2 Aug 2023 4:55 AM GMT
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 181 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 210 NOMINAL INDEX Pooja Chakravarthy v TN MGR Medical College, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 181 Pastor Gideon Jacob v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 182 A Ayyanar v The General Manager, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 183 Megala v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 184 Prasoon Mishra v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 185 Carunia...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 181 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
Pooja Chakravarthy v TN MGR Medical College, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
Pastor Gideon Jacob v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
A Ayyanar v The General Manager, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
Megala v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
Prasoon Mishra v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
Carunia Seelavathi v Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
S Kumar v The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
Varaaki v The Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
P Milany v S Arumugam and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
B Manoharan v The Ministry of Culture, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
Amalraj v State and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
Loyola Selva Kumar v Sharon Nisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
Kajendran v Superintendent of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
M Mathi Murugan v The Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
Sv. Rm. Ramanathan and Others v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
M Rajendran and Others v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
S. Ve. Shekher v Al. Gopalsamy and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
Megala v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
C v S, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
RS Bharathi v. The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The State v S Ramasamy, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt Ltd v Google LLC and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 202
Jagadheeswari and Others v B Babu Naidu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
Senthilvel v. Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
K Thangarasu @ K Thangaraj v The Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
State v Commandant, Air Force Administrative College, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
S Chandran v. The Regional Passport Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
B Vallipavai v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and others v. D Rajasree and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
Kalimuthu v The Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
Illegal Admissions: Madras HC Directs Medical College To Transfer Rs 2.76 Crore Collected As Capitation Fee To Authorities For Special Scholarship
Case Title: Pooja Chakravarthy v TN MGR Medical College
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court has directed Sri Muthukumaran Medical College Hospital and Research Institute to deposit 2.76 crore rupees, that it allegedly collected as capitation fees/donation from students who were admitted following due procedure, into a joint account of authorities.
The court was hearing a plea filed by seven students against an order of the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University asking the institute to discharge nine students including the petitioners from pursuing the MBBS degree course.
Justice R Suresh Kumar directed the college to open a separate bank account jointly in the name of the Secretary of Selection Committee as well as the Registrar of the University so that it can be used for giving scholarships to meritorious students admitted to the first year in the 2023-2024 academic year. The court added that the University and the Selection Committee will decide as to whom such benefit shall be given.
Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Pastor Accused of Human Trafficking
Case Title: Pastor Gideon Jacob v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash proceedings against Pastor Gideon Jacob, who has been accused of illegal running a home for girl children, and human trafficking.
Seeking quashing of the proceedings, Gideon had submitted that he was a dutiful citizen and a religious person who was running the home to save female children from being killed and from foeticide.
Madras High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Bus Conductor Dismissed From Service For Non-Issuance Of Ticket, Having Excess 7 Rupees In Bag
Case Title: A Ayyanar v The General Manager
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras High Court recently directed the reinstatement of a Bus Conductor, Ayyanar, who was terminated from service for non-issuance of a bus ticket to a lady passenger and for having an excess of seven rupees with him.
Justice PB Balaji said that the order of termination from service was grossly disproportionate and criticized the action of the State Transport Department of relying on earlier proceedings against Ayyanar, even though they had been settled.
Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict In Habeas Corpus Plea By Senthil Balaji's Family Against His Arrest By ED
Case Title: Megala v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
The Madras High Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict in the Habeas corpus plea filed by Megala, wife of Senthil Balaji against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said that the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice for further orders.
Justice Nisha Banu observed that the Habeas Corpus petition is maintainable and that the Enforcement Directorate is not entrusted with the powers to seek police custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. She also dismissed the application filed by the Enforcement Directorate seeking to exclude the period of treatment undergone by Balaji while calculating the period for custodial interrogation.
Differing from this opinion, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable. He observed that normally HCP is not maintainable unless it is shown that the arrest and detention is illegal. He added that in the present case, the petitioner had not made out a case to hold that the remand was illegal and thus the HCP was not maintainable.
Madras HC Asks Dainik Bhaskar Editor To Publish Corrigendum For Spreading Fake News On Alleged Attacks Against Migrant Workers, Grants Pre-Arrest Bail
Case Title: Prasoon Mishra v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
Granting anticipatory bail to Prasoon Mishra, a News Editor of the Digital Division of Hindi Newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar”, in a case for allegedly spreading false and fake news on attacks against migrant workers in Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court directed him to publish a Corrigendum on the first page/home page of all publications stating that the news that they had published was fake, and was without verifying the truth.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira also deprecated the practice of publishing a sensitive news without verifying the correctness or understanding the sensitivity of the matter.
The court also emphasised that media, which was the fourth pillar of democracy, carries a huge responsibility and has to adopt their professional ethics and must take care of public interest instead of concentrating on sensational news alone.
Madras High Court Directs Authorities To Exempt Vehicle Tax, GST For Car Purchased By Visually Challenged Person
Case Title: Carunia Seelavathi v Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
The Madras High Court recently directed authorities to grant exemption from the motor vehicle tax as well as the GST to a visually impaired person in respect of the car purchased by her.
Justice PT Asha of the Madurai bench took note of the recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to Department of Heavy Industries, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance for amendments to their rules to give concession with reference to GST, Road Tax, Toll Tax etc to the visually challenged persons.
Police Personnel 'Authorised Officer' Under Mines And Minerals Act, Have Powers To Seize Vehicle, Compound Offences: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Kumar v The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
The Madras High Court has ruled that there is no embargo in bringing police personnel under the ambit of “authorised officer” under Sections 21,22 and 23-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. The full bench was hearing a reference made with respect to queries relating the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and also various Government Orders issued based on the Act.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan, Justice M Dhandapani and Justice K Murali Shankar noted that two Government Order issued by the State in 2006 and 2009 respectively, granting the police personnel powers to carry out seizure of vehicles under the act is not illegal and such seizure is within the law.
Manhandling Of IT Officials During Minister’s Arrest Not An ‘Internal Disturbance’; Court Can’t Direct Centre To Invoke Article 355: Madras High Court
Case Title: Varaaki v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
Dismissing a plea seeking its intervention to invoke Article 355 and Article 352 of the Constitution in the backdrop of Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji's arrest and the alleged manhandling of Income Tax officials during the search, the Madras High Court ruled that the High Court under Article 226 does not have the power to issue directions to the Centre to invoke Article 355, as it is a part of the policy decision on the part of the Executive.
The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu said any such direction would also be in violation of the theory of separation of power. "Moreover, in our opinion the current set of facts as explained before do not fall under the ambit of 'internal disturbance'," said the court.
Madras High Court Declares Election Of AIADMK MP P Ravindranath Null And Void
Case Title: P Milany v S Arumugam and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
The Madras High Court has declared the election of P. Ravindranath, son of former Tamil Nadu CM O Paneerselvan and the sole Member of Parliament from the AIADMK party null and void. The court however kept the order in abeyance for a month, to enable appeal against the order.
P Ravindranath, was the lone candidate of the AIADMK-NDA coalition to succeed in the 2019 Constituency Election from Theni Constituency.
Justice SS Sundar passed the order on an election petition filed by P Milany, a voter from the constituency, who had challenged his election on the ground of suppression of sources of income and bribing of voters.
Merely Because A Tomb Has Been In Existence For More Than 100 Years Not A Ground To Declare It As Protected Monument: Madras High Court
Case Title: B Manoharan v The Ministry of Culture
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
While ordering relocation of the tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hymners from the Madras Law College compound, located within the court premises, to any other appropriate place, the Madras High Court noted that merely because the tomb has been in existence for more than 100 years can not be the sole reason to declare it as a protected monument under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958.
Justice M Dhandapani was dealing with a plea seeking removal or relocation of the Tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hymners situated in the compound of Law College within the Madras High Court campus.
The court noted that for a monument to be of national importance two conditions are to be fulfilled – firstly, the structure should be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and secondly that the said structure should have been in existence for not less than 100 years.
Police Can Register FIR For Non-Payment Of Maintenance As It Amounts To Economic Abuse, Breach Of Protection Order Under DV Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: Amalraj v State and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
The Madras High Court has ruled that non-payment of maintenance amount is a breach of protection order under Section 18 of the Act and registration of an FIR on that ground is lawful.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench observed that Section 31 of the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act was enacted to ensure social justice and to regulate the violator of a protection order. The court called the provision a life-saving medicine by treating failure of remittance of maintenance as an offence and crime.
The court also disagreed with a reasoning of the Kerala High Court that such wide interpretation of Section 31 would lead to over-flooding of courts, and opined that flooding of courts would only signify that the people have faith in the judiciary which is a good sign for the judiciary.
'Wife' Entitled To Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Even If Marriage Was Not Legal: Madras High Court
Case Title: Loyola Selva Kumar v Sharon Nisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras High Court recently held that even if a marriage was not legal due to the existence of a first marriage, the second wife and the children born out of the second marriage will be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice K Murali Shankar of the Madurai bench was dealing with a revision petition seeking review of an order passed by Family Court, Tirunelveli directing a man to pay a monthly maintenance of ten thousand rupees to his "wife" and their son and to pay the entire arrears of maintenance amount within a month.
Come Up With SOP For Conducting Potency Test By Collecting Blood Sample, Mechanism Of Collecting Sperm Is A Method Of Past: Madras High Court
Case Title: Kajendran v Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
Noting that the Potency Test in cases involving sexual offences are still being conducted by collecting sperm from the offender, the Madras High Court has directed the authorities to come up with a standard operating procedure for conducting potency tests using blood samples.
The division bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sundar Mohan said its wants to ensure that the Two-Finger Test and the Archaic Potency Test are discontinued.
The bench was constituted to monitor the implementation of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Act on the judicial side.
ALSO READ: Identify Cases Involving Consensual Relationship Of Minors, Will Consider Quashing Them If Against Their Interest, Future: Madras High Court To Police
Court Can't Be A Mute Spectator & Permit Perpetuation Of Untouchability: Madras High Court On Denial Of Temple Entry To SC Community Members
Case Title: M Mathi Murugan v The Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
Lamenting that even after 75 years of Independence, there are instances of denial of temple entry to persons belonging to a particular community, the Madras High Court said that it can not be a mute spectator and allow such instances to continue.
Justice PT Asha of the Madurai bench said such instances of denial of entry to the temple even after 75 years of independence should make us hang our heads in shame.
The court added that if necessary, considering the ground situation and disturbance to public order, the police authorities would be at liberty to invoke the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest-Offender, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.
Madras High Court Quashes COTPA Proceedings Filed Against Actor Dhanush For Film Poster Showing Him Smoking Cigarette
Case Title: Sv. Rm. Ramanathan and Others v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras High Court on Monday quashed criminal proceedings under Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, initiated against Actor Dhanush, Director Aishwarya Rajnikanth and others by one Cyril Alexander for showing the actor smoking a cigarette in the posters of the movie “Velaiyilla Pattathari”.
Justice Anand Venkatesh said the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused persons will amount to an abuse of process of court.
Corruption In India Pervades All Levels, Not Even Sparing IAS, IPS and Judicial Service: Madras High Court
Case Title: M Rajendran and Others v The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
While making critical remarks against corrupt practices prevalent among all levels of society, the Madras High Court noted that in present-day India,
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that corruption is a disease that eats into the cultural, political, and economic fabric of the society and destroys the functioning of vital organs. He added that corruption was not only found in illegalities but also to facilitate legal transactions. He noted that large scale corruption existed in Government and Police Departments and Higher Authorities are expected to be sensitive in the matter of corruption allegations.
ALSO READ: Verify Assets Declared By Police Officers, Confiscate Illegally Accumulated Wealth In Case Of Discrepancy: Madras High Court To State
Person Forwarding Social Media Message Liable For Its Contents : Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Cases Against S.Ve Shekhar
Case Title: S. Ve. Shekher v Al. Gopalsamy and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras High Court has recently refused to quash batch of criminal proceedings initiated against actor and BJP politician S.Ve Sheker for his derogatory remarks against women journalists. The cases were registered after Sheker had forwarded an abusive, derogatory and vulgar comment on his Facebook account in April 2018.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that Shekher was a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised more caution while forwarding messages.
The court added that we live in an era where social media has virtually taken over every individual’s life where each message can reach the nook and corner of the world in no time. The court added that we were no suffering from “virtual diarrhoea” where we were bombarded with messages. Thus, the court added that every person must exercise social responsibility while creating or forwarding a message.
Madras High Court Upholds ED's Right To Take TN Minister Senthil Balaji Into Custody; Says 'If ED Can Arrest,They Can Seek Custody Too'
Case Title: Megala v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
Settling conflicting views regarding the power of the Enforcement Directorate to seek police custody of the accused, the Madras High Court ruled that the central agency was entitled to seek the custody of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji in the money laundering case over the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.
Justice CV Karthikeyan, the third judge to whom the matter was referred to following a split in the division bench of Justices Nisha Banu and Bharatha Chakravarthy, ruled in favour of the ED.
Deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by Balaji's wife Megala, Justice Banu had held that Enforcement Directorate is not entrusted with the powers to seek police custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Differing from this opinion, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy had held that the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable and the ED was entitled to police custody of the accused.
Now, Justice Karthikeyan has endorsed the view of Justice Chakravarthy by saying : "The fact that respondents(ED) can take custody for further investigation cannot be denied. The respondent, in this case, had a right to get custody. I would align my opinion with the reason given by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in this aspect".
When Wife Initiates Proceedings For Vindication Of Her Rights, It Can Never Be Considered Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree
Case Title: C v S
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
While setting aside a divorce decree, the Madras High Court said that when a wife initiates proceedings for vindication of her rights, it can never be termed as mental cruelty.
Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench said:
“This Court is of the considered opinion that the divorce petition lacks pleadings with regard to the mental cruelty, desertion and the deposition of the husband relating to the said allegation do not support the case of the husband. The litigation initiated by the wife is only to protect her property rights and her custody of her son. When the initiation of such proceedings is for the vindication of her rights, the said proceedings can never be considered to be a ground for mental cruelty”.
Executive Merely Implementing Whatever Is Dictated By Party In Power, Political Parties Have Carefully Manipulated System: Madras High Court
Case Title: RS Bharathi v. The Director of Vigilancce and Anti Corruption and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
While criticising the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption for ordering a fresh inquiry against the former CM Edapaddi Palaniswami, the Madras High Court said that even almost 73 years since the Constitution of India started governing this country, the "harsh reality" is that the Executive has almost lost its independence and it has virtually turned into an organ "merely executing whatever is said/dictated/ordered by the political party, which is in power during the relevant point of time."
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said that over a period of time, the political parties have carefully manipulated the system to such an extent that they have complete control over the Executive.
ALSO READ:Fresh Preliminary Inquiry Ordered Against Former CM Edappadi Palaniswami Only Because Of Change In Govt, Not Due To Fresh Material: Madras High Court
Nominate Nodal Officer To Deal With Requests Of Departments For Engaging AG, Other Law Officers; Clear Bills Expeditiously: Madras High Court To State
Case Title: The State v S Ramasamy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to nominate a Nodal Officer in the rank of Secretary or Additional Secretary of the State Government for dealing with the requests of various departments for the purpose of engaging Advocate General or Additional Advocate Generals in courts.
The directions were issued by a bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice KK Ramakrishnan in a plea filed by the State challenging an earlier order of a single judge directing the State to repay the eligible fee payable to S Ramasamy, former Additional Advocate General of Tamil Nadu from 2006-2011. Pending proceeding, the amount payable to Ramasamy was already paid and acknowledged by him.
Madras High Court Restrains Google From Delisting Disney+ Hotstar App From Play Store Over Failure To Accept New Payment Policy
Case Title: Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt Ltd v Google LLC and others
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 202
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained Google from delisting the mobile applications of Disney+ Hotstar from its Play Store. The court also directed Google to deduct only a 4% fee for in-app purchases made on the app.
Justice PT Asha passed the directions Tuesday on an application made by Novi Digital Entertainment, a subsidiary of Star India Private Limited which owns the online video streaming platform- Hotstar.
Burial At Non-Designated Places Contravenes Rules, Take Steps To Exhume Such Bodies And Bury In Designated Places: Madras High Court Full Bench
Case Title: Jagadheeswari and Others v B Babu Naidu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
A full bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday ruled that after the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules 1999, came into force, any burials made at places that are not registered or licensed as Burial Grounds contravenes the rules and such bodies are to be exhumed and buried in proper designated places.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan, Justice G Jayachandran, and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq was answering a reference made by the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu, whether, under the 1999 Rules, the burial could take place at a place other than the designated land, more particularly when a designated land existed in the village. This reference was answered in the negative by the full bench.
Madras High Court Transfers Murder Trial Against DMK MP TRVS Ramesh From Cuddalore To Chengalpattu
Case Title: Senthilvel v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court on Thursday transferred the trial in a murder case against DMK MP TRVS Ramesh from Principal District and Sessions Court in Cuddalore to Chengalpattu.
Justice Anand Venkatesh passed the order on a plea moved by Senthilvel, son of the deceased Govindarasu. Though Senthilvel had raised various allegations against the MP and other co-accused, the court observed that it was transferring the case not on the basis of the allegations, but considering that a fair trial would not be possible in Cuddalore district where the accused is a sitting MP.
'If Temples Are Going To Perpetuate Violence, It Would Be Better To Close Down Those Temples': Madras High Court
Case Title: K Thangarasu @ K Thangaraj v The Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras High Court on Friday lamented that temple festivals these days are merely becoming centre stage for groups to show their strength and no devotion is actually involved in conducting the stage.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also noted that these festivals end up perpetuating violence where different groups end up fighting with each other and it is better to close down such temples to avert these instances of violence. The court added that unless a man drops his ego and goes to the temple to seek blessings, the whole purpose of having a temple is of no use.
Ensure ICC As Per POSH Act Exists In Armed Forces; Impart Gender Sensitive Awareness To Armed Personnel :Madras High Court To Centre
Case Title: State v Commandant, Air Force Administrative College
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
While dealing with a case of sexual harassment of a woman air force personnel by another air force personnel, the Madras High Court directed the Central Government to ensure that a proper Internal Complaints Committee existed in the Armed Forces in compliance with the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Work Act. The court also directed the Central Government to sensitise the armed personnel by imparting gender-sensitive awareness training to achieve the objectives of the legislation.
The directions were issued by Justice RN Manjula after noting that the woman officer had resorted to filing a police complaint after being unsatisfied with the investigation carried out by the Air Force Authorities and after facing humiliation in the services and being threatened to withdraw the complaint.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Issues Guidelines To Criminal Courts On Handing Over Custody Of Armed Personnel In Criminal Offences
'Committed Mistake But Can’t Be Condemned Forever': Madras High Court Directs Passport Authority To Consider Man’s Application For Passport
Case Title: S Chandran v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
While directing the Regional Passport Authority to consider the request of a man for issuance of a passport after his earlier passport was impounded by the authorities for giving false particulars, the Madras High Court said the person has suffered disproportionately as he has been without the travel document for almost nine years.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench observed that though in case of giving false particulars, the Passport Authority has no option but to impound the passport, the court cannot lose sight of the human angle also.
Option To Continue With Old Pension Scheme Must Be Extended To All Persons Who Participated In Selection Prior To April 01, 2003 : Madras High Court
Case Title: B Vallipavai v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Madras High Court has said that when the recruitment process was carried out before the Contributory Pension Scheme came into effect, those appointed must be given the option to continue in the old pension scheme.
The court was hearing a plea by B. Vallipavai, appointed as BT Assistant, who challenged the retrospective operation of the New Contributory Pension Scheme.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that the new scheme was brought into force on January 1, 2004 but the vacancy arose as early as on November 9, 2002. The court further noted that Vallipavai was called for an interview on April 10, 2003 itself.
The court also added that since the New Pension Scheme was made operative retrospectively, no employer and employee would have forethought that appointments made after April 2003 would not be eligible for the Old Pension.
Medical Colleges Have A Statutory Duty To Pay Stipend To PG Students, Cannot Deny Same On Ground Of Equitable Set-Off: Madras High Court
Case Title: The Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and others v. D Rajasree and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
The Madras High Court recently held that medical colleges have an obligation to pay stipend to the postgraduate students and they cannot deny the same to them on the ground of equitable set-off, even when the amount that is sought to be claimed by them is not yet ascertained.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu were hearing an appeal preferred by Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Aarupadai Veedu Medical College & Hospital against a single judge order directing the colleges to make a payment towards the stipend in terms of Regulation 13.3 of the Medical Council of India (MCI), Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.
The court noted that for allowing a claim of equitable set-off, both the claims must arise out of the same transaction and it would be inequitable to drive the defendant to a separate suit. In the present case, the court noted that the claims between the college and the students did not arise out of a commercial transaction.
Provide Job To Sister Of SC Man Killed In 2020 In Caste-Based Crime: Madras High Court To State
Case Title: Kalimuthu v The Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Theni District Collector, and the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer to provide employment to a woman, whose brother was killed in 2020, by considering her educational qualification as per Serial No. 46 of Annexure I r/w 12(4) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016.
Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench observed that the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules mandate providing employment to at least one family member of a deceased person along with basic pension.