Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 30 - October 6, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 367 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 377 NOMINAL INDEX Ankur Grand Owners Association v The District Registrar (Admin), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 367 The Principal & Secretary v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 368 Mr.Mani @ Velumani v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 369 Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 370 K Sethuraj v State of Tamil Nadu (and other connected cases), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 371 Suo Motu v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 372 M/s.Sterling Futures and Holidays Ltd. v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 373 AR Dairy Food Private Limited v The Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 374 G Prem Kumar v District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 375 The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Department v. M/s. Supreme Coaters & Fabricators, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 376 V.Kannan @ Kanal Kannan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 377 REPORT Madras High Court Stays Single Judge Order Which Held Apartment OwnersAssociation Cannot Claim Transfer Fee On Every Resale Of Flat Case Title: Ankur Grand Owners Association v The District Registrar (Admin) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 367 The Madras High Court has stayed the order of a single judge which had ruled that the flat owners could not charge a transfer fee on every resale of the flat. The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji have stayed by 8 weeks the order passed by the single judge. The stay was granted on an appeal filed by the Ankur Grand Owners Association challenging the May 2023 decision of Justice SM Subramaniam. The single judge had observed that if the association was permitted to collect a transfer fee on every resale of a flat, it would not only result in discrimination but also result in multiple collections of corpus funds on every resale or transfer of property. The court had ruled that in the absence of any statutory provision, the association could not be allowed to levy and collect transfer fees on the purchase of pre-owned flats. UGC Regulation On Selection Committee For Appointment Of Assistant Professor Not Applicable To Minority Institutions: Madras High Court Case Title: The Principal & Secretary v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 368 The Madras High Court recently held that the UGC regulations prescribing setting up of a selection committee for the appointment of assistant professor was not applicable to minority institutions. Justice RN Manjula noted that since the selection committee includes outsiders, giving them the power to select the appointees for the post of Assistant Professors would amount to interfering with the administration of the minority institution. The court added that the administration of the affairs of the institution cannot be given in the hands of outsiders. The court also observed that mandating the UGC regulation of selection committees to these institutions would interfere with their autonomous status. The court thus noted that the selection of faculties in minority institutions could not be compelled to be made through the selection committee contemplated in the UGC regulations. State Shouldn't Reject Premature Release Of Convict By Merely Citing "Heinous Crime", Must Give Reasons: Madras High Court Case Title: Mr.Mani @ Velumani v The State and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 369 The Madras High Court recently asked the State government to reconsider and recirculate its decision to reject a life convict's pre-mature release. Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that the State had rejected the request of the prisoner by merely stating that he had committed a heinous crime and that he had not served 14 years in prison. Noting that reasons were the lifeline for administrative decisions, the court observed that the government should assign proper reasons in each and every case. The court observed that under Article 226 of the Constitution, though the court could not test the policy of the State government, the court had to see if the State had exercised its power of discretion in compliance with the rules of natural justice. Article 21 Extends To Foreign Citizen Facing Trial In India: Madras HC Stays Look Out Circular Against Seychelles Citizen, Permits His Travel Case Title: Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 370 The Madras High Court recently stayed a lookout circular issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation against a Seychelles citizen. The court thus permitted the man to travel to Malaysia. Justice N Seshasayee noted that when Article 21 of the Constitution extended to non-citizens, it would also include the dignified existence of a foreign national facing a criminal charge in India. ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 30 - October 6, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags