Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 20 to January 26, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 17 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 24 NOMINAL INDEX M/s. Unique Builders Vs The Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 17 Dr. C. Vijayabaskar v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 18Mohammed Tharik Anvar @ Thar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 19HCL Technologies Ltd. v. X, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 20State Secretary v Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 21Ganesan v. The Commandant, TN Special Police Force, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 22C.Kohila v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 23Ameen Batcha v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 24 REPORTS Award Passed After Inordinate And Unexplained Delay Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Unique Builders Vs The Union of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 17 The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the arbitral award can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court further referred to its own judgment in K. Dhanasekar v. Union of India, 2019 where the court while referring to Harji Engineering Works Private Limited (supra) held that when there is a huge gap between the last date of the hearing and the date on which the award is passed, the arbitrator is obligated to explain the inordinate delay and in absence of such an explanation it would cause grave prejudice to the aggrieved party. Furthermore, the arbitrator is mandated to send signed copies of the award to each party to an arbitration agreement under section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act but in this case, the copy was served on the counsel of the petitioner and the petitioner got his copy only after 10 days from the date of passing the award. This indicates a serious irregularity being committed by the Arbitrator. Jayalalithaa Death: Madras HC Quashes Arumughaswamy Commission Recommendation For Inquiry Against Former Health Minister Vijayabhaskar Case Title: Dr. C. Vijayabaskar v The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 18 The Madras High Court has quashed the report of Justice A Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry with respect to former Tamil Nadu Health Minister C Vijayabhaskar citing irregularities in the report. The court primarily noted that Vijabhayaskar, who was initially called by the commission as a witness, was not given an opportunity to present his case after finding materials against him. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that Vijayabhaskar was not given an opportunity of hearing or to cross-examine the witnesses as contemplated under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952. Thus, the court held that the commission's conclusion ordering appropriate action to be initiated against Vijayabhaskar could not be sustained and was thus liable to be quashed. The court had previously stayed the recommendations against Vijayabhaskar. Mere Passing Of Detention Order Against An Individual Cannot Be A Bar For Deciding His Bail Application: Madras High Court Case Title: Mohammed Tharik Anvar @ Thar v. State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 19 The Madras High Court has held that passing of a detention order against an individual cannot be a bar on the Court to decide such person's bail application. Justice Anand Venkatesh thus granted bail to a man against whom the State had passed a detention order, while the bail application was pending. The court had already passed the bail order when the Public Prosecutor informed the court that a detention order was passed. However, noting that the detention order could not be a bar, the court said that the bail order would stand and gave liberty to the man to work out his remedy against the detention order. POSH Act | Any Inappropriate Or Unwelcome Behaviour Affecting Women Is" Sexual Harassment" Regardless Of Intent: Madras HC Case Title: HCL Technologies Ltd. v. X Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 20 The Madras High Court has emphasised that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act [PoSH Act], the act of sexual harassment itself is given significance and not the intention behind the same. Justice RN Manjula thus observed that in cases under the Act, what has to be looked at is not what the accused thought was 'decent' but how such a person made a person of another gender feel about his actions. Thus, the court held that if any action or gesture was not received well and was inappropriate and felt as unwelcoming behaviour, it would fall within the definition of sexual harassment. Community Guilt? Madras High Court Reads Down TASMAC Circular Initiating Action Against All Employees Of Shop In Case Of Overpricing Case Title: State Secretary v Additional Chief Secretary and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 21 The Madras High Court has read down a circular...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 20 to January 26, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags