Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 23 to September 29, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 357 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 366 NOMINAL INDEX Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr.Sumit Srimal, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 357 S.Muralidharan v Madras High Court and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 358 TNEB Accounts and Executive Staff Union v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 359 Hameed Ibrahim v The Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 360 Marathal (Died) and Another v. Kanniammal (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 R.Gnana Sundari v T.Yesuraj, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 363 T.Muthu Irulappa v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 364 ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 365 A. Guruvammal v The Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 366 REPORT In Absence Of Defendant's Written Request, Trial Courts Cannot On Its Own Extend Time For Filing Written Statement After 30 Days: Madras High Court Case Title: Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr.Sumit Srimal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 357 The Madras High Court has observed that the trial courts should not, on its own, extend the time for filing written statements after the expiry of 30 days. The court said that the courts could extend the time only at the request of the defendant which was made in writing containing reasons. The court added that condoning delay on its own would be contrary to Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC Justice GR Swaminathan also noted that the orders condoning delay for filing written statements should not be passed mechanically and must contain the reasons. The court added that while condoning delay was discretionary, it was mandatory for the courts to record reasons in the order. The court also said that the trial courts could consider awarding costs while condoning the delay. Madras High Court Junks Plea Seeking Special Benches For Hearing Cases Against Public Spirited Persons, Journalists & Youtubers Case Title: S.Muralidharan v Madras High Court and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 358 The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the constitution of special benches for hearing cases related to public-spirited persons, journalists, and YouTubers. The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji said that no person had a right to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to constitute a special bench. The court added that the petitioner's grievance could not be redressed by way of a public interest litigation. The court also observed that various factors had to be considered before establishing a separate bench to deal with particular types of cases. The court noted that while the petitioner sought for a special bench, he had not argued that there was a huge backlog of cases against public-spirited individuals, journalists, or Youtubers and had neither placed any evidence pointing to the pendency of the cases. Transfer Incidental In Employment: Madras HC Dismisses Plea Challenging TANGEDCO's Orders Transferring Employees To TN Green Energy Corp Case Title: TNEB Accounts and Executive Staff Union v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 359 The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) Accounts and Executive Staff Union challenging an order of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO) through which company employees were transferred to the newly formed Tamil Nadu Power Generation Corporation Ltd (TNPGCL) and Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Limited (TNGECL). Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the transfer was made pursuant to a tripartite agreement entered into between the State Government, TNEB, TANTRANSO, TANGEDCO, and the trade unions. The court thus ruled that the trade unions could not challenge the transfer when they were already a part of the tripartite agreement. The court also noted transfer was an incidental part of employment and even assuming that some employees had difficulty with the transfer, it could not be a ground to challenge the transfers. India Must Honour Bilateral Agreements With US: Madras HC Denies Clearance Certificate To Man Who Supplied Helicopters To Iraq Despite US Sanction Case Title: Hameed Ibrahim v The Deputy Director Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 360 The Madras High Court recently refused to grant a clearance certificate to a man against whom PMLA proceedings were initiated based on a letter from the US Government. Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that the Enforcement Directorate had initiated an investigation based on a letter issued by the US Government and the Government of India had to honour the bilateral treaties/agreements with the US Government. Presumption U/S 90 Of Evidence Act Applies When Will Which Is Over 30 Yrs Old Is Produced...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 23 to September 29, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags