- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 7, 2022 To February 13, 2022
Sebin James
13 Feb 2022 2:09 PM GMT
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.1. Concerted Efforts By State Departments Necessary To Restore Temple Properties & Recover Monetary Loss: Madras High CourtCase Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. Secretary to Government & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 49Shocked with the allegations about illegalities and frauds related to temple...
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Case Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. Secretary to Government & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
Shocked with the allegations about illegalities and frauds related to temple properties, the Madras High Court has held that the state should undertake immediate measures to prevent the looting of temples.
A single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam opined that the continuation of such large scale illegalities would mean that the HR & CE Department has failed in its duty under the Act (Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959). Thus, a change in policy decision may be required.
Case Title: The Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 & Anr. v. Anuttam Academic Instituitions Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
In a recent judgment, Madras High Court has held that a reasonable delay in communication of the order will not be counted as non-compliance of the limitation prescribed under Section 26(7) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Since the application of the limitation period is uninfluenced by such delay, the court has also clarified that the delay won't negate the validity of the order passed under Section 26(3) of the Act by adjudicating authority.
A Division Bench of Justices Mohammed Shaffiq and R. Mahadevan also held that the limitation period for filing an appeal against the order of adjudicating authority, i.e, 45 days, would be counted only from the date of receipt of the order impugned.
Relying on Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & others [(2010) 2 SCC 79], Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai and Others v. Saravana Spinning Mills (p) Ltd. [(2007) 7 SCC 298], Muthiah Chettiar v. I.T. Commissioner, Madras [AIR 1951 Mad 2004] and other case laws, the bench observed that,
"...in cases where 'the date of the order' and 'the date of receipt of the order' are separated by considerable time, it is only the date of receipt of the order, which would be material for the purpose of calculating the limitation for appeal and this factor cannot have any bearing on the validity of the orders impugned in the writ petition."
Case Title: R. Henry Paul v. the State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
Reiterating that the date of remand will be computed while considering an application for statutory bail, Madras High Court observed that the right to default bail is part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution, hence an indefeasible fundamental right.
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar was considering the plea by a POCSO accused, seeking directions to the Special Court For Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act to grant default bail on an application filed under Section 167(2) CrPC.
Case Title: The Mylapore Club v. The Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
In a dispute regarding payment of rent to Kapaleeswar temple by Mylapore Club, the Madras High Court has observed that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in a routine manner against a show-cause notice or demand notice issued by competent authorities.
The court also held that the Mylapore club will be bound to pay fair rent fixed under Section 34 (A) (1) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter 'Act') with regards to the temple land leased out to them
Justice S.M Subramaniam dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits and noted in the order that the club has the liberty to approach the competent authority in case of a dispute regarding the rental amount fixed as shown in the demand notice.
The court also reasoned that the power of judicial review under Article 226 has been provided to ensure whether the processes through which a competent authority takes a decision is in consonance with the applicable Acts and Rules. The writ jurisdiction is not meant to be invoked for show cause notices or demand notices by competent authorities.
Case Title: Susi Ganesan v. Leena Manimekalai & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court has refused to grant leave to film Director Susi Ganesan to appeal against the decision of a single bench which quashed the Regional Passport Office's order for impounding the passport of renowned filmmaker, poet and artist Leena Manimekalai.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there is no substance in Ganesan's plea, especially after the Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the single bench order.
6. '10 Yrs Elapsed, CBI Couldn't Even Determine Motive, Unfortunate': Madras High Court Constitutes SIT To Probe Murder Of DMK Minister's Brother
Case Title: N. Ravichandran v. The Director of Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
In the ten-year-old gruesome murder case of K.N. Ramajayam in the heart of Trichy City, Madras High Court has ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team in the hopes that a logical conclusion will be reached about the culprit and the motive behind the murder. The deceased was the brother of DMK Minister KN Nehru.
A single-judge bench of Justice V. Bharathidasan pronounced the orders on a plea filed by N. Ravichandran, one of the brothers of the deceased, seeking transfer of investigation from Central Bureau of Investigation to Tamil Nadu State Police.
The Court however noted that the state police investigated the case for nearly five years, and therefore, retransferring the case to TN Police wouldn't be fruitful.
"...It is a very unfortunate situation. The fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, not restricted only to fair and speedy trial, it also guarantees fair and speedy investigation. The fair and speedy investigation would only lead to advancement of justice and instill confidence in the mind of the victim as well as public. A fair and speedy investigation only would take the case to its logical conclusion."
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Sudhir Cranes Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
Justice S.S. Sundar analyzed the pleadings and noted that no new ground is added which is either outside the scope of the original Arbitral proceedings or without the factual background. The Court was unable to find any new ground for which no foundation is laid in the application for setting aside the award under Section 34.
In regard to the application of principles of Order VI Rule 17 CPC to an amendment application under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, the court ruled that it cannot be applied. But the court was of the view that some amount of discretion in the matter of amendment is still available with the Court and the Court cannot refuse unless the Court has reasons to believe that the amendment proposed are not legitimate or that the amendment is likely to take away the right accrued to the other side
Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretary To Government & Ors. & Other Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
Today, Madras High Court has heard a batch of writ petitions filed in public interest seeking various directions to the HR & CE Department for correcting the alleged lapses in the administration of temples.
One of the major issues was an allegation pertaining to the live telecast of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's speech from Kedarnath in 16 TN Temples on the occasion of dedicating the rebuilt samadhi of Adi Shankaracharya.
Narasimhan primarily contended that the respondents must be prevented from hosting gatherings that are of a political nature since the recognised religious practises and Agama Sastras prohibit such meetings.
On the issue of telecasting of the Prime Minister's speech, the court observed in the order that the materials produced point towards the following conclusion:
"The petitioner in person has referred to the last paragraph of the speech in which the Prime Minister has appreciated the efforts of Uttarakhand Government in controlling the pandemic as showcasing the political agenda prohibited under Sections 3-5 of the Act. We find that the Prime Minister's speech refers to religious issues and contributions of Adi Shankaracharya since the programme was for rededicating the statue. Referring to the last paragraph of the speech about 'devabhoomi' which is otherwise known as Uttarakhand, development of Chardham for promoting pilgrimage and development of other religious places are given along with the mention about controlling Covid-19. It cannot be said to be propagating the political propaganda", the court noted.
Case Title: Maridhas v. S.R.S Umari Shankar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has quashed a defamation case pending against YouTuber M. Maridhas for targeting Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) over the announcement urging its cadre to draw 'Kolams' as a form of Anti-CAA Protest.
Justice G.R Swaminathan quashed the case pending in the file of the Thootukudi Judicial Magistrate after observing that the complainant, S.R.S Umari Shankar, is not an aggrieved party and the continuation of the case would be an abuse of the legal process.
The origin of the case can be traced back to Advocate Gayathri Kanthadai who resorted to a novel form of Anti-CAA protest in Besant Nagar by drawing 'kolams' containing slogans. The Advocate was detained by the police that drew ire from the then opposition party, DMK. Later, the Tamil Nadu Police alleged that the detained advocate was associated with Pakistan based NGO "Bytes for all". Before that, DMK had urged the party members to imitate the Advocate's form of protest across Tamil Nadu. Afterwards, a video was uploaded by Maridhas in January, 2020, allegedly defaming DMK Party and Advocate Gayathri Kanthadai.
The complainant had previously submitted before the court that he was a party man and an office bearer of DMK.
"The petitioner (Maridhas) had only made imputations against Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai and DMK. No imputation has been made against DMK partymen as such. The complainant has not suffered any legal injury. His reputation has not in any way been lowered. The Party has not authorised the filing of the complaint. If the partymen or the members of DMK had been defamed, then as a member of a definite class of people, the respondent could have maintained the complaint. Such is not the case here. The complainant on his own has filed the complaint", the court clarified in the quashing order.
Case Title: S. Vasanthi v. M. Baggyalakshmi, Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
In a contempt petition filed against a Police Inspector alleging willful disobedience of the court order, Madras High Court observed that the police department is running with 90 per cent corruptive officers as on date.
Justice P. Velmurugan remarked that the Department is also plagued by police officials not having the required expertise to go forth with an investigation. According to the judge, only 10 per cent of the officers are 'honest and abled' but they alone cannot do all the investigation.
"...Though this Court finds that the capacity of the investigating officer is not up to the mark, and within her capacity she has investigated the case, the incapacity of the investigation officer cannot be treated as wilfully disobeying of the order of this Court. Unfortunately, as on date, the police department is running with 90% of the corruptive officers as well the officers not having adequate capacity to do the investigation and only 10% of the officers are honest and abled officers. The 10% of officials alone cannot do all the investigation."
Case Title: Prof. M.K Surappa v. The Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court has ordered the TN Higher Education Department to furnish a copy of the Justice P.Kalaiyarasan Inquiry Report to Professor M.K Surappa on the allegations levelled against him.
Directing the respondent department to make available a copy of the report to the former Anna University Vice Chancellor within fifteen days, Justice V. Parthiban noted that failure to furnish inquiry report to the petitioner at this stage would lead to 'travesty of justice, opposed to fair play and good conscience' and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Upon receipt of the report copy, the former VC can opt to submit his objections within four weeks.
"....From the conjoined reading of the case laws, the Courts have consistently ruled that there cannot be any slightest departure from complying with the principles of natural justice, namely furnishing of copy of the inquiry Report before the disciplinary authority forms an opinion on the inquiry Report. Such mandate in the opinion of this Court is the sublimest hallmark of fair play and good conscience in action consistent with the constitutional imperatives", the single bench observed.
Case Title: Dr. Elizabeth Rajan, Daughter of late Mr.Thanarajan v. The Inspector General Of Registration & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
Answering the question of whether a sale deed registered with a power of attorney that was executed in Malaysia is valid or not, Madras High Court has held that the notarial acts of notaries in the foreign countries can be given legal recognition by Indian Courts even in the absence of 'reciprocity' under Section 14 of the Notaries Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that once the original document of power of attorney executed and attested as given in Section 85 of the Evidence Act is produced, it is open to the court to presume that all the necessary requirements for the proper execution of Power of Attorney have been duly fulfilled.
"...Therefore, the purpose of Section 85 is to cut down recording of evidence for such matters like the due execution of Power of Attorney etc., in the present day international commerce. The words 'Notary Public' in Section 85 not only applies to Notaries appointed in India but also include the Notary Public of foreign countries. For raising the statutory presumption, Sections 57 and 85 do not require any recognition of notarial acts of the country or place, as the case may be where such Power of Attorney is executed or authenticated. In fact, there is nothing in the language of Section 14 which requires that only those notarial Acts which are declared as recognized by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette, are to be recognized in India", the court noted.
Case Title: A. Thilakam v. The Joint Director/ Appellate Authority & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
Madras High Court has recently observed that the second appeal under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 is not restricted to the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of appointment alone.
The single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam has categorically stated that the appeal remedy before the tribunal under Section 24 extends to any alteration of service conditions in Section 23 after exhausting the right to seek relief before the competent authority, i.e, the first appeal.
Under the Act, the competent authority includes the Joint Director of Elementary Education (Aided Schools) and the tribunal empowered is the respective jurisdictional Principal Sub Court.
"The language employed in Section 24 is that a teacher or other person or the educational agency are entitled to prefer the second appeal. Therefore, even in respect of minor punishment falling under Section 23(b), the educational agency or the teacher or other person may file a second appeal... The second appeal is not restricted with reference to the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of appointment alone...", the court observed.
Case Title: Vellore Institute of Technology, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Trustees v. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Anr. and Others.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a number of reassessment notices issued under the 1961 Income Tax Act by iterating that the Taxation Relaxation Act, 2020 only extends the period of limitation and not the application of repealed provisions in light of the amended provisions effective from 1st April, 2021.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu followed the previous judgments by Allahabad and Delhi High Courts and held that the procedure contemplated under the amended provisions from Sections 147-151 of the Act ought to have been followed for the issue of reassessment notices. The court underscored that Section 3(1) of the enabling act of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment Of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA, 2020) does not control the validity of amended reassessment provisions and there is not a saving clause in the amended Act to save the pre-existing provisions or defer the operation of substituted provisions.
Other Important Developments
15. 'We Are A Secular Country; There Is An Effort To Divide The Country By Religion': Madras HC CJ
Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretay To Government & Ors.
While hearing a public interest litigation before Madras High Court to mandate the customary dress code for entry inside temple complexes, Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari expressed anguish at the divisive narratives in the name of religion.
Reminding that our country is a secular country, the Chief Justice cautioned that there is an effort to divide the country by religion.
" What is of paramount importance? Country or religion? It is really shocking to see that somebody is for Hijab, some others are for dhotis inside temples. Is this one country or is it divided by religion?", the Chief Justice asked.
16. Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari Appointed As Chief Justice Of Madras High Court
Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari has been appointed as the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. In exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (1) of Article 217 of the Indian Constitution, the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India has made the appointment, states the notification issued by Additional Secretary (Ministry of Law & Justice) dated 10th February, 2021.
Case Title: Digital News Publishers Association & Anr v. Union Of India & Anr. & Connected Matters
In a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Madras High Court has instructed the parties to argue soon since there is no interim order from the apex court restraining the Court.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy listed the matter on 25th February for enabling the parties to argue on the constitutional validity of IT Rules.
Case Title: S.P Chockalingam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Ors.
In a public interest litigation filed for effective implementation of a 2019 notification issued by the Erode District Collector banning traffic movement in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve, the Madras High Court has directed that the restriction should come into force from February 10, 2022.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing the petitioner in person, S.P Chockalingam, who alleged that nearly 155 animals have lost their lives due to the non-implementation of the District Collector's order.
According to the Erode District Collector's order, plying of commercial vehicles on the stretch of National Highway between Bannari and Karapallam within the tiger reserve from 6 pm- 6 am was banned. Similarly, the Collector's order also restrained private vehicles, light commercial vehicles and other four-wheelers from plying on this stretch between 9 pm - 6 am.
Case Title: T. Elango v. Union of India & Ors.
In a public interest litigation filed seeking directions to the state government for regularization and relocation of temples constructed on poramboke lands and water bodies, Madras High Court has asked the petitioner to file a detailed affidavit on how the current demolition drive for removal of encroachments have been religiously discriminatory.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a PIL filed by T. Elango, one of the spokespersons for Hindu Munnani in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner submitted before the bench that the ongoing temple demolition drive by the State Government was motivated and not based on any transparent policy. The petitioner also sought a stay on the demolition drive by the state.
Case Title: Selvan R v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
In a public interest litigation filed by a school teacher alleging caste based discrimination in Pudhupatti hamlet of Pudhukottai District, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has issued notice to the respondents including the state government and the Director-General of Police, returnable in four weeks.
The petitioner, R Selvan who belongs to the Periyar Ambedkar Makkal Kazhagam, has submitted that the caste discrimination in the hamlet goes to the extent of denying the Scheduled Castes Parayar Community from getting a haircut in the barber shops within the hamlet.
Case Title: Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union Of India & Ors.
In a writ petition filed by NGO Safai Karamchari Andolan for the eradication of manual scavenging from Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court has asked the state government to file a reply to the specific allegations made about urban local bodies in a 2021 writ miscellaneous petition.
The Special Government Pleader has been granted four weeks time to file the reply.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has observed that they will be taking up the issues in the prayer of the petitioner one by one and issuing directions. The court acknowledged that the tenders must be terminated and urban local bodies employing manual scavengers through contractors has to be done away with. When the counsel was faced with the question of whether he is aware of any municipal corporations still employing manual scavengers through contractors, the counsel replied that he wasn't sure.
Case Title: M. Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, Indic Collective Trust & Anr v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr & Connected Matters
In a batch of writ petitions regarding the melting of temple jewellery into gold bars under Gold Monetisation Scheme, the Madras High Court has granted three weeks time to the state to file its counter-affidavits.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has also allowed one of the petitioners to file a rejoinder affidavit.
In October last year, Madras High Court passed an interim order asking the Tamil Nadu government to refrain from taking any decision on melting temple jewellery into gold bars, as part of the recently announced Gold Monetisation Scheme, until Trustees are appointed to Hindu temples in the State.
Justice G.R Swaminathan of Madras High Court has expressed his resolve to dispose off 445 second appeals pending since the year 2010 within 58 days.
In a letter addressed to the members of the Bar, the judge, who will be handling the second appeals for the time span of 2010-2014, has made it clear that adjournments won't be granted to ensure expeditious disposal of pending cases.
He has made the proposition to clear all the pending appeals within the end of April, 2022 and urged the bar members to extend their full cooperation.
