Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 9 To October 15, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 316 NOMINAL INDEX Ilampiraiyan v Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 IDFC Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 308 The Chennai District Collector and Others v T.V.S.Jaya Perumal (Died), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 N Ponnupillai v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 310 G Venkatesh v Bridge Federation of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 311 Arjunan Sampath @ Arjun Sampath v The Sub-Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 312 R Kumaraguru, Ex MLA v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 313 Praveen Kumar v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 314 Shreya Bhattacharya v Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 315 Dr.J.Kaja Moinudeen v The Authorization Committee (Transplantation), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 316 REPORT Magistrate Cannot Peruse Veracity Of Witnesses While Taking Cognisance Of Complaint Under Section 200 CrPC: Madras High Court Case Title: Ilampiraiyan v Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 The Madras High Court recently observed that while taking cognisance of a complaint under Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate could not look into the veracity of the witnesses. The court added that at the cognisance stage, the Magistrate could only check whether prima facie materials were available to constitute an offence or not. Justice P Dhanabal of the Madurai bench relied on an earlier decision of the High Court in Mukesh Jain S/o.Prem Chand vs. Balachander and observed that at the cognisance stage, the Magistrate had to look into the complaint and other documents along with the sworn statement to see if a prima facie case was made out. Dept. Failed To Produce New Or Tangible Information To Justify The Reopening Of Assessment Against IDFC: Madras High Court Case Title: IDFC Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 308 The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings against the IDFC as the department failed to produce any new or tangible information to justify the reopening of the assessment. The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has observed that the information already on file that was examined in the first instance cannot satisfy the legislative requirement under Section 148 Explanation 1, which calls for the department to have such evidence that implies the income has escaped assessment. Family Of Deceased Employee Denied Pension For 36 Yrs: Madras High Court Says Authorities' Attitude Inhuman, Calls For Proper Mechanism Case Title: The Chennai District Collector and Others v T.V.S.Jaya Perumal (Died) Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a family struggling to secure family pension for the past 36 years. The court also observed that the authorities' conduct in making the family run from pillar to post for the past 36 years during which time the wife of the deceased employee had also died was not merely unlawful, arbitrary but “inhuman”. The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice C Kumarappan also directed the State to make amendments to existing laws or bring in effective mechanisms to the existing laws to see that the retirement cum death benefits are paid to the families within a period of six months. The court thus opined that the authorities could take the present case as a model case to streamline the issues pertaining to settling family pensions and to bring in a mechanism in tune with the existing laws. Due Respect Should Be Shown To COVID Front Line Workers: Madras High Court Orders Enhanced Compensation To Family Of Deceased Worker Case Title: N Ponnupillai v The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 310 Noting that due respect must be shown to the departed souls who worked as frontline workers during COVID-19, the Madras High Court recently directed the State to pay just and adequate compensation to the family of the deceased family. Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench observed that the compensation of Rs. 50,000 which was already paid to the family of the man, who was serving as a Scavenger in the Municipality during COVID-19 was not sufficient. The court thus directed the authorities that the issue shall be considered in light of any existing scheme and an enhanced compensation may be given respecting the departed soul. Madras High Court Dismisses OCI Bridge Player's Appeal Against Centre's Policy Permitting Only Citizens To Participate In International Events Case Title: G Venkatesh v Bridge Federation of India Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 311 While refusing to interfere with an order denying permission to an Overseas Citizen of India to participate in International Bridge tournaments on behalf of the Bridge Federation of India, ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 9 To October 15, 2023

Upasana Sajeev

Tags