Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 05 To June 11

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and the district courts of Tamil Nadu Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164 NOMINAL INDEX The Director of School Education and Others v. M Velayutham and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 S Raja v M/s.Hindustan Unilever Ltd and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 161 Abubakkar Shithik v State and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 162 Saravanan v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 The Kennel Club of India and others v. The Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164 REPORTS Teachers Appointed Prior To July 2011 Also Need To Possess TET For Future Promotions: Madras High Court Case Title: The Director of School Education and Others v. M Velayutham and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 The Madras High Court recently held that any teachers who have been appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher or a Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant prior to July 29, 2011, are eligible to continue in service even if they have not qualified Teacher’s Eligibility Test but they must possess the TET to be eligible for consideration to future promotional prospects. The court struck down a Government Order issued by the School Education Department prescribing that a pass in TET was mandatory only for direct recruitment to the post of BT Assistant and not for promotion. The court said that TET is mandatory for all teachers appointed after July 29, 2011, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion. Use Of Abusive Language Not Serious Enough To Impose Punishment Of Dismissal From Service: Madras High Court Case Title: S Raja v M/s.Hindustan Unilever Ltd and another Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 161 The Madras High Court recently observed that use of abusive language is not of such a serious nature so as to impose the "capital punishment" of dismissal from service. The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice R Kalaimathi interfered with an order of single judge who had set aside the labour court order for reinstating the workman with backwages. The court noted that while awarding punishment, the management has to take into account the gravity of the offence and the previous record of the workman along with other circumstances RP Act | Offence Under Section 127A Is Non-Cognizable, Police Cannot Investigate Without Magistrate's Order: Madras High Court Case Title: Abubakkar Shithik v State and another Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 162 The Madras High Court recently observed that the offence under Section 127A of the Representation of Peoples Act is a non cognizable one. Justice Sunder Mohan held that since the punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment for a period of six months, as per Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code, it would be a non cognizable offence. Instruct Police Personnel Appearing Before Court To Come Prepared With Particulars Of Case: Madras High Court To State Public Prosecutor Case Title: Saravanan v State Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 The Madras High Court has directed the State Public Prosecutor to give instructions to the police officers appearing before court to come prepared with the particulars of the case. Justice AD Jagadish Chandra passed the direction in a bail petition after noting that the police officer who was deputed by the investigation agency to assist the public prosecutor was fumbling in the court without knowing the particulars of the case. Madras High Court Quashes Notification Banning Import Of Dogs For Commercial Activities Case Title: The Kennel Club of India and others v. The Union of India and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164 The Madras High Court has recently set aside a notification issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade imposing a ban on import of dogs in the country for commercial breeding or other commercial activities. “The absolute ban now imposed is on the basis that import of dogs for commercial breeding will bring foreign diseases to India as well as contaminate native gene pool. As far as import of alien diseases is concerned, there are effective measures for quarantine and testing of the animals prior to permitting entry into India. Thus, this can be no reason to justify the ban,” Justice Anita Sumanth said. The court observed that the impugned notification has no legs to stand and that the alleged deliberations of the concerned ministries who were involved in the impugned ban are stated to have been destroyed. OTHER DEVELOPMENTS Madras High Court's Forest Bench To Hear Plea To Relocate Wild Tusker 'Arikomban' To Kerala Case Title: Rebecca Joseph v Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden and Others Case No: WP(MD) 13060 of 2023 The Madras High Court on Tuesday said that it'll post the public interest litigation seeking translocation of the rogue elephant Arikomban to...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 05 To June 11

Upasana Sajeev

Tags