Madras High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part II [Citation 251 to 492]

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 to 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 492 REPORTS Employee Cannot Be Penalised For Appointing Authority's Failure To Follow Communal Rotation Guidelines: Madras High Court Case Title: R Sasikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 The Madras High Court recently set aside the order cancelling the appointment of a Jeep Driver who was wrongly appointed to a post earmarked for members from the Scheduled Castes community. (Arunthathiyars on Preferential Basis) Justice RN Manjula held that the employee had not suppressed any material facts and he could not be penalized or made a scapegoat for the appointing authority's failure to follow the guidelines of communal rotation. Noting that the appointment was cancelled after 14 years, the court added that the Government was a model employer and could not adopt such atrocious practices. [Preventive Detention] When Liberty Is Involved, Officers Are Expected To Show Sensitivity In Dealing With Representations: Madras High Court Case Title: Tmt. Sabeena Beevi v The Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 The Madras High Court recently observed that detaining authority was expected to show sensitivity while dealing with representations relating to preventive detention. The court added that when there was unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority in forwarding representations to the sponsoring authority, the least safeguards guaranteed by the constitution were denied to the detenu. The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that since preventive detention was a serious encroachment of one's personal liberty, it was necessary to ensure certain minimum safeguards for the protection of the person sought to be preventively detained. Numerals Inserted In Provision For Illustrative Clarity, Cannot Override The Provision Itself: Madras HC Holds 1-Year PG Degree Valid For Recruitment Case Title: K Paranthaman v The Secretary, TNPSC Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 253 The Madras High Court recently observed that numeric illustrations inserted in a provision for clarity and as abundant caution could not add, modify or override the provision itself. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus ruled that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission could not hold a Master of Library and Information Science degree as an invalid degree merely because it was of one-year duration and the same would be a pedantic approach. Biological Siblings Can't Claim Heirship Of Adopted Child; Adoption Severs Ties With Biological Family: Madras High Court Case Title: V Sakthivel v The Revenue Divisional Officer Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 The Madras High Court has recently observed that when a child is adopted, all ties of the child with his or her biological family is deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus noted that the biological family of the adopted child cannot be called the legal heirs of the adopted child and have a claim over the property inherited by him/her from the adoptive family. ITC Wrongfully Availed But No Fraud/Misstatement Proven; Madras High Court Imposes Token Penalty Case Title: M/s.Greenstar Fertilisers Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 The Madras High Court has imposed a token penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee instead of a higher penalty as the assessee wrongfully availed of the input tax credit (ITC), but the department could not prove fraud or misstatement on the part of the assessee. The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the assessee reversed the ITC. Penalties under Section 74 deal with situations where credit is availed or utilized by reason of fraud or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts that was not proved by the department. Journalists Should Conduct Themselves With Dignity: Madras High Court Refuses Bail To YouTuber Felix Jerald In Savukku Shankar Case Case Title: Felix Jerald v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed the bail petition filed by Youtuber Felix Jerald in a case relating to the interview of Savukku Shankar in which Savukku made derogatory remarks against women police officers. Justice TV Thamilselvi agreed with the prosecution that by interviewing Shankar, Jerald had provided a platform to the latter, to make such objectionable statements. The judge also pointed out that being a journalist, Jerald was expected to behave in a dignified manner and he could have edited out the derogatory portions of the interview before making it public. Lacks Inventive Step: Madras High Court Denies Patent To IIT-Madras' Method Of Doping Potassium In Ammonium Perchlorate Case Title: Indian Institute of ...

Madras High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part II [Citation 251 to 492]

Upasana Sajeev

Tags