Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 NOMINAL INDEX Pascal Sasil R v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211 M Mohammed Abbas v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 Erode Mavatta Valamana Thodakka Versus .The Managing Director / Additional Registrar Erode District Central Cooperative Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 213 Aashik Ali v State, 2023 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
Pascal Sasil R v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
M Mohammed Abbas v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
Erode Mavatta Valamana Thodakka Versus .The Managing Director / Additional Registrar Erode District Central Cooperative Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
Aashik Ali v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
Murugan v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
P Gnana Pragasam v Pradeep Yadav IAS and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
Habeeb Mohamed v. The Home Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
Thangamani v The Collector, Erode District, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
Muthupalanichamy and another v Gnana Pragasam and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
P Elangovan and others v R Prema Latha and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
Senthilkumar D v Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others (and connected cases), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
K Indulekha v. The Chairman, TNPSC and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
A Anand v. The Superintendent of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
Arunkanth v Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
A Lakshminarayanan v The Assistant General Manager, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
Jothi v The State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
Manoj Immanuel v Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
Lois Sophia @ Layis Shobia v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
Dr. Gurubaran and others v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
Kajendran v Superintendent of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
P Vigneshwaran @ Viduthalai Sigappi v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
Abdul Rahman v The Passport Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
Er.A.Kanagasabapathy vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
B. Saravanan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Ramki vs. State [Crl.A.No.72 of 2022], 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Gnanasekaran Thiyagaraj v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
S Jarin Singh v Union Of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
Athipathi v. The Principal Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The President v The District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
Vellingiri Hill Tribal Protection Society v Union of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
PhonePe Private Limited v Digipe Fintech Private Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
ML Ravi v Chairman and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
O Paneerselvam v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
Prasanna Chakravarthy v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
V Perumal v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
H Raja v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
N Mahendran v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
Case Title: Pascal Sasil R v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court on Monday said that if a litigant harasses a lawyer over certain queries raised by the court, the lawyer can initiate action against such party.
The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu made the remark while hearing a public interest litigation filed by a final year law student seeking to establish government run old age homes in every district of Tamil Nadu in accordance with Section 19(1) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.
When the case was taken up on Monday, the counsel for the petitioner submitted a memo to the bench informing the court that after the previous hearing, the petitioner had been harassing him. The lawyer sought to withdraw from the case.
The court, while allowing the counsel to withdraw from the case, said:
"The petitioner is also present here and seeks time to engage another lawyer. While we grant him time, this Court feels it necessary to reiterate that any queries posed by us are for the benefit of the litigants and queries do not indicate our order. Also, any advocate, who is harassed by a litigant following the court’s queries, or even otherwise, is entitled to take appropriate action against the litigant".
Case Title: M Mohammed Abbas v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court has granted bail to Mohammad Abbas, a Madurai based lawyer who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for his alleged links with the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) organization.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel allowed the appeal preferred by the lawyer against the order of the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Case) Poonamallee denying him bail. The court however dismissed another quash petition filed by the lawyer and said that arguments regarding malicious initiation of proceedings could be raised during the trial.
The court also rejected an oral request made by the Special Public Prosecutor seeking certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134-A of the Constitution saying that Section 43D of UAPA requires to be interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Erode Mavatta Valamana Thodakka Versus .The Managing Director / Additional Registrar Erode District Central Cooperative Bank
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras High Court has directed the Finance Ministry and Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to take action on exempting primary agricultural cooperative credit societies from TDS deduction on cash withdrawals received from the Central Cooperative Bank for distribution to the beneficiaries.
The bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar has disposed of the writ petitions with a direction that a further time of six weeks be granted within which the Ministry of Finance, the Government of India, and the CBDT would decide the request made by the Government of Tamil Nadu for exemption of cooperative societies from Section 194N.
Case Title: Aashik Ali v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court has granted bail to an advocate who was arrested in a drugs case for the offences of Section 8(c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (A), 22(c), 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
Finding that the advocate Aashhik Ali satisfies the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira granted him bail.
The court also noted that except for the alleged money transactions which were done between Aashik and the accused, there was no material nor recovery.
Case Title: Murugan v State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
The Madras High Court on Wednesday said that it would fix responsibility equally on the farmers for trespassing into the property already acquired by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) and upon NLC for not taking adequate care to prevent farmers from cultivating in the land.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that once land was acquired following the procedures as contemplated under the Act, the landowners could not claim any right over the property nor enter it and cultivate the same.
The court however noted that in the present case, NLC had not effectively prevented the farmers from cultivating in the land which had been going on for the past many years and the farmers were also made to believe that it will take a long time for NLC to utilise the acquired lands.
Case Title: P Gnana Pragasam v Pradeep Yadav IAS and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court has sentenced IAS officer Pradeep Yadav and two others to two weeks imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each in a contempt case for failure to implement earlier orders of the court. The court observed that the officer had failed to implement the order of the court while he was holding the post of Principal Secretary to School Education Department.
Justice Battu Devanand refused to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the officers.
Case Title: Habeeb Mohamed v. The Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
In a notable judgment, the Madras High Court observed that while right to vote is only a statutory right, the right to seek vote is a fundamental right as democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. The court thus observed that any person who was causing disturbance to the conduct of rallies, meetings etc for seeking votes, was committing an electoral offence.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that the right to campaign was directly traceable to Article 19(1) (a), (b) and (d) of the Constitution and is derivable from the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to assemble peacefully and to move freely throughout the country.
Case Title: Thangamani v The Collector, Erode District
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras High Court has strongly criticized the practice of stopping a widow from entering temples and said it can never continue in a civilized society governed by rule of law.
“It is quite unfortunate that the archaic beliefs that if a widow enters a temple it will cause impurity continues to prevail in this State. Even though the reformers are attempting to break all these senseless beliefs, it continues to be practiced in some villages. These are the dogmas and the rules framed by man to suit his convenience and it actually demeans a woman just because she has lost her husband,” the court said.
Justice Anand Venkatesh further observed that a woman, by herself, has a status and an identity that "that cannot in any way come down or be taken away depending upon her marital status."
Case Title: Muthupalanichamy and another v Gnana Pragasam and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court has suspended the order of imprisonment against IAS officer Pradeep Yadav and two others in the contempt case for failure to implement court orders while he was holding the post of the Principal Secretary to the School Education Department.
The division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madurai bench suspended the sentence while hearing an appeal preferred against the order of the single judge.
Case Title; P Elangovan and others v R Prema Latha and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court has constituted a 2-member committee to make a detailed report on the appointments of 254 candidates to the post of Assistant Professors in the institutions of the Pachaiyappa’s Trust pursuant to the recruitment notifications dated 12.12.2013 and 18.02.2014.
Former Madras High Court Judge Justice B Gokuldas will be the Chairman of the committee and Dr. Freeda Gnana Rani, Ex-Principal of Quaid-e-Millath Government College for Women will be the other member of the committee.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq directed the committee to look into the requisite qualifications and eligibility criteria as prescribed under the recruitment notifications under which the appointments were made and to look into the qualification and other eligibility criteria of all the appointees to see if they are eligible or not.
Case Title: Senthilkumar D v Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court has ordered a status quo ante in the Arulmighu Palani Dhandayuthapani Swamy temple by directing the respondent authorities to restore the display board stating that non-Hindus are not allowed in the temple.
Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench made the direction in a plea by D Senthilkumar, organizer of Palani Hill Temple Devotees Organization. who moved the court after noting that recently non-Hindus had purchased tickets to reach the Hilltop temple and when they were not allowed to the temple, had argued saying that the hilltop was a tourist place and could be visited by outsiders. Senthilkumar sought a direction to permit only Hindus to the Hill temple premises and its sub-temples and to ensure display boards in the temple.
Case Title: Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others (and connected cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court has dismissed a majority of pleas filed by Indian startups against Google's new user choice billing system. A total of 14 out of 16 petitions have been dismissed. The two remaining petitions filed by Disney+Hotstar and Testbook are pending.
Dismissing the petitions, Justice S Sounthar on August 3 said that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India and that the remedy available under the Competition Act is much more comprehensive than that available before a civil court. The court added that the pleas are barred by Section 61 of the Competition Act which expressly forbids civil courts from hearing any lawsuit or action that the Commission is authorised to decide.
Case Title: K Indulekha v. The Chairman, TNPSC and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court has suggested that judicial examinations should be conducted every year to reduce the pendency of cases in the courts.
A division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice K Rajasekar was hearing petitions against the Advertisement and Notification relating to the selection process of Civil Judge issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
The court noted that the principles governing a recruitment process with regard to determination of a cut-off are well settled and it is for the Authority to fix the cut-off date or age limit in accordance with the rules. The court, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rachna and others vs. Union of India and another held that unless the public policy is capricious and totally arbitrary, the Court cannot blindly stall the selection process.
Case Title: A Anand v. The Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has asked the CBI to register a case based on a private complaint alleging misappropriation of funds by a former officiating Director of Human Resources Development Center at Pondicherry University.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that though the CBI had sought prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Under Secretary to the Government had not responded to the request and later, after filing of the writ, had informed the CBI that the Executive Council of the University had decided not to grant sanction.
Case Title: Arunkanth v Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
Observing that the right to protest for a common cause is a fundamental right of each and every citizen of the country, the Madras High Court directed the authorities to give an appointment order to a man whose application to the post of Grade-II Police Constable was rejected on the ground that he had participated in protests against the NEET examination during his college days.
Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench said:
“The respondent authorities failed to consider the fact that there are no other criminal antecedents as against the petitioner and this particular crime has nothing to do with any criminal implication as far as the petitioner is concerned and he had only exercised his fundamental right to protest by participating in the protest organized by his fellow students and definitely, it will not have any implication as to the nature of the job for which he has applied to as Grade-II Police Constable,” the court said.
Case Title: A Lakshminarayanan v The Assistant General Manager
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
While setting aside a charge memo issued against an employee of the Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, the Madras High Court noted that every employee has a "right to vent" and the management could not take action against the employees for messages that were posted in a WhatsApp group chat expressing critical views against the management so long as such messages were otherwise within the legal bounds.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench held that though an employee was to show courtesy to a superior officer while gossiping privately, the superior officer may come in for all kinds of criticism. The judge added that when the management cannot interfere with gossip that takes place over a cup of tea, it could also not interfere just because the same exchange took place on a virtual platform.
Case Title: Jothi v The State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court has recently noted that a hospital's failure to provide information pertaining to the treatment given to a patient would amount to professional misconduct and would result in tortious liability as it infringes the patient's right.
Calling for digital maintenance of records, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench also noted that a patient's right to get all relevant records pertaining to his or her treatment can be effectuated only if the medical records are maintained digitally.
Case Title: Manoj Immanuel v Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
Noting the need to protect the rich flora and fauna, the Madras High Court has directed the Central Government to take steps to relocate the 495 families, including 20 tribal families, residing in the Mudumalai Tiger Reserve.
The bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy refused to accept the contention that there was a paucity of funds and noted that when there was a primordial statutory duty, the funds available with the National Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) could itself be used for giving adequate compensation to the families.
Case Title: Lois Sophia @ Layis Shobia v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against Lois Sofia, arrested for raising slogans against the BJP government on board a flight in the presence of former Tamil Nadu BJP president and current Governor of Telangana and Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry Tamilisai Soundararajan.
Justice P Dhanapal of the Madurai bench has ordered quashing the proceedings against the research scholar.
In September 2018, Sofia, a research scholar from Canada was arrested after she shouted “fascist BJP government down, down” on board a flight in the presence of Tamil Nadu BJP president Tamilisai Soundararajan who filed a complaint.
Case Title: Dr. Gurubaran and others v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court has held that the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to provide incentive marks to in-service candidates and allowing them to apply in the open category during PG admissions is not barred by any statute and that the same did not require any interference of the court.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that unless policy decision was shown to be manifestly arbitrary, the courts would be extremely slow in interfering especially when the matter was concerning the academic and educational field.
The court was hearing challenge to Regulation 9(4) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 insofar as it permits the State Governments to provide incentives to in-service candidates participating in the open category of Postgraduate Medical Admission Counselling.
Case Title: Kajendran v Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Madras High Court has observed that when a minor seeks to terminate a pregnancy arising out of a consensual sexual relationship, the registered medical practitioner may not insist on disclosure of the name of the minor for preparing a report under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act as sometimes the minor and their guardian may not be interested in proceeding further with the case.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan thus directed the Principal Chief Secretary (6th respondent in the case) to address the issue and evolve a procedure to strictly comply with the judgment of the Apex Court in Xvs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department wherein the Apex court had also ruled against the insistence of name.
Case Title: P Vigneshwaran @ Viduthalai Sigappi v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The Madras High Court recently stayed the criminal proceedings against Poet and Assistant Director P Vigneshwaran @ Viduthalai Sigappi for reciting a poem depicting Lord Ram, Lord Hanuman, and Lord Lakshman as manual scavengers.
Staying the proceedings in the FIR registered by Abhiramapuram police station, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that a prima facie case was made out.
The case against Vigneshwaran was that while participating in a function on April 30, 2023, he recited a poem where Lord Ram, Hanuman, and Lakshman were depicted as manual scavengers and Goddess Sita closes the manhole when the other three were working inside, thereafter fleeing to Srilanka leaving behind a note requesting the readers not to open the manhole.
