Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 4 to November 10, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 416 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 430 NOMINAL INDEX Aunestraja v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 416 B Vidyasagar v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 417 M/s Jaiswal Products v State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 418 The Union of India v The Registrar, CAT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 419 M/S. Sivadarshini Papers Limited vs. M/S. Sunwin Papers, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 420 N Mahendra Babu v The Registrar General and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 LEGO Juris A/S v Gurumukh Singh and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 422 N.Jayamurugan Vs. M/s.Saravana Global Holdings Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 423 M/s.Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Airports Authority of India and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 424 M Vetri Selvan v Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 425 Edappadi K Palanisamy v Dhanapal, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 426 Pondicherry Institute Of Medical Sciences v The Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 427 Sujatha v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 428 P.Vasantha Kumar v Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 429 M Mangaiyarkarasi v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 430 REPORT “Extreme Emergency Looms”: Madras High Court Issues Directions For Curbing Tobacco Use Among Children Case Title: Aunestraja v The State and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 416 The Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to the Central Government, State Government and prosecuting agencies in an effort to curb the use of tobacco products among school kids. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there was an emergency considering the sudden surge of children using tobacco products and more specifically “Cool Lip” which in turn corrupted the body, mind, and soul of the children. The court thus directed that the Central Government to issue further directions under Section 86 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 asking the States to ban “cool lip” which has already been classified as an unsafe food based on rules framed by the Central Government. The court added that the State Governments were bound to comply with the directions of the Central Government which were statutory in character. Courts Must Strive To Remove Barriers Faced By Persons With Disabilities: Madras HC Dispenses Language Test For Speech & Hearing Impaired Engineer Case Title: B Vidyasagar v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 417 The Madras High Court recently highlighted the court's duty to remove the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in their daily life. Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the barriers faced by persons with disabilities went beyond issues of accessibility and was deep rooted in prejudices and stereotypes in the society. The court added that persons with disabilities faced social, attitudinal, cultural, institutional, structural, legal and environmental barriers, which constitutional courts must, through their judgments, strive to remove. Manufacturer Of Banned Tobacco Product Which Is 'Food' Can Be Prosecuted Under Food Safety And Standards Act: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s Jaiswal Products v State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 418 The Madras High Court recently upheld the power of the Food Safety Officer to proceed with investigation for sale of banned tobacco products observing that tobacco, with or without any additive was a food product under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act. In doing so the court said that the manufacturer was liable to explain the manner in which the product was cleared from the manufacturing unit which was in his exclusive knowledge. A single judge bench of Justice G Jayachandran in its order also noted that the manufacturer of the banned tobacco was liable to face prosecution and could not claim that he had no knowledge how the product entered the banned place. Chronic Vacancies And Essential Service Needs Justify Regularization Of Contract Employees Despite Article 320: Madras HC Case Title: The Union of India v The Registrar, CAT Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 419 A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order directing the regularization of contract Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who had served in Puducherry for nearly two decades. Despite objections from UPSC regarding Article 320 requirements, the Court found that the unique circumstances—including chronic vacancies and essential service requirements—justified regularization. The Court distinguished this case from the Umadevi judgment, noting that the appointments were not “backdoor” entries but were based on sanctioned posts and urgent needs. Arbitrator Nominated U/S 18(3) MSMED Act Erred In Deciding...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 4 to November 10, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags