Court has recently observed that exemption from payment of entertainment tax is a concession granted by the government for promoting usage of Tamil language and merely using Tamil letter in the title of the movie is not a ground for claiming exemption from payment of entertainment tax.
Justice SM Subramaniam was hearing a plea by G Sundararajan, proprietor of Sri Vijalakshmi Films and producer of the 2015 tamil movie "I".
Case Title: S Manoharan v. Reserve Bank of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
The Madras High Court recently observed that when “individual borrower” was clearly defined by the Reserve Bank Of India as per law, only the RBI could consider expanding the scope of the definition and not the High Court. The court was hearing a plea filed by famous food chain Murugan Idli Shop's proprietor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.