Best of 2021- 35 Significant Judgments Of Madras High Court

As the year 2021 comes to an end, LiveLaw brings you the 35 Significant Judgments & Orders pronounced by Madras High Court. 1. Right To Default Bail Not Extinguished With 'Simultaneous' Filing Of Chargesheet: Madras High Court [ K. Muthuirul v. The Inspector Of Police] In a pertinent ruling, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court delved deep into the statutory provisions and precedents that determine the four corners of default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC and Section 36(A)(4) of NDPS Act. Justice K. Murali Shankar has held that subsequent or even simultaneous filing of the charge sheet does not disentitle an accused from claiming default bail under CrPC. The Bench observed that there is a misconception that in cases where the bail petition under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C and the charge sheet are being filed on the same day, then the time at which, bail petition or the charge sheet is filed, is the deciding factor and that if the charge sheet is filed earlier to the bail petition, then the accused is not entitled to get the statutory bail or in case, if the bail petition is filed before laying of charge sheet, then the bail application has to be allowed.It was also made clear that the investigating agency has to file the charge sheet "before" the expiry of 60 days, 90 days (mentioned in CrPC) or 180 days (mentioned in NDPS Act) as the case may be, if the detention is required beyond the period of 60 or 90 or 180 days. 2. 'Reservation Based On Caste Alone': Madras High Court Quashes 10.5% Internal Reservation To Vanniyar Community Under Most Backward Class Category [V.V.Saminathan vs Government of Tamil Nadu] The Madras High Court quashed the Tamil Nadu law providing internal reservation of 10.5 % to the Vanniyar Community under the category Most Backward Classes. The court observed that Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021, is ultra vires the constitution.The bench comprising Justices M. Duraiswamy and K. Murali Shankar also said that caste alone cannot be criteria to make reservation. It was also held that, in view of Article 31B and 102nd Constitutional amendment, the state legislature lacked the competence to make such a law. The court observed that the Act had been passed by the State without any quantifiable data on population, socio-educational status and representation of the backward classes in the services. The sub-classification done solely based on population data, in the absence of any objective criteria, is illegal in the eye of law and in violation of the Constitution of India, the bench added 3. UAPA - Sessions Court's Order Denying Bail Can Be Challenged Only By Appeal Under Section 21 NIA Act Before Division Bench: Madras High Court [Jaffar Sathiq @ Babu v. State] A 3-judge bench comprising Justices P N Prakash, V Sivagnam, RN Manjula answered the reference made to it as follows: "An order passed by a Court of Session dismissing a bail application in a case involving offence(s) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 must be challenged only by way of an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. Consequently, such an appeal would lie only before a Division Bench vide Section 21(2) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008."Applications under Section 439 or 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not maintainable against the rejection of bail by the Sessions Court in a UAPA case, the Court clarified.The judgment of the Full Bench, authored by Justice Prakash, is based on the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Bikramjit Singh vs State of Punjab. In Bikramjit, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that all scheduled offences under NIA Act, which include UAPA, are to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure under the NIA Act, even if such cases are investigated by the state police and not the NIA. Also Read: Treating Ordinary Country Bomb Cases As Terrorist Offences Will Defeat Purpose Of NIA Act: Madras High Court 4. 'Restitutionary Damages' Vs. 'Compensatory Damages' For Breach Of Contract: Madras High Court Explains[E-merge Tech Global Services P Ltd. v. Mr M.R.Vindhyasagar & Anr.] In a significant judgment pertaining to breach of contract, the Madras High Court ventured into when a party aggrieved is entitled to compensatory damages and under what circumstances the Court may grant restitutionary damages by way of an account of profits. Compensatory damages are awarded to redress the loss suffered by an aggrieved party. Whereas, restitutionary damages are more in the nature of directing the Defendants to disgorge the benefit accrued in his favour due to unjust enrichment at the expense of the...

Best of 2021- 35 Significant Judgments Of Madras High Court

Sebin James

Tags