Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 2 to December 8, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 465 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 475 NOMINAL INDEX Chandru and Others v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 465 R Thamaraiselvan v. Government of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 466 Sathish and Another v Food Safety Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 467 Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v The National Medical Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 468 Mohamed Asaruthin v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 469 T. H. Rajmohan v The Secretary to the Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 470 Aathimoolam v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 471 C Pakkir Maideen and Others v The Principal Secretary To Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 472 VR Dakshin Private Limited Verus SCM Silks Private Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 473 P.Rajkumar v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 474 Deepu and Others v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 475 REPORT Madras High Court Grants Bail To 4 Students Involved In Clashes That Resulted In Death Of A Student, Asks Them To Assist In Trauma Ward Case Title: Chandru and Others v. State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 465 The Madras High Court has granted bail to four students who were allegedly involved in group rivalry clashes that resulted in the death of a student. Justice AD Jagadish Chandira ordered the students to be released on bail after executing a bond for Rs 15,000 with two sureties, one of whom should be the father or mother of the student. The court also asked all four students to assist in the Trauma ward of Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital & the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and to prepare a writeup of their experience. “Caused Damage To Parties”: Madras High Court Imposes Cost On Former MP For Filing Plea Against Mining Without Proper Research Case Title: R Thamaraiselvan v. Government of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 466 The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by former DMK MP challenging the government notification inviting tenders for quarry lease. While doing so, the bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy also imposed a cost of Rs 4 Lakh (Rs 1 Lakh for each petition) for filing the petition without proper research. The court directed the cost to be donated to the Little Heart Training Centre for Intellectual Disabled Boys in Dharmapuri District. Magistrates Must Ensure That Accused Get Sufficient Legal Advice Before Pleading Guilty: Madras High Court Case Title: Sathish and Another v Food Safety Officer Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 467 The Madras High Court recently allowed two men to contest their case before the trial court even after making a submission admitting their guilt. Justice Anand Venkatesh made the order after noting that the men had admitted their guilt before the trial court without knowing the consequences. The court thus observed that the Magistrate must ensure that the accused persons have sufficient legal advice before pleading guilty and it was not necessary for the magistrate to immediately act upon the pleading of guilt especially when the punishment provided was quite serious. Linguistic Minority Medical Colleges Bound By NMC's 50% PG-Seat Sharing Rule, Ensures Implementation Of Reservation Policies: Madras HC Case Title: Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v The National Medical Commission Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 468 The Madras High Court has recently made it clear that linguistic minority self financing medical colleges are bound by the National Medical Council's 50% seat sharing rule. As per the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, medical colleges were to surrender 50% of the seats in PG Medical Courses to the State/Union Territory. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that only when the States and Union Territories had control over some seats, they could implement the reservation policies in its full effect. Thus, the court highlighted that seat sharing was unavoidable and was a sine-qua -non for the implementation of reservation policy. No Necessity To Call Upon Accused To File Counter In Extension Application, Presence Only Needed To Consider Objections: Madras HC Case Title: Mohamed Asaruthin v State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 469 The Madras High Court recently observed that when an application for extension was filed by the prosecution, the presence of the accused was ensured only to inform him about the application and consider the objections, if any. The court added that there was no necessity for the court to call upon the counter of the accused. Justice Sunder Mohan emphasized that while considering the application for extension, the court was only required to consider whether the report of the prosecutor satisfied the twin conditions – that there was appreciable progress in the investigation and that there are...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 2 to December 8, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags