Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 10 - June 16, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247 NOMINAL INDEX Kesava Vinayagam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237 The President v The State Information Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238 MRF Ltd v Competition Commission of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 239 Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 240 Gurunathan v The Deputy Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 241 R Anushri v The Secretary TNPSC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 242 MM Karthikeyan v Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 243 High Court of Madras v PU Venkatesan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 R Mohanakrishnan v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 245 Kennel Club of India v The Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 246 Ashok Kumar v The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247 REPORT Madras High Court Declines To Quash FIR Against BJP's Kesava Vinayagam, But Asks Police Not To Disturb Him Case Title: Kesava Vinayagam v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237 The Madras High Court has refused to quash the FIR registered against Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) Organising Secretary Kesava Vinayagam in connection with the seizure of Rs.3.99 crore from a train for alleged bribing of voters during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections. Justice G Jayachandran observed that though the plea for quashing the FIR was not maintainable, the court needed to ensure that the person's liberty was protected. The court thus directed the investigating agency to seek the court's permission to summon Vinayagam, if they found any materials in connection with the case. Co-Operative Societies Not Public Authorities, Not Bound By Right To Information Act: Madras High Court Reiterates Case Title: The President v The State Information Commissioner Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238 The Madras High Court has recently held that co-operative societies registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act do not fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act and thus are not bound by the Act. Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan thus set aside an order passed by the State Information Commissioner directing Madhanam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society to furnish all information sought by a man under the RTI Act. Entity Is Entitled To Know Status Under Which Its Presence Is Sought In Statutory Proceedings: Madras HC Sets Aside CCI Proceeding, Calls It Opaque Case Title: MRF Ltd v Competition Commission of India and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 239 The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Competition Commission of India allowing an investigation to be carried out into a suspected rigging involving tyre manufacturer MRF Ltd. Noting that MRF was not a “party” to the proceeding and yet the CCI allowed an investigation against MRF, Justice Anita Sumanth noted that an entity was entitled to know the status under which its presence and participation was sought in a statutory proceeding. The court noted that the applications and their consequences would vary depending on the status of a party in a proceeding and thus, unless a party was aware of the provision under which it was involved, it would not be able to pursue appropriate legal remedy. Pay Rs.15Kto 20K To Junior Advocates As Monthly Stipend : Madras High Court Directs Advocates Case Title: Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 240 The Madras High Court has asked advocates and senior advocates in the State rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to pay a monthly stipend of Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 to Junior Advocates engaged with them. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan thus modified an earlier direction that the court had issued on Wednesday (12th June) asking the bar associations in the state to pay the monthly stipend. In its order released on Thursday, the court directed the Advocates to pay this amount. The court thus fixed a minimum stipend of Rs. 20,000 for young lawyers practicing in Chennai, Madurai, and Coimbatore and a minimum stipend of Rs 15,000 for lawyers in other districts. The court added that the amounts were fixed by taking into account the basic cost of living and the expenditure costs prevalent in the state. State Should Exercise Parens Patriae Jurisdiction For Mentally Disabled Without Family Support: Madras High Court Case Title: Gurunathan v The Deputy Director and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 241 The Madras High Court has observed that the State is expected to take care of the mentally disabled persons who are without any family support. The court added that though Section 9(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act deals with a...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 10 - June 16, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags