Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 8 - April 14, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

S.ShreDharmaaraghavan v Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 153

Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd and Another v Suraj Sharma and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 154

Karti P Chidambaram v The Regional Passport Officer Chennai, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 155

Sri Nrisimha Priya Charitable Trust versus Central Board of Direct Taxes, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 156

M Chellammal v Office of the Insurance Ombudsman, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 157

Rajasekaran v The Assistant Election Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 158

M/s.Eicher Motors Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 159

Dr A Seshadri and Others v Church of South India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 160

REPORT

State Can't Deny Permission For Book Launch Event Merely Due To Participant's Candidature In Elections: Madras High Court

Case Title: S.ShreDharmaaraghavan v Inspector of Police and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 153

Allowing permission for a book launch event, the Madras High Court recently observed that the state should not deny permission for an event merely because a person participating in the event is a candidate in the elections.

Justice G Jayachandran was hearing a plea by Shre Dharmaaraghavan, who wanted to organize an event for the launch of the book “Professionals in Politics”. The event was to be addressed by Drona Charya Awardee Mr. RB Ramesh, Badri Seshadri Publisher and TV Panelist, Former IPS Officer and TN State BJP President K Annamalai, Technocrat and Business Mr Murali and Journalist, CEO and Anchor Mr Rangaraj Pandey. The Assistant Election Officer, Singanallur had declined permission for the book launch event.

Considering the submissions, the court directed the State Government and the Election Commission to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law and spirit of Part III of the Constitution and Article 324 of the Constitution.

High Court Can Transfer Rectification Petition Pending In Trademark Registry Outside Its Jurisdiction To Its File: Madras High Court

Case Title: Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd and Another v Suraj Sharma and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 154

The Madras High Court recently observed that a High Court will have inherent powers to transfer to itself a rectification application pending in a Trademark registry that is not within its jurisdiction.

Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that the Trade Marks Act had deliberately omitted to define the word “High Court” and thus the intention of the legislature was not to curtail the powers of the High Court. The court noted that the legislature intended to not for two forums to deal with the same subject matter and give conflicting decisions.

“Order Limiting Passport Validity Bereft Of Reasons”: Madras HC Directs Passport Office To Issue Regular Passport To Karti Chidambaram With 10-Year Validity

Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram v The Regional Passport Officer Chennai

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 155

The Madras High Court last month directed the Regional Passport Office to issue a regular passport to Karti P Chidambaram with a validity of 10 years after noting that the order of the Regional Passport Office limiting the validity of the passport for one year was without any reasoning.

Justice Anita Sumanth also observed that though Karti Chidambaram had criminal cases pending against him, he had approached the court several times in the past seeking permission to travel and has been granted the same. The court also noted that even the Special Judge (PC Act) in Delhi had remarked that Karti had not breached any conditions imposed by the court thus far. The court was thus of the opinion that there did not impede granting the passport for 10 years.

CBDT Circular Not Extending Time To File Application For Regular Registration Of New Provisionally Registered Trusts U/S 80G Violative Of Constitution: Madras High Court

Case Title: Sri Nrisimha Priya Charitable Trust versus Central Board of Direct Taxes

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 156

The Madras High Court has held that the Circular dated May 24, 2023, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) not extending time to file applications for regular registration of new provisionally registered trusts under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act is violative of the Constitution of India.

The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has observed that the petitioner trusts do not have any vested right to claim an extension of time. When the statute prescribes a time limit, the petitioner trusts are expected to apply within the said date to avail themselves of the benefits. The first respondent board issues circulars enlarging the time limit even beyond the prescribed limit to mitigate the rigors of the statute and the hardship faced by the assessees. The same is in exercise of its powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. No discrimination or differentiation was made between the existing trusts and the new trusts at the first instance when Circular No. 8 of 2022 was issued. When the impugned Circular No. 6 of 2023 was issued, the reason stated by the first respondent was to mitigate genuine hardship.

Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana | Provisions Of Policy Must Be Interpreted To Benefit Policy Holder: Madras High Court

Case Title: M Chellammal v Office of the Insurance Ombudsman

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 157

The Madras High Court recently remarked that while dealing with claims under the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bina Yojana, the provisions of the policy must be interpreted to benefit the policyholder.

Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench was dealing with a plea challenging the order passed by the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman rejecting a complaint against the Life Insurance Corporation of India for rejecting a death claim.

The court disagreed with the insurance company's stand that every year a fresh policy is being issued. The court added that in matters like this, the provisions should be interpreted to the benefit of the policyholder.

Madras High Court Allows BJP President JP Nadda's Rally; Says Hindrance To Traffic, Free Movement Of People Not In Itself A Ground To Deny Permission

Case Title: Rajasekaran v The Assistant Election Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 158

While directing the state to allow a rally by BJP National President JP Nadda, the Madras High Court recently observed that hindrance to traffic and free movement of people in itself was not a ground to deny permission for the rally.

Justice Murali Shankar set aside the state's order denying permission for the rally and directed the Assistant Election Officer to grant permission for the rally in an alternative route and directed the state to give necessary police protection for the same by imposing conditions. The court also asked the state to ensure that no flex boards are erected and directed the parties to ensure that the rally takes place peacefully without any law and order problems.

Madras High Court Restrains Dept. From Appropriating Interest Liability Against Eicher Motors Until Matter Is Taken Up By Appellate Court

Case Title: M/s.Eicher Motors Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 159

The Madras High Court has restrained the department from appropriating interest liability against Eicher Motors until the matter is taken up by the appellate court.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that since an appeal has been filed against the order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) with regard to the imposition of interest on the sum of Rs. 49,00,000 and the appeal is pending consideration, it is just and appropriate to provide protection to the petitioner until such an appeal is taken up.

Madras High Court Appoints Committee Of Retd Judges To Takeover Administration Of CSI, Directs Committee To Conduct Elections To The Synod

Case Title: Dr A Seshadri and Others v Church of South India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 160

The Madras High Court has appointed a committee of two retired High Court judges to takeover the administration of the Church of South India (CSI) and to conduct the election of the Synod.

Though a single judge had previously appointed a retired High Court judge to conduct elections, the bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice R Sakthivel felt that considering the nature of work, a committee could more effectively administer the affairs of CSI.

The court thus appointed retired judges Justice R Balasubramanian and Justice V Bharathidasan to take immediate charge of the administration as well as the Trust Association and administer the same till the conduct of elections.

The court added that the administrators were at liberty to appoint other retired District Judges to assist them in the process and were to be paid a remuneration of Rs. 10,00,000 and Rs. 3,00,00 to the District Judges as initial remuneration.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Students At PM Modi's Road Show: Madras High Court Stays Investigation Against School Management

Case Title: M/s S Pukal Vadivu v State

Case No: Crl OP 8089 of 2024

The Madras High Court has stayed the investigation against a school in Coimbatore for taking students to see Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Road Show that was held in Coimbatore on March 18, 2024.

Justice G Jayachandran stayed the investigation until further orders and adjourned the case for hearing to April 24 by which date the state was to file a detailed counter.

The court had previously questioned the rationale of initiating criminal proceedings against the school management for merely taking the students to see the roadshow. The court had remarked that police should not end up filing criminal cases against school management as a knee-jerk reaction to media reports and added that filing such criminal cases against the school for such incidents will have a large-scale impact on the future participation of children in political rallies. The court had also wondered how Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was attracted in the present case.