Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 1 - January 7, 2024

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 8 NOMINAL INDEX Ganeshkumar v The Principal Secretary to Government, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus K.M.Mammen, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 Dr R Karpagam v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 4 Nagoorkani v The Commissioner and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5 A Rajkumar v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 6 University Health Network v Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 7 M/s.Radha Industries Versus Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 8 REPORT Madras High Court Issues Compendium Of Procedure To Be Followed By Advisory Board Constituted Under TN Preventive Detention Act Case Title: Ganeshkumar v The Principal Secretary to Government Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 The Madras High Court recently issued a compendium of procedures to be followed by the Advisory Board under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act 1982, while conducting an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of Clause (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution. The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice KK Ramakrishnan made it clear that the compendium was to be strictly followed by the State Advisory Board till the State came up with a law within Article 22(7)(c) of the Constitution. Article 22(7)(c) empowers the Parliament to prescribe laws to be followed by the advisory board while considering the detention of a person. Madras High Court permits Compounding Of Prosecution In Tax Evasion Case By MRF Chairman & Managing Director Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus K.M.Mammen Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 The bench of Justice R. Mahdevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, while upholding the order passed by the single judge, held that since the penalty was reduced from 300% to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 279(1A) of Income Tax. The section deals with non-prosecution for tax offences where the penalty is reduced. The judgement has been delivered a writ appeal filed by the tax department challenging the order of the single judge who remitted the case back to Director General Income Tax ( Investigation ) with a direction to compound the case under Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Removal Of Wife's Uterus Due To Ovarian Cancer Not Mental Cruelty To Husband: Madras High Court Bins Plea For Divorce Case Title: ABC v XYZ Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 The Madras High Court recently observed that the removal of a wife's uterus after being diagnosed with Ovarian cancer during the subsistence of marriage and subsequent inability to have a progeny will not be mental cruelty to the husband warranting dissolution of marriage. The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji thus confirmed an order of the Family Court dismissing the Husband's plea for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of mental cruelty, desertion and suppression of material fact. Temple Festival At Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve: Madras High Court Asks Authorities To Follow Guidelines On Pilgrim Footfall Case Title: Dr R Karpagam v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 4 The Madras High Court has asked the authorities to take all steps as per the existing guidelines while conducting the Masi festival in the Adhi Karuvannarayar temple located in the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve in February. The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a public interest litigation filed by one Dr. R Karpagam seeking to regulate the movement of people in the tiger reserve during the festival. Shop Cannot Be Closed Forever Merely For Keeping Banned Tobacco Products For Sale: Madras High Court Case Title: Nagoorkani v The Commissioner and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5 The Madras High Court recently commented that a shop could not be closed forever merely for keeping banned tobacco products for sale. The court thus directed the Food Safety and Drug Administration authorities to de-seal the shops. Justice GR Swaminathan highlighted that the Food Safety and Standard Rules 2011 provided for sealing shops only during the inability to adhere to procedures contemplated under Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. The court thus noted that even if there was justification in initially sealing the premises, at some point it had to be de-sealed. The court added that the shop owners had a right to carry on business as guaranteed under the Constitution. Adding that the Constitution did not give a right to trade in banned items, the court...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 1 - January 7, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags