Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 1 to April 7, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 143 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 152 NOMINAL INDEX Sri K.Venkatesh v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 143 M/s Bagalkot Cement & Industries Ltd vs The Chairperson, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 S.Sujatha vs The Director Of Collegiate Education, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 145 V Syril Sundaraj v The Presiding Officer and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 146 M. Anantha Babu vs. The District Collector & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 147 Pandiammal vs Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 148 S. Keerthana v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development Department & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 149 Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association (MMBA) v A Radhakrishnan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 150 S Mariaselvi v AS Mani and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 151 Sivakumar TD v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 152 REPORT Giving Police Protection To People With Criminal Background Will Send Wrong Signal, Make Public Lose Faith In System: Madras High Court Case Title: Sri K.Venkatesh v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 143 The Madras High Court recently opined against giving police protection to persons with criminal backgrounds as it would send a wrong signal to society and would make people lose their faith in the existing system. Justice Anand Venkatesh added that courts must be very circumspect to grant police protection to any person with a criminal background. The court added that even if some persons with criminal backgrounds are given police protection, the same could not be taken as a precedent by the courts. MSMED Act | Imposition Of Three Times Bank Interest By MSME Facilitation Council Is Violation Of Principles Of Reasonableness And Fairness: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s Bagalkot Cement & Industries Ltd vs The Chairperson, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 The Madras High Court single bench of Justice R. N. Manjula held that the imposition of three times of the bank rate of interest on the award amount by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Facilitation Council is violation of fundamental principles of reasonableness and fairness. It held that the Petitioner is indirectly deprived of his appeal remedy in view of such high rate of interest. The High Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the right to challenge the award remains realistic and accessible. It criticized the imposition of excessive interest, which effectively closes the door to challenging the award, thereby indirectly depriving the petitioner of their appeal remedy. The High Court condemned such actions as contrary to the fundamental principles of justice. Age Relaxation Can Be Provided To Compete In Recruitment Process By Giving The Weightage For Being Engaged For A Significant Period Of Time: Madras High Court Case Name: S.Sujatha vs The Director Of Collegiate Education Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 145 A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of S. Sujatha vs The Director of Collegiate Education has held that age relaxation can be provided to a person to compete in the recruitment process by giving the weightage for having been engaged or worked in the department for a significant period of time. Transport Corporation Which Supported Bus Driver Before MACT Not Precluded From Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings Against Him: Madras HC Case Title: V Syril Sundaraj v The Presiding Officer and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 146 The Madras High Court full bench has recently observed that the State Express Transport Corporation management which had taken a stand before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) supporting the bus driver involved in an accident was not precluded from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the same driver. The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, and Justice V Lakshminarayan observed that the MACT did not have jurisdiction to arrive at the liability of the driver and was only concerned with the claim. The court thus opined that if submission before the MACT was to preclude the management from taking disciplinary proceedings, it would be enlarging the scope of the MACT which was beyond the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act. Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied Solely On The Ground That The Petitioner Was An Illegitimate Child Born To Second Wife: Madras High Court Reiterates Case Title: M. Anantha Babu vs. The District Collector & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 147 A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R.N. Manjula while...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 1 to April 7, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags