Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 11 - November 17, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 431 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 446 NOMINAL INDEX Union of India v Abdul Razak and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 431 M Samudi v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 432 Union of India v. C.V.L. Annapurna, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 433 G.Kulanchiyappan v Vice Chancellor, IMU, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 434 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 435 The Triplicane Permanent Fund Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 436 Nalin Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 437 Lakshana Cotton Spinning Mills Limited v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 438 Vasumathi and Another v R Vasudevan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 439 Santhanaganesh v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 440 VP Nandhakumar v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 441 Bharathiya Janata Party v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 442 Kasthuri v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 443 ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 444 P.A.Ramasubramania Raja v. K.M.Sanjeevi Raja, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 445 EIH Associated Hotels Ltd vs. CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 446 REPORT NIA Act | High Courts Cannot Expand Scope Of Interpretation, Condone Delay Beyond Permissible Limit: Madras High Court Case Title: Union of India v Abdul Razak and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 431 The Madras High Court recently held that the High Court was not empowered to condone the delay in filing an appeal under the National Investigating Agency Act 2008 beyond the permissible limit. As per Section 21 of the Act, an appeal has to be made within 30 days of the date of the order or judgment. The Section allows the High Courts to entertain an appeal even after expiry of 30 days but not beyond 90 days if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for delay. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that when there is no constitutional challenge to an enactment, the courts could not read down the provision differently than what the constitution had intended. The court added that the language employed in the provision under the NIA Act was unambiguous and thus the courts could not condone the delay beyond the permissible limits. HR & CE Authorities Must Take Action On Complaints Of Encroachment, Not Put It In Cold Storage Making Deities Yearn For Due Share: Madras HC Case Title: M Samudi v The District Collector and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 432 The Madras High Court recently stressed that when an application is received informing instances of encroachment of temple land, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment authorities were expected to look into the same and take immediate action. Justice M Dhandapani made the remarks after noting that due to inaction on the part of HR & CE officials, encroachers often enjoyed land to the detriment of the deity. The court emphasised that when an application was filed under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, the authorities were to take immediate steps and ensure that the encroachments are removed and the lawful owners are benefitted. No Explicit Option For CPF Means Automatic Transition To GPF Scheme: Madras HC Upholds Pension Rights Of KV Teachers Case Name: Union of India v. C.V.L. Annapurna Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 433 Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's orders granting pension rights under the General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme to retired Kendriya Vidyalaya teachers. The Court ruled that teachers who had not explicitly opted to remain under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme by January 31, 1989, were automatically entitled to GPF benefits as per the 1988 Government Office Memorandum. The Court rejected the argument that continuous receipt of CPF benefits implied a choice to remain in the CPF scheme, emphasizing that KVS's failure to implement the automatic transition couldn't prejudice the teachers' rights. Long Service And Transparent Recruitment Merit Regularization Despite Absence Of Rules: Madras HC Case Title: G.Kulanchiyappan v Vice Chancellor, IMU Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 434 Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Maritime University (IMU) to regularize the services of eight contractual employees. The Court ruled that their appointments, though irregular, were not illegal as they were made through a transparent recruitment process including public advertisement and interviews. The Court emphasized that the absence of recruitment rules until 2015 and the employees' decade-long unblemished service warranted regularization, particularly given IMU's prior...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 11 - November 17, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags