Madras High Court Monthly Digest - June 2024 [Citations 228-265]

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 NOMINAL INDEX Rakshika Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 Deivanayaki v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 229 J Rajkumar v The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 230 Antony Clement Rubin v M Vignesh, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 231 ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 232 Kanthavel and Others v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 A Kamala v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 234 Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 235 National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 236 Kesava Vinayagam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237 The President v The State Information Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238 MRF Ltd v Competition Commission of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 239 Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 240 Gurunathan v The Deputy Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 241 R Anushri v The Secretary TNPSC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 242 MM Karthikeyan v Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 243 High Court of Madras v PU Venkatesan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 R Mohanakrishnan v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 245 Kennel Club of India v The Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 246 Ashok Kumar v The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247 P Jayachandran v A Yesuranthinam (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 Karthick Munusamy v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 State v P Ponnusamy, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 250 R Sasikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 Tmt. Sabeena Beevi v The Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 K Paranthaman v The Secretary, TNPSC, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 253 V Sakthivel v The Revenue Divisional Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 M/s.Greenstar Fertilisers Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 Felix Jerald v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 Indian Institute of Technology v The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 257 Rahul Gandhi v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 Gokul Abhimanyu v Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 259 B Anantha Lakshmi and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 260 S Shanmugasundaram v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 261 Dr. TV Swaminathan v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 262 S Chandan Babu v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 M/s. SRM Hotels Private Limited v The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 264 Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 REPORTS Madras High Court Quashes Govt Order Giving Reservation To Transgender Persons As Most Backward Class Community, Says NALSA Judgment Not Implemented Properly Case Title: Rakshika Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 The Madras High Court has struck down a Government Order issued by the Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes & Minorities Welfare (BCC) Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu including transgender persons under the Most Backward Class community for providing reservation. Justice GK Ilanthraiyan noted that the State had failed to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Nalsa case properly. The court noted that by bringing transgender persons into the Most Backward Class community, the state was treating gender as a caste which was against the judgment of the Supreme Court. The court added that only horizontal reservation could be granted to the community for complying with the order of the Apex Court. Duty Of Public Servant's Wife To Discourage Him From Taking Bribe: Madras High Court Refuses To Set Aside Conviction Of Sub-Inspector's Wife Case Title: Deivanayaki v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 229 The Madras High Court has refused to set aside the conviction of the wife of a Sub-Inspector of Police accused of accumulating wealth disproportionate to his income. Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that though the Public Servant was no more, his wife should face consequences under Section 109 read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court added that it was the duty of the wife to discourage her public servant husband from receiving bribes. The court remarked that corruption had pervaded to an unimaginable ratio and if homemakers also become party to corruption, there would be no end to it. The court thus observed that the appellant, whose life was a “bed of roses” with the ill-gotten money should face the consequences also. “Medicare IsA Huge Business”: Madras High Court Calls For Uniform Liberal Approach...

Madras High Court Monthly Digest - June 2024 [Citations 228-265]

Upasana Sajeev

Tags