Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 04 - March 10, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 95 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 100 NOMINAL INDEX D Bright Joseph v Church of South India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 95 M Priya v Canara Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 V Boovalingam v Ponnamani and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 97 T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 98 S Harikrishnan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 99 M/s.Sri Sasthaa Constructions Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 100 REPORT Church Of South India Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Except When Discharging Functions Of The Clergy: Madras High Court Case Title: D Bright Joseph v Church of South India and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 95 The Madras High Court has recently observed that the Church of South India performs public functions when it is engaged in the running of schools, colleges, hospitals, etc and if any action taken by the CSI is detrimental to this public duty, a writ petition against the same would be maintainable. The bench of Justice R Subramanian, Justice PT Asha, and Justice N Senthilkumar also emphasized that when the CSI was performing functions outside the above public duty, ie, when it was engaged in discharging the functions of the clergy, such functions would be outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Like Fulfilling Unwritten Will Of Deceased Govt Servant: Madras HC Says Granting Compassionate Employment Should Be Rule, Denying It An Exception Case Title: M Priya v Canara Bank Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 The Madras High Court has held that while considering compassionate appointments, granting appointments should be the rule, and denying it should be an exception. Justice RN Manjula observed that providing compassionate appointment was like fulfilling the unwritten will of the deceased government servant, and required an understanding of how the deceased employee would have wished his dependents to settle in life if he was alive. The court, thus, noted that the authorities needed to consider the applications with both sympathy and empathy. The court further pointed out that while married daughters had crossed the first challenge of coming under the ambit of the compassionate scheme, they continued to face challenges and were expected to prove that they were depending on the income of the father. The court added that while married sons found it easier to continue living in the family home when married daughters chose to live in their parents' house, it raised eyebrows and was considered unusual. Parks And Playgrounds Are Lungs Of City, Lands Earmarked Should Not Be Used For Anything Else: Madras High Court Case Title: V Boovalingam v Ponnamani and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 97 The Madras High Court recently remarkes that parks and playgrounds are the lungs of a city and lands earmarked for constructing the same should not be used for any other purpose. The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice P Dhanabal observed that as per Section 32(4) and Section 122 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules 2019, the building and use of land shall conform to the conditions imposed while sanctioning the land. Madras High Court Deprecates Udhayanidhi Stalin's Comments Against 'Sanatana Dharma', Refuses To Direct His Removal As Minister Case Title: T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 98 The Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to issue a writ of quo warranto against Tamil Nadu Ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin, Sekar Babu and MP A Raja to remove them from their posts because of the comments against Sanatana Dharma. At the same time, Justice Anita Sumanth made critical remarks against the statements made by the Ministers and observed that those holding constitutional positions should not have made such divisive statements. The court added that Minister Udayanidhi Stalin's statement equating Sanatana Dharma to HIV, AIDS, Malaria etc was perverse and against the constitutional mandate. The Court specifically criticised HR&CE Minister Sekar Babu for participating in a meeting for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma. The court added that those holding constitutional positions should propound only constitutionalism and even if there were ideological differences between political leaders, any statement made publicly should be constructive and not destructive. ALSO READ: Udhayanidhi Stalin's Comments Against 'Sanatana Dharma' Amount To Hate Against Specific Community : Madras High Court Madras High Court Removes Observation In Judgment That Origin Of Caste System Is Less Than A Century Old Discipline Is Of Paramount Consideration In Military Services, Lenient View Will Bring Organisational ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 04 - March 10, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags