Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 7, 2022 To February 13, 2022

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 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.The court observed that such illegalities including illegal mining and fraudulent execution of documents cannot usually take place without the 'active or passive collusion' of Department officials. Those officials who have indulged in such corrupt practices must be proceeded against both under the Criminal law and the Government Servants Disciplinary Rules. The court has also categorically stated that the recovery of properties so lost alone would not be sufficient, the state would also have to recover the financial losses already accrued by the temple on account of its loss2. Benami Property Transactions Act| Validity Of Order Passed By Adjudicating Authority Not Negated By Procedural Delay To Despatch: Madras HCCase 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) 50In 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.However, the court also underscored that the consideration of limitation period for filing an appeal against the adjudicating authority's order is independent from the consideration of the limitation period under Section 26(7) for ascertaining the validity of the adjudicating authority's order itself.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."3. S. 167 (2) CrPC| Date Of Remand To Be Included While Considering Plea For Default Bail: Madras High Court ReiteratesCase Title: R. Henry Paul v. the State of Tamil NaduCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 51Reiterating 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.4. Writ Against Show Cause/ Demand Notice Can Be Entertained Only On Limited Grounds Like Lack Of Jurisdiction, Allegation Of Malafides: Madras HCCase Title: The Mylapore Club v. The Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 52In 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 themJustice S.M Subramaniam dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits and noted in the...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 7, 2022 To February 13, 2022

Sebin James

Tags