Claiming that the poem had the potential to inflict mental agony upon a majority of Hindus and was an insult to Hinduism, a case was registered based on a complaint by Suresh Parthasarathy, leader of Bharath Hindu Munnani for offences under Sections 153, 153(1)(a), 295A, 505(1) and 505(2) of the IPC.
Case Title: Abdul Rahman v The Passport Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has observed that though a passport is a solemn document, errors may happen and that when the birth certificate has been produced, the passport entry must conform to the birth certificate.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench observed as under:
“It is true that the passport is a solemn document and the applicant must offer correct particulars at the time of application. But some times, errors do happen. The petitioner has enclosed his certificate of birth issued by the competent authority and it is seen therefrom that the petitioner was born on 18.09.1960. When the birth certificate has been produced, the passport entry must conform to the brith certificate.”
Case title - Er.A.Kanagasabapathy vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court last week dismissed a PIL plea to regulate the entry of Kerala Politicians near the Mullaperiyar Dam (in Kerala's Idukki) and to assure the safety of the Dam.
"Apprehensions of threat to dam are unfounded": a bench comprising Justice SS Sundar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy said as it noted that the safety of the dam has been ensured by the Supreme Court of India.
Case title - B. Saravanan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Granting relief to a State Police officer against whom a 'desertion' order was passed by his department on account of his absence from service (as he had to take care of his wife who was expecting a child), the Madras High Court has emphasised the need for paternity leave legislation in India.
Highlighting the importance of the role of both, a father and a mother during the prenatal care and post-natal care days of a child, the Court observed that because of the challenges of nuclear families, it is high time for the policymakers to "recognise the right to paternity leave/parental leave" to the biological/adoptive parents as the basic human right of the respective prenatal/post natal child.
A bench comprising Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed thus while holding that the right to protection of life guaranteed to every child by Articles 21 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India "culminates" in the fundamental human right of the biological parents/adopting parents seeking maternity/paternity/parental leave.
Case title - Ramki vs. State [Crl.A.No.72 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Upholding the conviction of a man who sexually assaulted a 4.5-year-old girl, the Madras High Court recently said that "in an era when our President is a woman, we need to hang our heads in shame for such crimes being perpetrated on a daily basis".
"Every girl child is considered as a reincarnation of Goddess and unless this evil of sexual assault is eradicated with strict laws and effective implementation, our society could never grow into a safe and secure society," the bench of Justice R. Hemalatha observed.
In its order, the bench also noted that in a developing country, which is riddled with taboos and biases, when women are emerging out of the shell of ignorance and illiteracy, such incidents only make us feel that "the future of young girls is unsafe".
Case Title: Gnanasekaran Thiyagaraj v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person arrested in the process of further investigation after the court has already taken cognizance of the offence can file an application for statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC if he has been in custody for more than 90 days and the supplementary charge sheet has not been filed.
The court added that the term “accused if in custody” found under Section 309(2) of CrPC includes only persons who were before the court when it took cognisance of the case and not those accused who were arrested during further investigation.
Case Title: S Jarin Singh v Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court recently observed that a member of the armed forces is expected to have utmost principles of discipline and is expected to follow every command of his superiors without resistance.
“Any member of armed forces is expected to uphold principles of discipline to the utmost. There can never be any resistance shown to the superior or higher officer. The command is a command and should be followed even at the cause of personal suffering,” Justice CV Karthikeyan said.
The court also emphasised that a punishment of compulsory retirement did not attach any stigma and should not prevent a person from applying from a job elsewhere.
Case Title: Athipathi v. The Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
A refugee has to be housed in reasonably decent accommodation. The basic infrastructural facilities must be available. He or she must also have access to the fundamental amenities such as sanitation, health care, clean drinking water etc., the Madras High Court has held.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that,
"When the right to shelter and housing has been recognised internationally as a human right, it cannot be denied to the refugees living in a camp. A camp houses a few hundred families. There are women and young girls. Their privacy has to be ensured. Otherwise, there is no meaning in declaring privacy as a fundamental right," the court said.
The court added that though the refugees living in camps are allowed to pursue their avocations and earn a living, a lot of restrictions are put in place which hinders their right to work. Thus, the court said that it is time to recognise a refugee's right to work without restriction.
Case Title: The President v The District Collector
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court has directed the Cuddalore District Collector to remove the Panchayat President and other members of the Nainarkuppam Village for their transphobic letter and resolution against grant of patta land to Transgender persons in the village.
Justice SM Subramaniam also highlighted that the transgender persons have a right to reservation and it is time for the Tamil Nadu government to initiate steps to provide reservation to Transgender persons in the local body to ensure their inclusion in the mainstream society and for their democratic participation. As an initial measure, the court directed the Cuddalore District Collector to ensure that reservation is granted to Transgender persons in the local body.
Case Title: Vellingiri Hill Tribal Protection Society v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Joint Director of District Town and Country Planning to look into the documents relating to the purchase of land by Sadhguru’s Isha Yoga Foundation in Coimbatore and verify whether necessary permissions were obtained for the construction of the Adiyogi Statue. The court also directed the authorities to take action if the permissions were not in order.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu took note of the status report filed by the Special Government Pleader informing the court that neither no-objection certificates nor permissions were obtained by the Isha Foundation.
Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v Digipe Fintech Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
In a setback to payments platform PhonePe, the Madras High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the company against a single judge order refusing to grant an interim injunction against alleged infringement of its trademark by DigiPe.
The single judge had said that PhonePe had failed to make out a prima facie case and that it had failed to disclose material facts concerning the dismissal of similar applications before other High Courts.
Dismissing the appeals, the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the appellant PhonePe had taken different stands before different courts on similar issues. The court noted that PhonePe was not the innovator of the” Pe” mark, and though it had claimed to have coined the distinctive “PhonePe” mark, the stand taken before the Delhi High Court was that the mark was coined by “CardPe”.
Case Title: ML Ravi v Chairman and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court on Friday orally remarked that the plea seeking to revoke the U/A Certificate issued for the Rajnikanth-starrer film "Jailer" was misplaced and bereft of public interest. The court also remarked that the plea appeared to be publicity interest litigation.
Division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu dismissed the plea as withdrawn.
The Petitioner, ML Ravi, an advocate by profession had approached the court claiming that the movie, which had been given a “UA Certificate” by the Central Board of Film Certificate, thus allowing children below 12 years of age to watch the movie with their parent’s guidance, is in fact vulnerable to the youth and children, given the violent actions depicted in the film.
Case Titile: O Paneerselvam v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by expelled AIADMK leaders seeking a stay on the operation of the General Council resolutions by which they were dismissed from the party.
The appeals were preferred by O. Panneerselvam, P.H. Manoj Pandian, R. Vaithilingam, and J.C.D. Prabhakhar against a single judge order rejecting their application against the party resolution dated July 11 2022 by which they were removed.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that after going through the impugned resolutions, it did not find any prima facie case for a grant of relief as claimed. The court noted that it did not find any reason to interfere with the convening of the General Council or the resolutions by which the appellants were expelled from the party and the ones through which the post of General Secretary was revived.
Case Title: Prasanna Chakravarthy v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Noting that there are no rules, regulations or even Standard Operating Procedures for online matrimonial websites, the Madras High Court has directed the Central and the State governments to take initiation for formulating rules to govern such website and to provide penal provisions for suppressing material facts.
Justice RMT Teeka Raman also noted that since e-medium is different from a magazine, the particulars given by a prospective person in the matrimonial advertisement need to be verified before registration of the profile. The bench also directed that documents of proof be made compulsory for registration of the profile. It thus directed the State Government to formulate a regulation to ensure that specific information is provided on the websites.
Case Title: V Perumal v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
The Madras High Court recently lamented that though the framers of the Constitution dreamt of an egalitarian society where people irrespective of their religion, caste, or sex, would be treated equally, some people even today indulge in producing false caste certificates for seeking employment and education, thus depriving opportunity to the deserving.
Justice N Mala noted that it was because of people like this, that Dr. Ambedkar’s dream of achieving a casteless society was still a dream.
Justice Nisha Banu also lamented such fraudulent certificates for public administrations and said that delayed verification and complexity of the best known methods added to the challenge.
Case Title: H Raja v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
While refusing to quash the proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party's National Secretary H Raja for his derogatory remarks against EV Ramasamy, K Karunanidhi, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, officers of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and their wives, the Madras High Court observed that Raja had a habit of making such irresponsible and damaging comments.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that when a person in power expresses anguish, he must be careful of every word uttered and must refrain from making reprehensible or scandalous remarks.
Case Title: N Mahendran v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the removal from service of a man who had obtained a compassionate appointment through suppression of facts, observing that he did not deserve any sympathy.
Justice CV Karthikeyan criticised the manner in which the man had obtained a certificate claiming that his family was indigent by suppressing material facts and went on to get employment based on the certificate.