Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 6 - January 12, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 11 NOMINAL INDEX Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 3Dr Jenbagalakshmi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 4M. Nagappan v. The Management, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5C Kannaiyan and Others v Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 6K. Ezhilarasi v The Senior Divisional Manager, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 7Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 8K. Shiva Kumar v State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 9S Muralidharan v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 10P Bhaskar v The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 11 REPORT FAOs And JAOs Have Concurrent Jurisdiction For Assessment, Re-assessment Or Re-Computation U/S 147 Income Tax Act: Madras High Court Case Title: Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 The Madras High Court recently clarified that both the Faceless Assessment Officer and Jurisdictional Assessment Officer have concurrent jurisdiction as far as assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made it clear that for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction. The court added that the in matters of international taxation, central Circle charges and search and seizure cases also, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction and the FAO, in such cases, did not have jurisdiction to make assessment, re-assessment or re-computation. S.21 POCSO Act | Doctor Not Responsible To 'Verify' Age Of Victim Or' Ascertain' If Offence Has Been Committed: Madras High Court Case Title: Dr Jenbagalakshmi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 4 The Madras High Court has recently observed that a Doctor does not have a responsibility to 'verify' or 'ascertain' the age of a victim brought in for abortion, for the purposes of reporting crime under POCSO Act. Section 19 of the POCSO Act put a legal obligation on a person to inform the relevant authorities when he/she has knowledge that an offence under the Act had been committed. Section 21 deals with the punishment for failing to report or record a sexual offence. The High Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in SR. Tessy Jose and others v State of Kerala which held that the 'knowledge' requirement foisted on the Doctor cannot be that they ought to have 'deduced' from circumstances that an offence has been committed. It thus quashed the case lodged against a Doctor for failing to report an incident. Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Pass Injunctive Relief In Industrial Disputes: Madras HC Case Title: M. Nagappan v. The Management Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5 Madras High Court: A single judge bench consisting Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed a civil revision petition against a District Munsif's order that refused to pass an injunction against TAW Footwear Division. The Munsif had rejected the plaint holding that the matter was an industrial dispute and fell exclusively within the Labour Court's jurisdiction. However, the court ruled that civil courts have jurisdiction over matters not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. Following Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamalakar Shantharam Wadke, it held that since the labour courts were not empowered to grant interim injunctions under the Industrial Disputes Act, civil courts are the appropriate forum. Madras High Court Calls Manual Scavenger's Death 'Homicide By Insensitive Society', Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Kin Case Title: C Kannaiyan and Others v Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 6 The Madras High Court has ordered the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewage Board to pay Rs 10 Lakh compensation to the family of a man who died while doing manual scavenging in 2000. Citing the words of Mahatma Gandhi, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that it was easy to blame the authorities when we, as citizens were pushing everything into the drains indiscriminately. The court emphasised the need to maintain the sewers much like the arteries carrying the blood to our brains. The court criticized the authorities for making the father approach the labour commissioner for compensation and remarked that the authorities should have immediately agreed to pay the compensation. The court also observed that the labour commissioner should have been alive to the facts of the case instead of dismissing the case for default. The court added that the authorities could have initiated proceedings against the contractor, who made Sridhar work without any protective gears. Mere Suppression Of Taking Treatment Or Obtaining Medical Leave Not Reason To Deny Entire Life Insurance Claim: Madras High Court Case Title: K....

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 6 - January 12, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags