- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Madras High Court
- /
- Madras High Court Half Yearly...
Madras High Court Half Yearly Digest: January to June 2023 [Citation 1 - 180]
Upasana Sajeev
27 July 2023 3:23 PM GMT
![Madras High Court Half Yearly Digest: January to June 2023 [Citation 1 - 180]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2023/07/27/750x450_483323-madras-hc-half-yearly-digest-2023.webp "Madras High Court Half Yearly Digest: January to June 2023 [Citation 1 - 180]")
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...
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
X v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
Priya Dharshini and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
K Marimuthu v. The Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Vishal Krishna Reddy v Lyca Productions, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
Neyatitus v. The Regional Passport Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sri. R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
Sankar v The State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
Sivaprakasam v. The District Collector and 5 othrs, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
V Senthil Balaji v. Nirmal Kumar and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
Kudankulam Nuclear Power Employees Union v. Government of India and ors, 2023 LiveLaw Mad 118
Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education v. The Appeal Committee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
A Muthupandi v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
Susamma Baby v. State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
K Udhayakumar v. The District Collector and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
M Syed Ali Fathima v. State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
R Radha and another v The State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
Susila and others v. S Thirumalai and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
XYZ and others v. Kalakshetra Foundation and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
P. Cheran vs M/s Gemini Industries & Imaging Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited v. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
Ziyavudeen Baqavi v. The Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
Annadurai v Jaya, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
Vasuki v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
Sundaresan Suresh Kumar Versus Assessment Unit, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
BR Aravindakshan v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
M/s. Prime Store and others v. Sugam Vanijya Holdings Private Limited and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
Jayaraman TM v The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
Ilavarsan v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
M/s. Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. Versus Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
Dr. R Pavithra v The Commissioner of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
S.Periyaraja v. The Principal Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
P Ayyakannu v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
Dr T Murugavel v The Additional Chief Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
Mathiyari v The District Collector and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
Harini v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
M. Suveathan vs. The State Commission for Protection of Child Rights and Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
K Singaravelu v The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam v Election Commission of India and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
Annalakshmi v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
Parvathi Sunitha Kumaran v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
Raja v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
Tamil Nadu Ayush Sonologist Association v. The Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
Rajini v The Superintendent of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
E Anna Yesudhas v The District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
Vadivel and others v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
Vediyappan v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
Salem District Nature and Environment Protection Society v. Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 158
Yuvaraj v Additional Superintendent of Police and other (batch cases), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Director of School Education and Others v. M Velayutham and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
S Raja v M/s.Hindustan Unilever Ltd and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
Abubakkar Shithik v State and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
Saravanan v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Kennel Club of India and others v. The Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
K. Mubeena Banu v. Tamil Nadu Health & Family Welfare Department and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
Ditty Mathew v. The Secretary and others (and connected case), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
S Megala v The State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
Senthil Balaji v. A Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
Aarur Tamilnadam v S Sankar and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 169
Sudha Sarveshkumar v Chief Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
Elephant G Rajendran v The Registrar General and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 171
Kannaian Naidu and others v Kamsala Ammal and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
V Sundararaj v. The Registrar General and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation v. The State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
Muthu Subramania Gurukkal v The Commissioner, HR&CE Department and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
Mr. Ramasaravanan v. Udayanidhi Stalin and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
AP Ramalingam v The Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
Satheesh Kumar v Inspector of Police, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 178
MA Ranjith v The Director General of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
K Janarthan v Mrs Vimala, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
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.
Case Title: X v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakh to a woman who was falsely implicated in a case under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956.
Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai bench noted that the State could not shirk its liability by claiming that the officers involved were not performing their official duty. Further, the court rejected the State's defence that the charge sheet was quashed on the basis of a detailed enquiry conducted by it and thus it was not liable to pay compensation.
Case Title: Priya Dharshini and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to form District Medical Boards in all districts under the provisions of the Surrogacy Act 2021. The court added that members of these Boards may not necessarily be from the medical colleges as the Act does not contain such stipulation.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench also noted that the authorities should be well versed with the procedures under the Act so that the applications are disposed of expeditiously. Further, since the intending parties had to approach the Judicial Magistrate for matters concerning parentage and custody, it was necessary to sensitise the judicial officers also.
Case Title: K Marimuthu v. The Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Observing that the right to be considered for "appointment/empanelment" in a bank is a fundamental right of citizens, the Madras High Court recently directed all the Nationalised and Public Sector Banks to review their existing procedures for empanelment of lawyers.
Justice SM Subramaniam said that the existing procedures are not in consonance with the established procedure and are against the constitutional mandate. The court added that the prevailing procedures enable the banks to empanel lawyers as per their whims and fancies, thus depriving opportunity for rightful candidates.
The court also added that absence of a definite procedure will lead to corruption, favouritism and nepotism. The court observed that while those lawyers, who had God Fathers could solicit the authorities and seek empanelment, the other lawyers, would lose out on opportunities thus affecting their fundamental rights.
Case Title: Vishal Krishna Reddy v Lyca Productions
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High Court has directed Actor and Producer Vishal Krishna Reddy, more popularly known as Vishal to deposit a sum of Rs 15 crore to the credit of suit filed by entertainment company Lyca Productions. The court has also restrained Vishal from releasing any movie in Theatres or in the OTT platform which he has produced or financed, until then.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing the original side appeal filed by the actor challenging this direction by the single judge directing him to make a fixed deposit for ₹15 crore to the credit of the civil suit and hand over the original FD receipts to the Registrar of the High Court in connection with a suit regarding non payment of loan amount.
Case Title: Neyatitus v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court recently directed the Regional Passport authority to consider the representation of a man who had applied for an Indian Passport. Since his birth certificate showed him as a Srilankan refugee, he was called upon by the passport authorities to give an explanation.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench noted that though the petitioner's father was also a Srilankan refugee, the fact that his mother was an Indian citizen was not disputed. The court noted that we were still stuck in patriarchal notions as the authorities automatically assumed the petitioner will partake his father's nationality while his mother remained an Indian citizen making him eligible for an Indian passport. The court was thus convinced that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of relief and directed the authorities to process his application within a period of three weeks.
Madras High Court Quashes Reassessment Made After The Limitation Period
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sri. R. Rajagopal Tondaiman
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court has held that the assessment was reopened on the basis of the error pointed out by the revenue audit, but it was done after the period prescribed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that reopening the assessment in light of factual errors pointed out by the audit party is permissible under the law.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Four Accused Of Obstructing Temple Demolition
Case Title: Sankar v The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
Recently, while disposing of a bail application preferred by two men including a lawyer who were alleged to have trespassed into a temple property and prevented the revenue officials from removing the illegal encroachments, the Madras High Court noted that the court could not be a silent spectator to the act of bulldozing.
Justice G Jayachandran made the remarks on coming to know that the government officials had, in the guise of evicting the encroachers, demolished the age-old structure.
Case Title: Sivaprakasam v. The District Collector and 5 othrs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
While dismissing a Public Interest Litigation seeking a prohibitory order in the Pattavarthi village of Nagapattinam district, the Madras High Court asked why the birth anniversary of Dr. BR Ambedkar and a temple festival can not be held on the same day.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said it is for the police to ensure that both the events happen on the same day and that the police is equipped to make the necessary arrangements.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v. Nirmal Kumar and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
While disposing of the application filed by DMK Minister V Senthil Balaji seeking to restrain Tamil Nadu BJP IT Wing head CTR Nirmal Kumar from making defamatory allegations against him, the Madras High Court noted that when application are filed for deletion of alleged defamatory tweets, follower counts, speed and frequency with which the messages are disseminated and the interactive nature of the platforms form material consideration.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy looked into each of the 17 alleged tweets and the Youtube videos posted by Kumar which according to Balaji were defamatory in nature. The court concluded that six of the tweets were “per se defamatory” while the remaining related to the “public function” of Balaji as the Minister. The court thus ordered for removal of the said six tweets.
Case Title: Kudankulam Nuclear Power Employees Union v. Government of India and ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw Mad 118
Dealing with Kudankulam Nuclear Power Employees Union petition's seeking benefit of wages for the work done on a holiday, the Madras High Court remarked that public servants are like school children who always welcome holidays and exemption from work. The court was hearing a plea claiming double wages for working on a declared holiday (Ambedkar Jayanti).
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench said that though Dr. Ambedkar was someone who would have wanted people to work hard instead of declaring holiday on his anniversary, and that a system of sentiments and symbolism is prevalent.
Case Title: Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education v. The Appeal Committee and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
While refusing to grant relief to Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education, the Madras High Court heavily criticised the college for admitting students in the 2021-2022 academic year when it did not have any affiliation.
Imposing a cost of five lakh rupees, Justice CV Karthikeyan said that the college should suffer the consequences of its actions and also left it open to the students to litigate against the college for the damages made.
Case Title: A Muthupandi v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
While dealing with an appeal challenging the conviction in a rape case, the Madras High Court recorded its displeasure at the manner in which cross-examination is being carried out in the trial courts. It is quite unfortunate that the trial court advocates are not developing their skills of cross examination, said the court.
Justice Anand Venkatesh said that the art of cross-examination was considered a crown in advocacy skills and if this art is lost, the charm of conducting a trial before a court will also be lost.
Case Title: Susamma Baby v. State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
While dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a pastor who was detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, for sexually assaulting a physically and mentally challenged minor girl, the Madras High Court observed that the facts of the case "shocked the judicial conscience".
The division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice KK Ramakrishnan added that, for invoking the Detention Act, the propensity of the act was more important than the habitual nature of the offence as the definition of “Sexual Offender” did not demand habituality.
Case Title: K Udhayakumar v. The District Collector and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
While dealing with a Public Interest Litigation seeking action against government officials for alleged misappropriation of funds under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojaya – Gramin (PMAY-G), the Madras High Court observed that the scheme was intended to provide houses to weaker sections of the society and strict action must be taken against officials who were misappropriating the funds under the scheme.
The division bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench took note of the submissions made by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department that steps have been taken to appoint verification officers in the cadre of Assistant Directors and Deputy Collectors to ensure proper implementation of the scheme.
Case Title: M Syed Ali Fathima v. State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
The Madras High Court recently observed that rehabilitation or de-addiction centres can be run only after obtaining proper permission and necessary licenses and that the social welfare officer is duty-bound to inspect such places regularly to safeguard the public interest.
Justice SM Subramaniam made the observation on a plea by a woman claiming compensation from the Director of the Institute of Mental Health for her husband’s death while he was admitted at the Ever Green Rehabilitation Centre in Kovilambakkam, Chennai. It was alleged that the petitioner’s husband was brutally attacked by the management of the Centre before his death.
Case Title: R Radha and another v The State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
Citing the delay in listing 'vacate stay' applications, the Madras High Court recently came down heavily on its Registry. The court remarked that the Registry should ensure that these applications are listed periodically to ensure speedy disposal of the same as contemplated under Article 226(3) of the Constitution.
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that the pendency of such vacate stay petitions has caused huge financial loss to the State Exchequer and that parties should not be allowed to take advantage of these interim stays depriving the other party of its rights.
The court also pointed out that collusion by the Registry staff could not be ruled out and that such corrupt practices should not prevail. The court added that periodical inspections and thorough inquiry was necessary to ensure that case papers are properly maintained. The court also added that sometimes, the case papers are intentionally mixed up with other case papers to ensure that the cases remain unlisted.
Case Title: Susila and others v. S Thirumalai and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
While upholding the compensation awarded to the second wife of a man who died in a road accident, the Madras High Court recently observed that for the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the establishment of loss of dependency was sufficient.
Justice R Vijayakumar pointed out that under the Act, the basis for entitlement of compensation was dependency. Thus, even a legal heir who was not dependent upon the deceased would not be entitled to receive compensation.
The court added that the Act was a benevolent legislation and thus it should be interpreted in a liberal manner to provide monetary relief to the victims and thus serve its real purpose.
Case Title: XYZ and others v. Kalakshetra Foundation and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court has directed the Kalakshetra Foundation to frame a policy against sexual harassment and to constitute a Complaints Committee with respect to its schools, both under the CBSE and the State Board.
The court also directed the foundation to submit the profiles of the members that are presently part of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted by the foundation on April 3.
The court further added that the interim protection that was granted to the students against any coercive action by the management for talking about the assault or participating in the Dharna, would also be applicable to the faculty members who came in support of the students.
Case Title: P. Cheran vs M/s Gemini Industries & Imaging Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
The Madras High Court has ruled that a party is entitled to challenge the appointment of the Arbitrator at any stage, if there is any violation of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The court remarked that even if the award debtor had participated in the arbitral proceedings or, after having knowledge of the appointment of the sole Arbitrator, had failed to challenge the said appointment in terms of Section 13, the same would not deprive him of the right to challenge the said appointment under Section 34 for violation of the provisions of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that when the very appointment of the Arbitrator unilaterally, is improper and impermissible by virtue of Section 12(5), the arbitration proceedings are liable to be vitiated from the stage of the appointment of the Arbitrator. Further, a decision by an authority having no jurisdiction is non est in law and its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be acted upon.
Case Title: Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained Google from delisting the mobile applications of Matrimony.com Ltd, the parent company of Bharath Matrimony from its Google Play Store.
Justice S Sounthar has passed the interim order in a suit filed by Matrimony.com challenging the new payment policy of Google. Matrimony.Com had sought an injunction restraining Alphabet Inc and other subsidiaries of Google from removing/delisting its matchmaking app from the Google Play Store for its refusal to accept Google's new payment policy. Finding a balance of convenience in favor of Matrimony.com, the court has granted the interim order till June 1.
Case Title: Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited v. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Madras High Court recently set aside a single judge order restraining Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited from proceeding with a defamation suit against former MP Dr. Subramaniam Swamy in the High Court of Singapore.
The division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice PB Balaji noted that the single judge had erred in holding that the company, incorporated and carrying out its operations in Singapore, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Indian court as it was the subsidiary of an Indian company (which was one of the defendants in the suit by Swamy).
Case Title: Ziyavudeen Baqavi v. The Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
While setting aside an NIA Court's order rejecting the discharge plea of a man accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), the Madras High Court has reiterated that courts should refrain from using crowd-sourced websites such as Wikipedia in legal dispute resolution.
The division bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Nirmal Kumar relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Acer India case and Hewlett Packard case where the Apex court has cautioned against courts using sources like Wikipedia in legal dispute resolution.
Mother Entitled To Arrears Of Maintenance Accrued To Deceased Daughter: Madras High Court
Case Title: Annadurai v Jaya
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court recently held that a mother is entitled to claim the arrears of maintenance that accrued to her deceased daughter before her death. The court noted that arrears of maintenance was the property of the deceased daughter and after her death, her mother, being a legal guardian, is entitled to this property.
Justice V Sivagnanam thus dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the ex-husband of the deceased daughter challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate wherein the court allowed the mother to be impleaded to collect the arrears of maintenance.
Madras High Court Directs State To Meet Expenses Of Child Born To Woman After Failed Tubectomy
Case Title: Vasuki v The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court recently directed the state government to compensate a woman who had given birth to a third child after a failed tubectomy procedure. The court also directed the State to give free education to the third child in Government or Private school and to pay a sum of Rs 10000 per month to meet the expenses of the child.
Justice B Pugalendhi observed that Family Planning was a national program implemented by the Government and that it was the duty of medical officers to implement the scheme.
Case Title: Sundaresan Suresh Kumar Versus Assessment Unit
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment as the assessee was given only 13 hours to reply to the show-cause notice.
The bench of Justice M. Dhandapani has directed the department to consider the matter afresh and, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner, pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks.
The court observed that the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on March 27, 2023, at 19.10 p.m., and the petitioner was given time to respond until 9.00 a.m. on March 28, 2023, a clear violation of natural justice principles.
Case Title: BR Aravindakshan v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking ban on the release of the multilingual movie, "The Kerala Story".
BR Aravindakshan, a Chennai-based journalist had filed the petition stating that the movie will affect the country's sovereignty and unity causing disturbance to the public order. He contended that the movie was an intentional attempt to portray the State of Kerala as a terrorist-supporting state. He also submits that if the movie is allowed to be released, it'll be a humiliation to the entire country as it'll create an impression that India is a country that produces terrorists.
When the case was taken up today, the vacation bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice C Saravanan dismissed the PIL after observing that the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court had already dealt with the issue regarding the release of the movie. The court also asked the petitioners how they could assume that the movie would create law and order problems without watching the movie.
Case Title: M/s. Prime Store and others v. Sugam Vanijya Holdings Private Limited and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
The Madras High Court has recently held that the provisions for disqualification for appointment as arbitrator under the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would be applicable to any person, including a retired judge. The court noted that the provisions with respect to ineligibility and disqualification are mandatory and non-derogable.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy thus set aside an arbitral award that was passed by a sole arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one of the parties to the dispute.
Case Title: Jayaraman TM v The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that though under Article 338(8) of the Constitution, the National Commission For Scheduled Caste enjoys the powers of a civil court, it does not have the powers to grant temporary or permanent injunction.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the law in this regard has already been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association and others wherein it has been held that when the commission is not specifically granted powers to issue an injunction, it cannot not pass an order as such.
Case Title: Ilavarsan v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary action against lawyers who are conducting marriage ceremonies in their offices and issuing fake marriage certificates.
Noting that marriages performed by Advocates in their office are not valid marriages, the bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice R Vijayakumar held that the same have to be registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009 and the parties have to physically appear before the Registrar.
Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
In an attempt to make public transport in the state accessible to all including persons with disabilities, aged persons, pregnant women, and children, the Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State, particularly the transport department.
The court also modified a tender floated by the transport department to ensure that more low-floor buses are procured by the State.
Case Title: M/s. Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. Versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
The Madras High Court has cancelled the cancellation of the customs duty exemption certificate (CDEC) issued to the Apollo Hospitals.
The bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam has observed that the petitioner hospital has failed to establish that they have treated 40% of their outdoor patients in the hospital, where the imported medical equipment is installed. The petitioner hospital has also failed to establish that 10% of all the hospital beds are reserved for such patients who have received free treatment in the hospital where the imported medical equipment was installed.
Case Title: Dr. R Pavithra v The Commissioner of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a post-graduate medical student, Dr R Pavithra who had lost around 3 lakh rupees from her account due to fraudulent unauthorized transactions on Paytm. She had approached the court after the City Union Bank failed to reverse the loss suffered by her and instead allegedly attempted to shift the blame on her.
Justice RN Manjula after hearing in detail the submissions of the City Union Bank, Paytm, and the Reserve Bank of India, held that the payments bank, ie, Paytm was liable for the transactions and not the petitioner’s bank.
Madras High Court Imposes Rs 25000 Cost On Lawyer For Challenging Private School's Vacation Classes
Case Title: S.Periyaraja v. The Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 25000 on a lawyer for filing a “motivated petition” challenging the special classes being conducted for students of Class X and XII by a private school. The court said that the amount be paid to the Corporation Girls Higher Secondary School in Tirunelveli and be used for the construction of a toilet or purchasing Napkin Vending Machine for the school.
Finding that the petitioner S Periyaraja was not an aggrieved person, the bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the petition had been filed specifically against a particular school when there were several other schools that were conducting special classes all over Tamil Nadu. The court also noted how several coaching centers were also conducting classes for 12th-standard students to train them for competitive exams like NEET, JEE, CLAT, etc.
Case Title: P Ayyakannu v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
The Madras High Court has observed that the Essential Commodities Act ,1955, is one of the "primary reasons of the very existence of our democracy" and that both central and state governments are extremely sensitive and careful when it comes to food and that is why, the people of this country "worship their leaders".
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy also observed that the Fair and Remunerative Price, which is the minimum price that sugar mills must pay farmers and fixed by the Central Government, is in reality not a fair market price.
The court added that the actual expenses involved by the farmer are more than 80% of the FRP. The court also encouraged the State Governments to take into account the actual market value and actual expenses involved while fixing the State Advised Price (SAP).
Case Title: Dr T Murugavel v The Additional Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
While restraining the State from going forward with the heli-tourism proposed to be conducted in the Nilgiris area as part of the Summer Festival, the Madras High Court emphasized that the fragile eco-system and vulnerability of the bio-diverse region cannot not become a victim of crass commercialism.
The division bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that the proposal to conduct Heli-tourism was made by the Tourism Department without proper study and without discussions with the Forest Department or the wildlife wardens and was merely to generate revenue for the State.
The court noted that the feasibility of the helicopter operation in an ecologically sensitive region should have been cautiously approached and carefully addressed. It added that tourism policies must strike a balance with public concerns, specifically environment and wildlife.
Case Title: Mathiyari v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
While criticizing revenue authorities for indirectly aiding encroachers, the Madras High Court has said that even after 125 years of enactment, the revenue authorities have still not understood the purport of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
The division bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice L Victoria Gowri was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed under Section 7 of the Act. The court, after going through the order, noted that the order disclosed the “extraordinary magnanimity" of the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar to help the petitioner. The court was also satisfied that the order was passed for some illegal consideration.
Case Title: Harini v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
The Madras High Court recently set aside a detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Avadi City on the ground that the intimation of arrest of the detenue made through an SMS which was improper.
The division bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Nirmal Kumar observed that the right of the detenu to make effective representation is a constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22 of the Constitution and this right was hampered in the present case since the intimation was not made in a proper manner.
Case Title: M. Suveathan vs. The State Commission for Protection of Child Rights and Ors W.P. NO. 4615 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
The Madras High Court has said that the State government must bear all costs, including the expenses on books, study material etc., incurred by a child belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Disadvantaged Groups (DG) admitted to school under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act.
The court said that uniform, notebooks, other reading materials and all other necessary ingredients would form an integral part of education that is imparted to the petitioner under the Act.
While allowing the writ petition, the court directed the school to provide all the materials, including uniform, notebooks, text books and all other reading materials to the petitioner forthwith without insisting on any payment from the petitioner, and to make a claim to the State for the amount payable.
Case Title: K Singaravelu v The Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
While refusing relief to a schoolteacher challenging his transfer, the Madras High Court recently observed that a teacher should focus on imparting knowledge and skills to the needy students and not hold on to comfortable posting.
Justice CV Karthikeyan further opined that the school teacher should set an example for the students and not question every administrative order.
Madras High Court Directs ECI To Register Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam Party
Case Title: Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam v Election Commission of India and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
While allowing the Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam party to get itself registered with the Election Commission, the Madras High Court said that while looking into the meaning of the name of the party, the Election Commission should have read the word “Deiveega” in the context of other words in the name and thus should not have rejected the registration of the party.
Justice Anita Sumanth said that while the word Deiveega also meant “Godly”, such an interpretation would not sit well with the name of the party, read in full.
Elected Representatives Must Work Together For Benefit Of Villagers: Madras High Court
Case Title: Annalakshmi v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
The Madras High Court recently said that even though there can be differences between elected representatives, they should work together for the benefit of the people.
Justice CV Karthikeyan was hearing a plea filed by the Panchayat President of Pattakurichi Village, Tenkasi Taluk challenging an order of the District Collector. The court noted that the collector had passed the impugned order pursuant to his emergency powers under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act since the President and the Vice president were at loggerheads with each other.
Case Title: Parvathi Sunitha Kumaran v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
While ordering the shifting of a burial ground from a land situated close to a water body to another land, the Madras High Court highlighted that though public resistance is common in such cases, the revenue officials should try to control the situation and ensure that the water body is not polluted.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that the State must look at the larger picture and maintenance of water stream must get an upper hand over hardships caused by shifting of the burial ground.
Case Title: Raja v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever electricity is stolen for the conduct of temple festivals, the liability under the Electricity Act has to be fastened on the Trustees of the temple and its Executive Officer as they are responsible for providing electricity.
While observing so, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy discharged an Electric Contractor who was charged under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 for a mishap that happened in Melmalayanur Arulmighu Angalamman Thirukovil in 2008.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Ayush Sonologist Association v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
The Madras High Court has emphasized that only a doctor having specialised qualifications as specified under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 can perform Ultra Sonogram and other Ultra sound techniques on pregnant women.
Justice SM Subramaniam thus dismissed a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Ayush Sonologist Association seeking permission to conduct these techniques.
The court agreed with the State's submission. It noted that for carrying out the diagnostic procedures and Ultra Sonogram/Ultrasound techniques, the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act will prevail over the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments Act.
Case Title: Rajini v The Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
The Madras High Court recently observed that though courts normally do not interfere with the investigation carried out by police officers, it would also not turn a blind eye to instances of harassment by police under the guise of investigation.
Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup was dealing with a plea filed by one Rajini contending that the police were harassing her under the guise of an enquiry/investigation. The police authorities, on the other hand, submitted that a notice under Section 41A of CrPC was issued to the petitioner based on a complaint and pending enquiry.
The court noted that though the Magistrate is a guardian of all stages of police investigation, he does not have the power to interfere in the actual investigation. The court added that this has led to numerous cases of police harassment.
Case Title: E Anna Yesudhas v The District Collector
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
The Madras High Court recently emphasized that the State must take steps for trees in this age of climate change. The court said that felling of trees for the construction of the building was not a wise decision.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench was hearing a petition by Anna Yesudhas challenging the decision of Kanyakumari District Authorities to cut down trees for facilitating the construction of a new Panchayat building.
Case Title: Vadivel and others v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
While setting aside the conviction of a man charged for robbery, the Madras High Court emphasised on the need for Test Identification Parade. The court highlighted that punishing a person without proper identification will directly impinge his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that courts should not be swayed by emotions and must ensure that the accused persons are properly identified.
The court also noted that in many cases, the police officers usually show a habitual criminal as the accused as it was convenient. The court observed against this line of investigation and said that just because a person is a habitual criminal, he cannot not be held responsible for every crime that took place in the society. This attitude, according to the court, will cause a dent in the criminal justice system and will make the officers ineffective.
Case Title: Vediyappan v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
While setting aside the conviction of a man for the offence of acid attack and house trespass, the Madras High Court observed that the courts must be bound by legal evidence and not moral conviction.
Justice V Sivagnanam said that administration of justice in the country was founded on the principle that an accused person must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In the present case, citing lack of evidence to connect the accused with the crime, the court noted that the appellant Vediyappan is entitled to acquittal.
Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Increase In Sports Quota In Higher Educational Institutions
Case Title: Salem District Nature and Environment Protection Society v. Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
The Madras High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking increase in the number of seats under the Sports Quota in higher education institutions in Tamil Nadu.
The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that the matter is beyond the purview of writ jurisdiction of the court as it is a policy decision of the government.
The petitioner, Salem District Nature and Environment Protection Society submitted that there is no regulated quota to the sports persons in higher studies in Tamil Nadu. The president of the society, Arthanari also submitted that even though in Tamil Nadu a lot of students are taking sports as a career, no proper reservation or regularised reservation is being given to them causing great injustice.
Case Title: Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 158
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has ordered an interim stay on the press communique issued by the Joint Committee on the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill 2023 which had invited suggestions from the public in general and NGOs / experts / stakeholders and institutions in particular about the bill.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice PT Asha agreed with the submissions of Theeran Thirumurugan, who has filed a public interest litigation seeking direction for translating the bill in Tamil and for accepting suggestions in Tamil language.
The court, though appreciated the endeavour of calling for suggestions, also noted that the object would be defeated if bill or the press communique does not reach the sections of the public who were unaware of English or Hindi.
Case Title: Yuvaraj v Additional Superintendent of Police and other (batch cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Madras High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of eight accused in the Gokul Raj murder case. The court altered the charges against two other accused to imprisonment of five years.
The division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the prosecution had proved the chain of circumstances that had led to the murder of Gokulraj by the accused persons.
Case Title: The Director of School Education and Others v. M Velayutham and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
The Madras High Court recently held that any teachers who have been appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher or a Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant prior to July 29, 2011, are eligible to continue in service even if they have not qualified Teacher’s Eligibility Test but they must possess the TET to be eligible for consideration to future promotional prospects.
The court struck down a Government Order issued by the School Education Department prescribing that a pass in TET was mandatory only for direct recruitment to the post of BT Assistant and not for promotion. The court said that TET is mandatory for all teachers appointed after July 29, 2011, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion.
Case Title: S Raja v M/s.Hindustan Unilever Ltd and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
The Madras High Court recently observed that use of abusive language is not of such a serious nature so as to impose the "capital punishment" of dismissal from service.
The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice R Kalaimathi interfered with an order of single judge who had set aside the labour court order for reinstating the workman with backwages. The court noted that while awarding punishment, the management has to take into account the gravity of the offence and the previous record of the workman along with other circumstances
Case Title: Abubakkar Shithik v State and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
The Madras High Court recently observed that the offence under Section 127A of the Representation of Peoples Act is a non cognizable one.
Justice Sunder Mohan held that since the punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment for a period of six months, as per Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code, it would be a non cognizable offence.
Case Title: Saravanan v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Madras High Court has directed the State Public Prosecutor to give instructions to the police officers appearing before court to come prepared with the particulars of the case.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandra passed the direction in a bail petition after noting that the police officer who was deputed by the investigation agency to assist the public prosecutor was fumbling in the court without knowing the particulars of the case.
Madras High Court Quashes Notification Banning Import Of Dogs For Commercial Activities
Case Title: The Kennel Club of India and others v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a notification issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade imposing a ban on import of dogs in the country for commercial breeding or other commercial activities.
“The absolute ban now imposed is on the basis that import of dogs for commercial breeding will bring foreign diseases to India as well as contaminate native gene pool. As far as import of alien diseases is concerned, there are effective measures for quarantine and testing of the animals prior to permitting entry into India. Thus, this can be no reason to justify the ban,” Justice Anita Sumanth said.
The court observed that the impugned notification has no legs to stand and that the alleged deliberations of the concerned ministries who were involved in the impugned ban are stated to have been destroyed.
Case Title: K.MubeenaBanu v. Tamil Nadu Health & Family Welfare Department and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
While refusing relief to a mother alleging medical negligence, the Madras High Court said the government hospitals in the country are already flooded with patients and the courts cannot be expected to interfere with the decisions of the specialist doctors with respect to the treatment to be provided to patients.
Justice SM Subramaniam also observed that High Courts, under Article 226, cannot be expected to act as an expert body and pass directions for treatment as the same would amount to excess exercise of judicial review.
Case Title: Ditty Mathew v. The Secretary and others (and connected case)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
The Madras High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation filed by students of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras seeking action against police officials who allegedly attacked students during a protest in 2017. The students were protesting against an attack on a PhD Scholar who had participated in a Beef Fest conducted by some students of the institute in light of the Union government's notification regulating the sale of cattle for slaughter.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu closed the petitions after noting that six FIRs have already been registered and that the cases are pending before the trial court. The court also said that even though students have the right to protest but they must do so in a peaceful manner in accordance with law.
Case Title: S Megala v The State and others
Citation 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
The Madras High Court denied interim bail to Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji but allowed his family's request to transfer him to a private hospital — Kauvery Hospital, for treatment.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the orders on the habeas corpus petition filed by Meghala, Balaji's wife.
The court said that since a challenge has been raised in the manner of his arrest, the question would be whether all the procedures have been followed and whether there was any illegality. The court said that it would take up the petition and issued notices to the respondent authorities to be returnable by June 22.
The court also noted that in matters concerning health, one should be allowed to get treatment at a place of his choice.
The court noted that since both the doctors at Omandurar Government Hospital and the ESI doctors have suggested immediate treatment to Balaji, it would be better of he is given such treatment. At the same time, the court said that the medical expenses should be met by Balaji himself.
Since ED had objected to Balaji's transfer to a private hospital, the court, while allowing the transfer, also directed that the team of doctors constituted by ED can regularly monitor Balaji's treatment at the private hospital.
Case Title: Senthil Balaji v. A Shankar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
The Madras High Court has vacated an interim order which had restrained Youtuber Shankar alias Savukku Shankar from making derogatory videos and statements against Minister V Senthil Balaji.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that as per previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, only statements of a person dealing with private life would be subject to scrutiny in a pretrial stage. The court added that in the present case, the videos and comments were made against the Minister in his official duty and thus the court was not inclined to grant the relief of injunction prayed for.
At the same time, in another petition moved by the Minister claiming that Shankar had violated the earlier order of the court and continued to make derogatory comments, the court directed Shankar to pay a sum of One Lakh rupees for his remorseless conduct "impinging the majesty of the court".
The court noted that even after the interim order passed in August last year, Shankar had reposted the earlier statements which were found to be defamatory. This, in the opinion of the court, was wilful disobedience which was liable to be punished.
Case Title: Aarur Tamilnadam v S Sankar and others
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 169
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a civil suit claiming that the story of Enthiran movie is based on the story “Jugiba” originally written by writer Aarur Tamilnadan. The suit sought a declaration that "Enthiran" is the infringing copy "Jugiba" and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from distributing or screening the film.
Justice S Sounthar dismissed the plea by Aarur after noting that as per settled law, copyright cannot not be claimed over an idea or a concept.
Aarur claimed that the movie Enthiran is based on his novel and that the makers of the movie illegally stole his story. He sought damages to the tune of one crore rupees and for stopping the screening of the movie. In his support, he also produced letters written by readers claiming that the film was based on his story.
Case Title: Sudha Sarveshkumar v Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a plea filed by a native of Villupuram to reopen the Sri Dharmaraja Draupadi Amman Temple sealed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
The temple, situated in Villupuram District, was sealed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on June 7 following a dispute over the entry of Scheduled Caste members into the temple.
When a plea regarding reopening of the temple came up before the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu, the court disposed of the same, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.
Case Title: Elephant G Rajendran v The Registrar General and others
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 171
The Madras High Court recently came down heavily on the Madras Bar Association, for its strict bye-laws making it difficult for an ordinary lawyer to become a member of the association. The court also directed the Association to pay five lakh rupees as compensation to Senior Advocate Elephant G Rajendran for denial of drinking water to his son in 2012 by a senior lawyer.
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that the bye-laws of the Association have been formulated in such a manner that ordinary Advocates find it difficult to get membership thus resulting in class discrimination. The court also noted that since the association was functioning inside the court premises and enjoying all the benefits including free electricity, such elitism could not be allowed in a public place using the money.
Observing that practicing lawyers cannot be deprived of access to drinking water merely on the ground of membership, the court added that the present case was regretful and that both bar and bench should avoid such trivial and unwarranted situations.
Case Title: Kannaian Naidu and others v Kamsala Ammal and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court recently held that a wife, who contributed to the acquisition of family assets by performing the household chores, would be entitled to an equal share in the properties, as she had indirectly contributed to its purchase.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that though there was no legislation at present that recognized the contribution made by the wife, the court could very well recognize the same. The Court added that the law does not prevent a Judge from recognizing the contributions.
The court agreed with the wife’s submission that she had contributed to the family by taking care of the household and the children. The court noted that the wife, though did not make direct financial contributions, had played a vital role in managing the household chores by looking after the children, cooking, cleaning and managing day-to-day affairs of the family without giving any inconvenience to the plaintiff abroad and moreover, she sacrificed her dreams and spent her entire life towards the family and children.
Case Title: V Sundararaj v. The Registrar General and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
The Madras High Court has set aside two notifications issued by Tamil Nadu's Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department inviting applications for appointment as Members in the District Consumer Redressal Commission and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, observing that the notifications were based on Rules already struck down by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.
The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai Bench noted that the notifications were based on Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of President and Member of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 which were already struck down on the date of the notification.
The court reiterated that once a Central Law or rule was held to be unconstitutional by a High Court, the same would stand effaced from the statute book in respect of the whole nation.
Case Title: Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation v. The State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
The Madras High Court recently directed the authorities to abide by the orders of the District Green Committee on felling and transplantation of trees for the expansion of the Chennai Egmore Railway Station.
The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the District Green Committee, headed by the District Collector has granted permission for felling of 182 trees, transplantation of 103 trees and pruning of 33 trees, totalling 318 trees.
The court said that though it does not doubt the bonafide of the authorities, it was necessary to follow the orders of the District Green Committee. The court also directed the authorities to report compliance with the committee and asked the latter to verify the same.
Caste Has No Role To Play In Appointment Of Temple Priests: Madras High Court
Case Title: Muthu Subramania Gurukkal v The Commissioner, HR&CE Department and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
The Madras High Court has reiterated that while appointing Archakas to a temple, the caste has no role to play when the person otherwise fulfills all the requirements.
The court added that in temples governed by the Agama, the Trustees/Fit Person only have to ensure that the Archaka/Sthanikam to be appointed is well-versed and properly trained to perform the pooja as per the Agama.
Justice Anand Venkatesh made the above observations on a plea filed by Muthu Subramania Gurukkal challenging an advertisement issued by the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, and the Executive Officer of Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, calling for applications to fill up the position of Archakas/Sthanikam at Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem.
Madras High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of Udayanidhi Stalin Starrer 'Maamannan' Movie
Case Title: Mr. Ramasaravanan v. Udayanidhi Stalin and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
The Madras High Court has refused to stall the relese of Udayanidhi starrer movie “Maamannan”. The court passed orders on a plea filed by Producer Ramasaravanan seeking injunction against the release of the movie and further to direct Udayanidhi Stalin to complete the shooting in a previously agreed upon film titled “Angel”.
When the case came up before Justice K Kumaresh Babu, the judge observed that the agreement between Udayanidhi and Ramasaravan was completely different from the one entered into between Udayanidhi and the producers of Maamannan movie ie, Red Giant Movies, and hence an injunction could not be granted to implement merely because on the parties to both the agreements was same person. The court added that it could not entertain an injunction against third parties from implementing their agreements.
Case Title: AP Ramalingam v The Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
The Madras High Court has refused to ban the offering of Namaz in a Nellithopu (pathway) towards the Kasi Viswanthar Temple situated at Thirupparankundram in Madurai District.
A bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice L Victoria Gowri refused to grant an interim stay on the offering of prayers at Nellithopu and asked the Hindu Religious & Charitable endowment to file their counters to the petition by four weeks. The court also remarked that there was no harm in offering Namaz for 30 minutes and that it would not affect any person.
Case Title: Satheesh Kumar v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 178
The Madras High Court recently observed that even though the law does not require investigating officers to take the opinion of the Public Prosecutors before filing Final Reports, it may sometimes prove to be counterproductive. Thus, the court noted that some methodology could be devised to ensure that the final reports are scrutinized by legally trained minds before they are filed in courts at least in cases involving serious offences.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh had earlier directed the Tamil Nadu government and the Director General of Police to respond to an order for establishing a specialised wing to improve the quality of investigation.
The court directed the Director of Prosecution to issue a circular to all Public Prosecutors sensitizing them to deal with Final Reports at the earliest. The court added that the prosecutors can inform the investigating officers about any defects which can be rectified before filing it in the Jurisdictional Courts. The court added that the circular shall make it abundantly clear that delay in scrutinization should not be the cause for delay in filing of Final reports beyond the Statutory period.
Case Title: MA Ranjith v The Director General of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
While providing relief to a Police Inspector with respect to his pending salary, the Madras High Court criticized the Director General of Police for not considering the representation made by him in 2019.
Justice Battu Devanand also said that the action of the DGP is not only illegal but also in violation of the Inspector’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“This is one of the classic cases of lethargic attitude of the bureaucrats in our country. Every employee, who discharges his duties honestly, he would expect payment of his salary regularly from the employer, without any unreasonable delay. The employee has to survive himself and he has to feed his family and also to take care of all necessities of his family members, from the salary, he is getting,” the court said.
Case Title: K Janarthan v Mrs Vimala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
The Madras High Court recently criticised the manner in which All Women Police Stations across the State were functioning. The court noted that in Tamil Nadu, the police stations were reduced to places of corruption where the authorities proceeded to side with powerful parties. The court lamented that these institutions which were introduced to contribute to the society were now reduced to shameless "kangaroo courts".
Justice R Subramanian and Justice Victoria Gowri made these observations on a contempt petition filed by one K Janarthan alleging that the Inspector of All Women Police Station (Thilagar Thidal), Vimala, had arrested him without following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Lalitha Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh and had thus committed contempt of court.
