Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 17 - June 23, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 NOMINAL INDEX P Jayachandran v A Yesuranthinam (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 Karthick Munusamy v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 State v P Ponnusamy, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 250 R Sasikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 Tmt. Sabeena Beevi v The Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 K Paranthaman v The Secretary, TNPSC, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 253 V Sakthivel v The Revenue Divisional Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 M/s.Greenstar Fertilisers Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 REPORT Live-In Relationship With Married Man Cannot Be Treated As Relationship "In The Nature Of Marriage": Madras High Court Case Title: P Jayachandran v A Yesuranthinam (Died) and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 The Madras High Court has recently observed that a live-in relationship between a married man and an unmarried woman was not one "in the nature of marriage" giving rights to the parties. The court added that in the absence of any codified law, the live in partner could not seek any succession or inheritance of the property of the other part. Justice RMT Teekaa Raman thus refused relief to a man who had entered into a live-in relationship with a woman despite being married. The court noted that a relationship in the nature of marriage required that the couple held themselves out in the society akin to spouses, voluntarily cohabited, must be of legal age to marry, and must be otherwise qualified to enter into marriage. The court noted that since the man's marriage with his wife still existed at the time of the live-in relationship, the live-in relationship could not be termed as one in the nature of marriage. Madras High Court Grants Conditional Bail To Temple Priest Accused Of Sexually Harassing Devotee Case Title: Karthick Munusamy v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 The Madras High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to Karthick Munusamy, temple priest of Kalikampal temple accused of raping and threatening of kill a woman devotee. Justice TV Tamilselvi granted bail but directed Karthick to appear before the investigating officer regularly and cooperate with the investigation. The case against Karthick was that while he was working as the Guru of the temple, he had befriended a woman devotee, who had moved to Chennai in search of work and later sexually harassed her after offering her spiked drink. Dr Subbiah Murder | Trial Court Showed "Callous Attitude" In Failing To Appreciate Evidence, Disregarded Legal Proposition: Madras High Court Case Title: State v P Ponnusamy Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 250 While setting aside the conviction of all 9 accused in the infamous Dr. Subbiah murder case, the Madras High Court recently observed that the trial court had taken a callous approach in the case, by not appreciating the evidence before it and disregarding the settled legal proposition. Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, and directed them to be released unless their presence was otherwise required for the case. Employee Cannot Be Penalised For Appointing Authority's Failure To Follow Communal Rotation Guidelines: Madras High Court Case Title: R Sasikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 The Madras High Court recently set aside the order cancelling the appointment of a Jeep Driver who was wrongly appointed to a post earmarked for members from the Scheduled Castes community. (Arunthathiyars on Preferential Basis) Justice RN Manjula held that the employee had not suppressed any material facts and he could not be penalized or made a scapegoat for the appointing authority's failure to follow the guidelines of communal rotation. Noting that the appointment was cancelled after 14 years, the court added that the Government was a model employer and could not adopt such atrocious practices. [Preventive Detention] When Liberty Is Involved, Officers Are Expected To Show Sensitivity In Dealing With Representations: Madras High Court Case Title: Tmt. Sabeena Beevi v The Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 The Madras High Court recently observed that detaining authority was expected to show sensitivity while dealing with representations relating to preventive detention. The court added that when there was unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority in forwarding representations to the sponsoring authority, the least safeguards guaranteed by the constitution were denied to the detenu. The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that since preventive detention was a serious encroachment...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 17 - June 23, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags