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

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 286 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 290 NOMINAL INDEX Sapphire Foods India Ltd v The Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 286 Raja Murrugan v Superintendent of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 287 The Chief Revenue Controlling Authority Chennai Versus R.Muniyandi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 288 Karthikeyan and Others v Thangapandian, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 289 Arulraj and another v The Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 290 REPORT "License Suspended Straightaway Without Issuing Improvement Notice": Madras High Court Stays Suspension Of KFC Operator's License In Thoothukudi Case Title: Sapphire Foods India Ltd v The Commissioner Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 286 The Madras High Court has stayed an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department suspending the license of Sapphire Foods India Ltd, operators of the fast-food chain KFC in Thoothukudi. Justice GR Swaminathan agreed with the petitioners and observed that the order was liable to be dealt with on several grounds. The court noted that as per the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the authorities were to first issue an improvement notice and in case of non-compliance, could suspend the license. In the present case, the court noted that the authorities had straightaway suspended the license in the first instance. Shocking That Lawyer Is Seeking Protection To Run Brothel: Madras HC Asks State Bar Council To Ensure Members Are Enrolled From 'Reputed Institutions' Case Title: Raja Murrugan v Superintendent of Police Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 287 Expressing shock over a lawyer seeking protection for running a brothel center, the Madras High Court has asked the state bar council to ensure that members are enrolled only from reputed institutions and restrict the enrolment from unreputed institutions from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and other states. Justice B Pugalendhi observed that it was high time the bar council realised that the reputation of advocates was decreasing in the society. The court added that it was unfortunate that the brother service business was being done by a person claiming to be an advocate from the Kanyakumari District which is known for being 100% literate. Interest Can't Be Demanded When Entire Stamp Duty Paid During Pendency Of Appeal: Madras High Court Case Title: The Chief Revenue Controlling Authority Chennai Versus R.Muniyandi Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 288 The Madras High Court has held that interest cannot be demanded when the entire amount as demanded by the authorities has been paid even during the pendency of the appeal. The bench of Justice R. Vijayakumar has observed that the present appeal has been filed under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Only after orders are passed by the Court will the liability get fastened upon the purchaser to pay interest on the belated payment. The entire amount as demanded by the authorities has been paid even during the pendency of the appeal. The interest cannot be demanded because the belated payment does not arise. No Prior Sanction Needed To Prosecute Officers Below Rank Of Inspector, Article 14 Cannot Be Applied Against Administrative Hierarchy: Madras HC Case Title: Karthikeyan and Others v Thangapandian Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 289 The Madras High Court has made it clear that no prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is needed to prosecute police officers below the rank of Inspector of Police. The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar observed that though Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteed the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, it could not be misconstrued to apply against the hierarchies in the administrative aspects. The court was answering a reference made to it on whether the term “removable by government” could be interpreted in a broad perspective to include police officers from the rank of Constable to Inspector of Police. The court noted that the legislation, in its wisdom, had restricted the scope and application of the provision with a reasonable differentia. The court added that if the word “any person” in Article 14 of the Constitution was assumed to have exempted and excluded classification and restriction in all enactments, no statute with any reasonable differentia could ever be implemented. Madras High Court Laments Political Favours Preventing Police From Acting Against Voter Bribery In Elections Case Title: Arulraj and another v The Inspector of Police and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 290 The Madras High Court recently criticized the police force for not acting appropriately in cases involving bribery during elections. The court remarked that though the police were the only machinery that could act against such offenses, in many cases, the police were taking sides and not prosecuting expecting ...

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

Upasana Sajeev

Tags