Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 5 to August 11, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 299 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306 NOMINAL INDEX M Kathirvel v The Inspector General of Registration, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 299 Kompress India Private Limited Versus Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 300 NT Stalin Barathi v The District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 301 P.Sibiga Dharshini v The District Collector and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 302 Suo Motu RC v Additional Superintendent of Police and Suo Motu RC v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 303 Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The Directorate of Enforcement and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 304 G Pandi v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 305 A Kamala v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306 REPORT Madras High Court Strikes Down Section 77A Of Registration (Tamil NaduSecond Amendment) Act As Unconstitutional Case Title: M Kathirvel v The Inspector General of Registration Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 299 The Madras has held that the 2022 Amendment which introduced Section 77A to the Registration Act with respect to Tamil Nadu and gave powers to the District Registrar to cancel an instrument if it was found to be fraudulent or bogus was unconstitutional. The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar held that through the amendment, the registering authority was given an unfettered, unguided, and unlimited power which may end up causing irretrievable damage to the real owners of the properties and affect their rights. Detention Order Can't Be Issued If Driver In Possession Of Valid E-Way Bill In Physical/Electronic Form: Madras High Court Case Title: Kompress India Private Limited Versus Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 300 The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court while quashing the detention order held that if an invoice, bill of supply, delivery challan, or bill of entry and a valid e-way bill in physical or electronic form for verification are available, then action may not be initiated. The bench of Justice S.Srimathy has observed that the respondent department issued the notice, carried out the inspection on the same day, and also passed the order on the same day. As per the provisions prescribed, the respondents department ought to grant time for seven days to reply. Since the inspection, notice, and orders were passed on the same day, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Person Inviting Threat By His Criminal Or Anti-Social Activities Not Entitled To Police Protection: Madras High Court Case Title: NT Stalin Barathi v The District Collector Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 301 While rejecting a man's application for police protection, the Madras High Court recently observed that police protection should be granted only in appropriate cases, and granting police protection to a person who had invited a situation of threat due to his criminal or anti-social activities will be against public morality. The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar added that in our country, several journalists had lost their lives for publishing news against corruption and social evils, government officials were murdered while preventing illegal sand mining and theft and people fighting for public cause were targeted. The court added that the state could consider granting police protection to such protection but not to persons who, due to their own conduct, were faced with threat perception. Madras HC Quashes Loan Condition Seeking Apology From Applicant For Sticking Posters Against Bank, Says It's A Legitimate Mode Of Protest Case Title: P.Sibiga Dharshini v The District Collector and Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 302 The Madras High Court recently quashed a pre-release condition imposed by the Indian Overseas Bank asking a student to give an apology letter for circulating posters against the Bank while sanctioning her education loan. Justice Murali Shankar noted that the Nationalised Banks could not treat a loan applicant, especially a student as their servant or a person obeying their orders. The court added that even if it was accepted that the student's father was the office bearer of the NGO which had protested against the Bank, it was not a ground for the Bank to seek an apology from the student who had nothing to do with the protest. Madras High Court Sets Aside Discharge Of Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran & Thangam Thenarasu In Disproportionate Assets Case Case Title: Suo Motu RC v Additional Superintendent of Police and Suo Motu RC v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 303 The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside the discharge of Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran and Thangam Thenarasu in disproportionate assets case. Justice Anand Venkatesh reversed the discharge of the ministers and directed them to appear before the Special Court. Finding that there was prima facie material to proceed with the trial, the court directed the...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 5 to August 11, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags