Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 31, 2022 To February 6, 2022

Sebin James

6 Feb 2022 2:55 PM GMT

  • Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 31, 2022 To February 6, 2022

    A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.1. 'Investigation Not On Right Lines, Conversion Attempt Not Improbable' : Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Thanjavur Girl's Suicide [Read Judgment]Case Title: Muruganantham v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 38Harshly criticising the investigation by the Tamil...

    A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.

    Harshly criticising the investigation by the Tamil Nadu police into the suicide of Thanjavur girl student for ruling out the angle of alleged attempts of religious conversion to Christianity from her school, the Madras High Court on Monday ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the matter.

    "...there is nothing inherently improbable in the allegation that there was an attempt at conversion. It could be true or false. The matter called for an investigation and not outright rejection", Justice GR Swaminathan observed while allowing the petition filed by the father of the deceased girl.

    2. 'Policy Decision': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea For Distributing Pongal Gift Hampers To Sri Lankan Refugees Outside Camps

    Case Title: Dr Ramu Manivannan v. The Chief Secretary & Others (PIL)

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 39

    The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Retd. Professor Ramu Manivannan seeking directions to the government of Tamil Nadu to extend the Pongal gift hampers to the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees residing outside the rehabilitation camps.

    The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that those staying outside the camps without ration cards won't be entitled to the benefits sought and there is no illegality in the policy decision of the government.

    3. Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Elevation Of Justice MN Bhandari As Madras High Court Chief Justice

    The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on December 14, 2021 and January 29, 2022 has recommended the elevation of Mr. Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Judge, Madras High Court [Paremt High Court: Rajasthan] as Chief Justice of Madras High Court.

    It was in November 2021 that Justice Bhandari was transferred from Allahabad High Court to Madras High Court. On November 22, 2021, he was sworn in as the Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, following the transfer of previous Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee to Meghalaya High Court.

    4. Extramarital Affair May Amount To 'Mental Cruelty' U/s 498(A) IPC Depending On Facts & Circumstances Of Case: Madras High Court

    Case Title: Nakkeeran @ JeroanPandy v. State & Anr.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 40

    In a pertinent judgment, Madras High Court has observed that extramarital affairs can cause grave mental trauma and mental health issues leading to serious consequences in the matrimony, and that in turn, would amount to mental cruelty under Section 498(A) IPC.

    Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarty however added that when deciding whether a conduct amounted to cruelty, the Court has to look at the facts and circumstances of the case.

    The observation was made while confirming the conviction of a husband accused of engaging in an extramarital relationship with another woman while the marriage with the respondent-wife was still valid.

    In its order, the Bench noted that the evidence on record proves the existence of an extramarital relationship that has gone to the roots of the marriage and severely affected the mental health of the wife. This ultimately resulted in the wife leaving the matrimonial home.

    5. 'PIL Filed For Publicity Without Proper Research': Madras High Court Bars Litigant From Filing PILs For 2 Yrs, Imposes Cost

    Case Title: K.K Ramesh v. Union Of India & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 41

    In an appeal filed by Actor Vijay to remove the scathing remarks made by the single judge bench while dismissing his petition for tax exemption on a Rolls Royce Ghost Motor Car, Madras High Court has expunged the observations made by single judge bench in paras 3,4,7,8, 11 and 12 of the original order.

    A Division Bench of Justices Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Mohammed Shaffiq allowed the writ appeal filed by Actor Vijay and disposed off the connected miscellaneous petition with no costs.

    The actor was challenging the order passed by a single bench of Justice SM Subramaniam on July 13, dismissing a writ petition filed by Vijay in 2012. In the judgment, the single bench had made observations to the effect that one becomes a 'real hero' by promptly paying tax. The single bench had also taken a dig at the actor by saying that while his reel life characters were preaching tax compliance, in real life he was seeking exemption.

    6. 'No Right Of Permanent Usage': Madras High Court Rejects Koyambedu Tomato Traders' Plea For Allocation Of Specific Parking Ground

    Case Title: Thanthai Periyar Tomato Traders Association v. Member Secretary & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 42

    The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Thanthai Periyar Tomato Traders Association seeking exclusive allocation of a specific area for loading/ unloading tomatoes from trucks in Koyambedu Market.

    Noting that the Market Management Committee (MMC) has been accorded the power under the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996 to allot spaces for loading/ unloading perishables, the court observed that the Association cannot seek the right of usage merely on the ground that they have availed the land for the said purpose for some time.

    Justice S.M Subramaniam was adjudicating the Association's plea for allocating the parking space inside the Market for their exclusive use.

    It is pertinent to note that Justice R. Suresh Kumar had made an interim arrangement directing the Koyambedu Market Management Authority to allocate another area of one acre near Gate 14 for loading/ unloading, taking into account the soaring tomato prices last November.

    7. Purpose Of Rectification Deed Is To Remove Inadvertent Errors, Clarify Imperfections In Earlier Deed: Madras High Court

    Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited & Anr. v. The Inspector General of Registration & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 43

    In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court has given some clarifications about the scope of rectification deed and whether the entering of the rectification deed for clarifying a fact would mean the existence of the same in the original sale deed.

    The bench of Justice T. Raja and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarty was considering the appeal of Vodafone Idea Limited under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamps Act,1898 against the order of Inspector General of Registration.

    Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Makkad Plastic Agencies, 2011 4 SCC 750 which observed that the meaning of 'rectification' under the Sales Tax Act would include 'removal of defects or imperfections', the High Court held that,

    "...Whenever the rectification deed includes any additional property on which the duty is not charged, the rectification deed will be charged as if it were a sale deed as per Section 47-B of the Act. Thus, the scope of rectification deed may differ in every case. Rectification deed can be for rectification of mistake or on an inadvertent error or even clarifying the original document. Apart from correcting an error or removal of defect, Rectification deed can also remove 'imperfection' in the earlier document."

    8. Full Bench Of Madras High Court Directs State To Immediately Frame Action Plan For Removal Of Invasive 'Seemai Karuvelam' Trees

    Case Title: V. Meghanathan v. Chief Secretary & Ors. & Connected Matters

    In a batch of writ petitions seeking the eradication of invasive plant species 'Seemai Karuvelam' ( Prosopis Juliflora) across Tamil Nadu, a full bench of Madras High Court has directed the state government to immediately frame a policy/ action plan for its removal.

    The bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice PD Audikesavalu and Justice N. Sathish Kumar censured the state government for dragging the issue by inviting consecutive expert committee reports on the impact of the plant species.

    While giving the direction to the Additional Advocate General (AAG), the court also indicated that MGNREGA workers can be deployed for uprooting the trees by taking the funds from MGNREGA Scheme. The court gave the above suggestion based on the inference that large scale human labour would be required to complete the process.

    The matter has been listed after two weeks for eliciting a response from the government.

    The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has issued notice to the State Election Commission on a plea seeking reservation of the Chairman Post of a town panchayat for Scheduled Tribes.

    A Division Bench of Justices Pushpa Sathyanarayana and P. Velmurugan has adjourned the matter to 15th February so that the counsel appearing for the State Election Commission can get instructions in the meantime.

    The public interest litigation filed by K.Veeraputhran, a person belonging to the Hindu Kattu Nayakar community, challenged the Government Order of Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election Department) dated 17.01.2022 that allocated the Chairman Post of Paravai Town Panchayat to General Category.

    The Madras High Court has held that it can appoint a legal guardian for persons with intellectual disability under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865.

    While appointing the petitioner, C. Raghuraman, as the legal guardian and manager of the properties of a relative with 60% mental disability, the bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose also cleared the air about the maintainability of petitions filed seeking the appointment of a legal guardian.

    The confusion has been long persisting since the registry of Madras High Court was not entertaining such petitions ever since the single judge bench decision in G. Nithyanandam v. Tmt. D. Saritha & Ors (2013).

    In the said case, Madras High Court had directed the petitioner to approach the District Collector under Section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 for appointment of a legal guardian. However, the above case was filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and not Clause 17 of Letters Patent.

    11. Counter-Complaint Lodged By Injured Accused Should Be Dealt Together With That Of Injured Complainant: Madras High Court

    Case Title: V. Subramanian & Ors. v. State

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 45

    Observing serious irregularities in the witness statements and police investigation, Madras High Court has acquitted five persons, out of which the first accused was convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of IPC.

    The bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira noted that there are contradictions in the versions of prosecution witnesses with regards to the number of accused and the specific weapons used by the accused while attacking the deceased and other persons.

    On top of that, the Police chose to investigate both cases separately though an FIR was registered against the deceased and a few prosecution witnesses by the accused in the same occurrence.

    The court also came to the conclusion that the FIR Numbers in the cases of the accused and the prosecution was altered to render the prosecution undue advantage, projecting it as an FIR registered prior to that of accused persons' FIR. The FIR registered based on the complaint of accused was also suppressed by the investigating officers and the prosecution. Additionally, the court also took note of the delay of over six hours in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate even when the distance between the police station and the Magistrate's residence was under thirty minutes.

    12. REPCO Bank: Madras High Court Holds Nominal/ Associates- B Class Members Ineligible To Vote/ Contest In Delegate Elections

    Case Title: S.Anthonydoss v. Union of India & Ors & Connected Matters

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 46

    The Madras High Court has disposed of a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates challenging the election notice issued by the returning officer of Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank Ltd (REPCO Bank).

    The grievance of the candidates was that the notice issued for elections to the post of delegates of the respondent society had B Class Nominal or Associate members as voters while only Ordinary A-Class Repatriate members are allowed to vote in terms of Section 26 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.

    After referring to Section 25 of the 2002 Act that mentions about the persons eligible for becoming members of cooperative societies, the court noted that the subsequent Section 26 of the Act clearly remarks that nominal/ associate members can be admitted in a multi-state cooperative society if there is a corresponding provision in its bye-laws.

    However, Section 26 is clear about such Nominal/ Associate members not being entitled to subscribe the shares of the society to have any such interest in the management including the right to vote, right to contest in elections or participate in the General Body Meeting etc.

    13. Shut Down 'Bars' Attached To TASMAC Shops, Recall The Tender For Issuing Licenses: Madras High Court

    Case Title: S. Jagannathan v. The Managing Director, TASMAC & Ors and Connected Matters

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 47

    Madras High Court has recently held that Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) cannot endorse the 'bars' attached to the TASMAC Shops by issuing licenses to a section of bidders.

    A single-judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan ruled that all the 'bars' attached to the respective TASMAC shops that currently enjoy a monopoly in the wholesale and retail sale of liquor should be shut down within six months.

    The Madras High Court has also elaborately given reasons for its direction in the order by relying primarily on Sections 4 and 4A of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.

    Section 4A of the Prohibition Act talks about Punishment for being found in a state of intoxication in a public place or for consuming liquor in a private when the person consuming alcohol is not permitted to do so.

    The court observed that the power to grant a licence to run a bar can vest only with the licencing authority namely the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise. TASMAC is a mere "wholesale" and "retail" dealer and it cannot run a "Bar" by itself whether directly or indirectly, added the court. Sub Clause (1-A) and Section 17-C (1-B) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 which were inserted in the Prohibition Act via an amendment in 2003, merely allows TASMAC to do "wholesale" and "retail business". In 2003, Section 4(1) (j) and Section 4A was not amended and kept intact. Therefore, the newly inserted sections do not afford TASMAC a right to confer a privilege to 3rd parties to carry on the service of providing short snacks or collecting used liquor bottles within the allied premises used as a bar.

    14. Tolerance Should Be Shown Towards Other Religious Practices; This Country Takes Pride In Unity In Diversity: Madras High Court

    Case Title: Paulraj vs District Collector & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 48

    The Madras High Court in a recent judgment spoke about the need to show tolerance towards other religious practices.

    The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a Hindu man challenging the permission granted by the Kanyakumari District Collector granted to construct a church, against which the petitioner complained of nuisance due to the use of loudspeakers throughout day and night.

    The Court started its judgment by noting that in the Preamble to the Constitution of India, 'we the people' had resolved to constitute India as the Secular Republic. Reference was made to Article 15(1), which says that the State should not discriminate against anyone on the basis of factors like religion and Article 51A(e) as per which it is the Fundamental Duty of every citizen to promote harmony and brotherhood. The Fundamental Rights and Duties were sacrosanct and binding on courts, which adjudicate issues relating to religion.

    Noting that the petitioner was a Hindu, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed: "One of the basic tenants to be followed by every Hindu is tolerance. Tolerance must be his own community or religion and in particular, to also to every other religious practice".

    The Court noted that a temple was also located in the same residential area. Considering this, the Court spoke about the need to maintain tolerance and the importance of the ideal "unity in diversity".

    15. Swear Faith & Allegiance To Constitution: Madras High Court Asks Maoist For Bail

    Case Title: Sathya Mary @ Padma v. State

    Madras High Court has recently granted bail to an accused Maoist on the condition that she would file a sworn affidavit in the Tamil language, declaring her faith and allegiance to the Indian Constitution.

    The Division Bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice R. Hemalatha has also held that the affidavit should mention that the accused person does not believe in Maoism anymore. She should also give an undertaking to the effect that she does not believe in violence as an ideology and she will abstain from doing anything to subvert the Indian Constitution. The said affidavit should be filed after affixing her signature and thumb impression.

    "The appellant is accused of being a Maoist, wedded to violence, as a means to bring about a political change. Now the question is, if the appellant continues to believe in this ideology, would it be appropriate for this Court to release her on bail and allow her to unleash violence on the instrumentalities of the State. The Indian State now rests on the Constitution of India drafted by a committee of noble men headed by Dr. B.R.Ambedkar", the court observed before listing out the bail conditions.

    16. Decline In Covid Cases: Madras High Court & Its Subordinate Courts To Function In Hybrid Mode From February 7

    In a notification issued by the Registrar General of Madras High Court dated 4th February, the Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari has directed that the Principal Seat at Madras and the Madurai Bench should resume Hybrid mode of functioning from February 7. The notification comes in light of the declining number of Omicron variant/ Covid 19 cases in Tamil Nadu.

    A similar notification has been issued with regards to the functioning of all subordinate courts in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry.


    Next Story