Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 6 - May 12, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 186 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 NOMINAL INDEX D Madhumithra v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 186 Dr.Wanbor Sungoh v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 187 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 188 C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 189 B. Saravanan v. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 190 P. Elilarasan v. The Executive Director, Air India Ltd. & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 191 A Kamala v Home Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 REPORT Madras High Court Refuses To Handover 3-Yr-Old Son's Custody To Biological Mother Considering Child Has Never Lived With Her Case Title: D Madhumithra v The State and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 186 The Madras High Court recently refused to hand over a 3-year-old minor boy's custody to his biological mother considering the child's welfare. The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the child had never lived with his biological mother, who was infected with HIV and was handed over to the private respondent when he was born. The court thus opined that it would be in the welfare of the child to continue being in the custody of the private respondent. COVID Duty By PG Doctors Should Be Considered Bond Service: Madras High Court Directs Thanjavur Medical College To Return Original Certificates Case Title: Dr.Wanbor Sungoh v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 187 While directing the Thanjavur Medical College to return the original certificates of a PG Doctor, the Madras High Court underlined that the COVID duty performed by the PG doctors should be treated as part of the bond period. Justice GR Swaminathan thus took a different view than that of a single judge of the Madras High Court recently. The court also observed that educational certificates were not marketable commodities under Section 171 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872. The court thus directed the Directorate of Medical Education to formally relieve the petitioner for the bonded service. Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Has Power To Reduce Or Waive Damages Imposed On The Employer: Madras High Court Case Name- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 188 A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice R. Vijayakumar while deciding a Writ Appeal in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors has held that , Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is empowered to reduce or waive damages imposed on the employer as per the EPF Act and EPF Scheme. The court observed that as per section 14B of the EPF Act, the Provident Fund Commissioner or any other officer authorized by the Central Government may recover such damages which do not exceed the amount of arrears which may be specified in the scheme contemplated under Paragraph No. 32A of the EPF Scheme. The court held that as per Section 7I and 14B of the EPF Act, order passed by the Central Board under Section 14B are also appealable to the Appellate Tribunal. Thus when the orders of Central Board are appealable to the Appellate Tribunal, it is not legally acceptable to say that the Central Board has exclusive power to reduce/waive damages but the Appellate Tribunal does not have such powers. Non-Consideration Of Representation To Statutory Authority Amounts To Dereliction Of Duty: Madras High Court Case Name- C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 189 A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R.N.Manjula while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors. has held that non-consideration of a representation made to a statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty. The court observed that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, a duty is cast upon them to consider the same on merits and pass and appropriate order instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. The court further held that non-consideration of a representation made to a statutory authority would amount to dereliction of duty. Petitioner's Qualifications Should Not Be A Barrier To Compassionate Appointment: Madras HC Case: B. Saravanan v. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 190 A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice L. Victoria Gowri while deciding a writ petition in the case of B. Saravanan v. ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 6 - May 12, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags