Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 24 to June 30, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 NOMINAL INDEX Felix Jerald v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 Indian Institute of Technology v The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 257 Rahul Gandhi v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 Gokul Abhimanyu v Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 259 B Anantha Lakshmi and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 260 S Shanmugasundaram v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 261 Dr. TV Swaminathan v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 262 S Chandan Babu v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 M/s. SRM Hotels Private Limited v The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 264 Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 REPORT Journalists Should Conduct Themselves With Dignity: Madras High Court Refuses Bail To YouTuber Felix Jerald In Savukku Shankar Case Case Title: Felix Jerald v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed the bail petition filed by Youtuber Felix Jerald in a case relating to the interview of Savukku Shankar in which Savukku made derogatory remarks against women police officers. Justice TV Thamilselvi agreed with the prosecution that by interviewing Shankar, Jerald had provided a platform to the latter, to make such objectionable statements. The judge also pointed out that being a journalist, Jerald was expected to behave in a dignified manner and he could have edited out the derogatory portions of the interview before making it public. Lacks Inventive Step: Madras High Court Denies Patent To IIT-Madras' Method Of Doping Potassium In Ammonium Perchlorate Case Title: Indian Institute of Technology v The Controller of Patents & Designs Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 257 The Madras High Court has affirmed an order passed by the Controller of Patents & designs rejecting the patent application filed by Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras's method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that there was no experimental data to show that the method had an economic significance. Further, the court also noted that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The court noted that the invention merely employed dissolution, filtration, heating, drying and reheating and the resultant product was also a mere variant of an already existing product. Thus, noting that a new reactant was not used while adopting the known process, the court conclude that the claimed invention was excluded from patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. [False Promise To Marry] Court Must Ensure That Not Only Are 'Women Not Misused, But Equally That Law Is Not Misused Against Men': Madras HC Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 While setting aside a conviction in a sexual harassment case, the Madras High Court recently observed that when the victim already knew that the accused was a married man and father of a child, she could not allege that the consent was obtained on a false promise of marriage. Justice M Dhandapani observed that while dealing with cases of such nature, the courts had a two-fold duty- firstly to see that women are not misused and secondly and equally that the law is not misused against the male folk. The court noted that though the courts had to give a soft touch to the evidence of the victims on the premise that women would not be the aggressors against males, it was also important to note that no innocent male was subjected to the vagaries of the women folk. No Legal Right, Can't Say Fee Is Exorbitant: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Reduce Application Fee For AIBE Case Title: Gokul Abhimanyu v Union of India and Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 259 The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking to reduce the application fee for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) conducted by the Bar Council of India. The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice GR Swaminathan observed that unlike the enrolment fee prescribed under the Advocates Act, there was no statutory provision relating to the examination fee for the All India Bar Examination. In such a situation, the court noted that there was no legal right, for which a mandamus could be issued. The court further noted that even in cases where there was no legal right, the court could interfere if it opined that the quantum of fee was exorbitant. In the present case however, the court noted that the application fee was Rs. 3,500/- which could not be called exorbitant. No Person Should Be Denied Quality Medical Treatment On Economic Ground, State's Duty To Cater Heath Needs Of All: Madras High Court Case Title: B Anantha...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 24 to June 30, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags