Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 7 to April 13, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 132 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 137 NOMINAL INDEX B Karthick v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 132The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 133A Arunkumar v. The Home Secretary to Government and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 134Gowdham v. The Director General and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 135State v. S Kasimayan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 136Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 137 REPORT Arranging Job For Accused Does Not Amount To Harbouring Him In Absence Of Evidence: Madras High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Man Case Title: B Karthick v. The Inspector of Police Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 132 The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a man under the NDPS Act, holding that in absence of evidence other than confession of co-accused, the fact that the man had arranged a job for the co-accused would not amount to harbouring the latter. Justice P. Dhanabal reiterated that a confession statement of the co-accused by itself could not be a reason for implicating a person in a crime unless there were other materials to connect him in the crime. In the present case also, the court noted that except the statement of the co-accused, there was no other material to implicate him the crime. The court also noted that though the petitioner had arranged a job for one of the accused, there was nothing to show that the petitioner had any knowledge about the involvement of accused in the NDPS case. The main accusation against the petitioner was that he harboured Accused No. 3 (A3) knowing that A3 was involved in a drugs case. The prosecution had relied upon A3's confession statement and impleaded the petitioner as one of the accused. CENVAT Credit Can't Be Denied Merely On Non-Submission Of User Test Certificate: Madras High Court Case Title: The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 133 The Madras High Court stated that user test certificate is not mandatory before adjudicating show cause notice. The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and G. Arul Murugan opined that show cause notices cannot be adjudicated merely on the ground that the User Test Certificate has not been produced by the assessee. In this case, the respondent/assessee is a manufacturer of sugar and molasses. The assessee has availed CENVAT Credit for the capital goods used in establishing a captive power plant of the assessee. Madras High Court Allows Indu Makkal Katchi Members To Garland Ambedkar Statue On Condition That They Won't Raise Slogans, Wear 'Tilak' Or 'Kumkum' Case Title: A Arunkumar v. The Home Secretary to Government and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 134 The Madras High Court has allowed the members of Indu Makkal Katchi to garland the statue of Dr. Ambedkar situated at the Ambedkar memorial Hall in Chennai in connection with Ambedkar Jayathi on certain conditions. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan gave permission to the party on the condition that the party members would not raise any slogans or speech against anyone, that they would not play any instrument, that they would not cause any hindrance to the traffic or general public, and that they would not wear “Kavi Dhoti” or Sandal Thilagam or Kum Kum or Vibhuti to the Statute Noting that the court had granted permission previously in similar circumstances based on undertaking, the court was inclined to permit the party to garland the statute since the party had agreed to abide by any condition imposed by the police. Corruption Rampant In Every Organ Of Govt, We Are Helpless In Curbing It: Madras High Court Case Title: Gowdham v. The Director General and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a woman who was asked to get re-validated certificates for compassionate appointment. The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan held that asking the woman to get fresh certificates would only pave way for the officers in-charge to get illegal gratification once more. Acknowledging that corruption was rampant in every organ of the government, the bench also expressed its helplessness in curbing the menace of corruption. The court noted that in the present case, the mother's application for compassionate appointment was unduly delayed and the authorities had adopted a pedantic approach in seeking fresh certificate which could not have been obtained without a reasonable expense. “White Collar Criminals”: Madras High Court Convicts DRT Recovery Officer And Others In Corruption Case, Sends Them To 5 Yrs Imprisonment Case Title: State v. S Kasimayan and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 136 Setting aside an order of the Special Court for CBI cases, the Madras High Court...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 7 to April 13, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags