Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 27 - June 2, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 213 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 227 NOMINAL INDEX Shalin v The District Registrar and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 213 N Lakshmi v IRDAI and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 214 High Court of Madras v P Dharmaraj and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 215 Uma Kant v The Inspector General, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 216 Balaji @ Panai Balaji v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 217 Saurav Das v Chief Information Commissioner and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 218 PK Manimandram Others v State Human Rights Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 219 Imrankan and others v The Sub Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 220 IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Kalaiselvi and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 221 S Sasikala v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 222 Haj Mohamed v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 223 Samuel Tennyson v The Principal & Secretary, MCC and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 224 M/s.V.R.Muthu & Bros. Versus State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 225 S Nithesh and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 226 Sudha Mathesan v The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 227 REPORT "State Should Approach All Religions Alike": Madras High Court Calls For Protecting Church Properties U/S 22A Registration Act Case Title: Shalin v The District Registrar and Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 213 The Madras High Court recently noted that it was time to include the Church Properties under Section 22 A of the Registration Act 1908 which protects certain properties like temple and wakf properties from registration. Justice GR Swaminathan noted that while temple properties are protected under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and the Wakf properties are covered under the Wakf Act 1995, a similar law with respect to church properties was absent. The court noted that in India, being a secular country, the state was expected to treat all religions alike and thus suggested bringing church properties under the ambit of Section 22A of the Registration Act. Insurance Companies Wilfully Neglect Reimbursing The Insured, Who Then Have To Pay The Courts To Get Their Rights Enforced: Madras High Court Case Title: N Lakshmi v IRDAI and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 214 The Madras High Court recently remarked that often Insurance companies wilfully refuse reimbursements to the insured, forcing them to pay the court to get their rights enforced. The court added that individuals usually do not have the legal knowledge to understand the ambiguous language used in the policy documents which helps the company's intention to waive their liability. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus came to the rescue of a woman challenging an order of the authorized officer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance rejecting the insurance claim with respect to her Husband, who died of cardiac arrest during the second wave of COVID-19. The court noted that as per the policy, the first occurrence of a heart attack of specified severity was covered under the policy. The court also noted that as per the orders of the Apex Court, an insurance company could not be too technical and reject a claim on technical grounds. Madras High Court Criticises Madurai Bar Association's Resolution Criticising Judicial Order Which Made Wearing Helmets Mandatory Across State Case Title: High Court of Madras v P Dharmaraj and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 215 The Madras High Court criticized the members of the Madurai Bar Association for passing resolutions condemning a judicial order mandating the wearing of helmets by riders of two-wheelers and for subsequently holding a procession and making allegations against the Judge. Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the members had attempted to take the law into their own hands when they should have resorted to the alternate remedies available if the order was found to be unacceptable or unimplementable. The court made the remarks in a suo moto contempt petition initiated against the President and Secretary of the Madurai bar Association. Difficult To Co-Exist Without Integrity & Honesty: Madras High Court Upholds Dismissal Of CISF Personnel For Using Another Person's ATM Card Without Permission Case Title: Uma Kant v The Inspector General Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 216 The Madras High Court recently dismissed the removal of a CISF Constable for using another CISF Constable's ATM card without permission and withdrawing money. Justice RN Manjula noted that though there was no previous similar instance, a charge of this nature was so severe and serious, that no soft approach could be taken. The court observed that taking away someone's ATM card for withdrawing money without his permission was nothing but stealing money and thus, the dismissal from service was appropriate. Madras High...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 27 - June 2, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags