Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 28 to May 04, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 156 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 165 NOMINAL INDEX Indian Bank v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 156 State v. Durai Murugan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 157 Shanmugavel v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 158 State v. MRK Paneerselvam, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 159 State v. I Periyasamy, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 Vijayakumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 161 G Subramania Koushik v. The Principal Secretary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 162 M. Maheshwaran and others v. The Chairman & Managing Director and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 J Manohar Dass v. Komathi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 164 Bank of Baroda v. The Chairman and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 165 REPORT Provisions Of Section 26E SARFAESI Act & Section 34 RDB Act Prevails Over Section 24 Of TNGST Act: Madras High Court Case Title: Indian Bank v. The Commercial Tax Officer Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 156 The Madras High Court stated that provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act would prevail over the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “in the juxtaposition of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act with Section 34 of the RDB Act, it is Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act that will provide the necessary impetus for determining the priority of a charge of security interest in favour of the Financial Institution, as Section 34 of the RDB Act is, by comparison, only a general provision.” Madras High Court Sets Aside Discharge Of Minister Durai Murugan In Disproportionate Assets Case, Calls Special Court's Finding Perverse Case Title: State v. Durai Murugan and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 157 The Madras High Court has set aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu Minister Durai Murugan in a disproportionate asset case. Justice P Velmurugan noted that the Special Court had simply allowed a discharge petition filed by the Minister without framing charges or without giving an opportunity to the Prosecution to put forward the case. The court also noted that the special judge had interpreted the facts in his own way and the reasons put forward by the Special Judge was perverse. The court directed the Special Court to frame charges and proceed with the trial. Noting that the case was regarding the check period of 1996-2001, the court directed the Special Court to dispose the case within a period of 6 months from the date of order. 'CBI Officers Think They Have Sky High Powers, No One Can Question Them': Madras HC Suggests Revamping Probe Agency's Image Case Title: Shanmugavel v. The State Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 158 The Madras High Court has issued suggestions to relook and revamp the manner in which the CBI investigations are being conducted in the country to regain the lost image of the investigation agency in the eyes of the common people. Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the manner of CBI's working, in arraying unwanted accused, continuing unwarranted investigation, deleting important accused, not examining material witnesses, etc showed that the CBI officers thought themselves to have sky-high powers and could not be questioned by anyone. The court added that the common people have been feeling that the working culture of the CBI had been plummeting down. Madras High Court Sets Aside Discharge Of Tamil Nadu Minister MRK Paneerselvam In Two Disproportionate Asset Cases Case Title: State v. MRK Paneerselvam Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 159 The Madras High Court has set aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare Minister MRK Paneerlsevam in two disproportionate asset cases. Justice P Velmurugan set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, Cuddalore in 2016, discharging the Minister from the case filed by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The case was registered alleging that while serving as a Minister for Health and Family Welfare during 2006-2011, he had acquired and possessed pecuniary resources and properties far beyond his known sources of income. The court noted prima facie materials to proceed against the Minister and his family, who had abetted him in amassing the wealth. The court also remarked that the trial judge had traversed beyond the scope of Section 239 CrPC and thus set aside the order of the Special Judge. Madras High Court Sets Aside Discharge of Tamil Nadu Minister I Periyasamy In Disproportionate Asset Case Case Title: State v. I Periyasamy Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 The Madras High Court has set aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I Periysamay in a disproportionate asset case. Justice P Velmurugan set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, Dindigul, discharging the Minister and his family. The...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 28 to May 04, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags