Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 22 - January 28, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 33 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 44 NOMINAL INDEX R Sasikala Devi v The AAO/ Assistance Secretary and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 33 L Ganapathy v The Assistant Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 34 CA V Venkata Sivakumar v The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 35 R. Ochappan vs. Keerthana, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 36 C Ve. Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 37 State of Tamil Nadu v S Krishnaswamy, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 38 Marlena Ann v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 Sujithkumar @ Sonaimuthu v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 40 Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Chennai Metropolitan Development, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 41 M/s.Tulip Nilgiris Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise (Appeals), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 42 Sri Guberan Steels Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 43 CR Balasubramanian vs. P Eswaramoorthi [Crl.O.P.No.947 of 2024], 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 44 REPORT Madras High Court Orders Disbursal Of Life Insurance Amount To Family Despite Policy Holder Defaulting In Premium Payment "Due To Ill-Health" Case Title: R Sasikala Devi v The AAO/ Assistance Secretary and others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 33 The Madras High Court recently directed the SBI Life Insurance Company to settle the claim amounts to the family of a man who had defaulted in paying premiums on account of hospitalization. Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the default was neither intentional nor wilful and the non-payment was only because the insured was hospitalized and taking treatment and had passed away subsequently. Ram Mandir Pran Pratishta | Singing Ram Bhajans, Uttering 'Rama Nama' Not Prohibited But Be Done Without Disturbing Law & Order: Madras HC Case Title: L Ganapathy v The Assistant Commissioner of Police Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 34 The Madras High Court on Monday disposed of a plea challenging the rejection of permission to live telecast the Ram Mandir inauguration programs in a private hall. Justice Anand Venkatesh held a special sitting in the early hours of Monday to hear the matter. The court took note of the State's submission that there was no prohibition against conduct of functions, singing Bhajans, uttering Rama Nama and Annadhanams on account of the auspicious ceremony. The court however added that the same should be done responsibly to avoid any law and order problem. The court added that care must be taken to ensure that no misinformation or wrong information was being spread and it should be understood that devotion was for bringing peace and not to disturb the equilibrium of the society. S.204 IBC | Provision Of Twin Tier Control By IBBI And IPA By Itself Doesn't Give Rise To Presumption Of Double Jeopardy: Madras High Court Case Title: CA V Venkata Sivakumar v The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 35 While dismissing a challenge made to Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code which gives powers to the Insolvency Professional Agency (IPA) to monitor the conduct of the Insolvency professional, the Madras High Court recently observed that merely because the provision gave powers to both the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and the IPA, it would not become arbitrary or give a presumption of double jeopardy. The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the conferment of powers to the IBBI and IPA by itself would not amount to conferring unbridled power as the regulation and bye-laws provided for checks and balances. Noting that there was no excessive power being granted, the court added that Section 204 was only an enabling provision and there was no constitutional infirmity in the provision. Any Person Can File Plea U/S 125 CrPC Seeking Maintenance On Behalf Of A Minor: Madras High Court Case Title - R. Ochappan vs. Keerthana Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 36 The Madras High Court has observed that Section 125 of CrPC does not prohibit any person from filing a maintenance petition on behalf of a minor. The bench of Justice KK Ramakrishnan opined thus while holding that a married woman is not barred from filing a plea on behalf of her minor brother seeking maintenance from their father. The Court found justification in the revision court's order to grant maintenance to the minor brother, even though only the married sister had initiated the revision against the dismissal of the maintenance claim concerning her, and no revision had been filed by the minor brother. Opposition Should Not Be Prevented From Voicing Concerns By Subjecting Them To Criminal Cases But It Should Avoid Abusive Outbursts: Madras HC Case Title: C Ve. Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 22 - January 28, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags