Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: April 18 2022 to April 24 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 177 NOMINAL INDEX Dr. S. Kothandaraman v. The Pro-Chancellor and connected matter, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 Chinnasami and Ors. v. Dhanasekaran, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 164 Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer-I, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 165 M/s. Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Private Limited Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 166 Sivashankar Baba @ C.N. Sivasankaran v. State, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 167 Numinous Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 168 M/s.St. John CFS Part Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 169 Nallammal and another v. Sengoda Gounder and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 170 M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. v. Harkhabhai Amarshibhai Vaghadiya, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 171 R Vijayagopal v. The Inspector of Police and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 172 Thanikodi v. Parameswari and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 173 Rajivgandhi v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 174 S.M.D Mohamed Abdul Khader v. Muniswari, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 175 Arjunan v. Arunachalam, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 176 Rajasthani Marbles and Anr. v. Na.K. Kumar Son of N. Kuppurathinam, Arb. O.P. (Comm.Div) No. 73 of 2021, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 177 1. Age Of Superannuation Fixed By AICTE Binding On All Universities/Institutions; Madras HC Directs Reinstatement Of Principal Of Pondicherry Engineering College Case Title: Dr. S. Kothandaraman v. The Pro-Chancellor and connected matter Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 The Madras High court has held that the regulations prescribed by the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) are binding on all universities and institutions and these universities or institutions cannot prescribe rules on their own. The bench of Justice V Parthiban was hearing two connected writ petitions filed by Dr. S Kothandaraman and Dr. A.V Raviprakash, Principal and Professor at the Pondicherry Engineering College against their forced retirement by the University. The university had prescribed the age of superannuation as 62 years as against the age of 65 years prescribed by AICTE. The court held that the age of superannuation as prescribed under AICTE regulation is binding on the third respondent University and any other prescription of the age of superannuation repugnant to the AICTE regulation is to be held void and inoperative and it cannot be enforced in law. 2. "High Time That Subordinate Courts Come Into Grips With Fundamental Principles Of CPC": Madras High Court CaseTitle: Chinnasami and Ors. v. Dhanasekaran Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 164 The Madras High Court recently observed that it is high time that the subordinate Courts come into grips with the fundamental principles of CPC and nip in the bud those suits which are not maintainable. The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that there are sufficient provisions in CPC to undertake such an exercise and what is required is the awareness about the availability of such provisions and invoking the same in a pro-active manner. The remarks were made while setting aside a decree passed by the lower Appellate Court with respect to schedule properties, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the order of the trial court was a nullity as it lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the court should not have even gone into the merits of the case. The court further stated that if the courts below had been careful enough and had dismissed the suit then and there, the suit which was instituted in 2008 would not have dragged on for 14 long years. 3. Post Facto Changes In GST Registration: Madras High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed For Mismatch Of Address In Invoice And RC Case Title: Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer-I Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 165 The penalty imposed for mismatch of address in invoice and RC was quashed by the Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan on the grounds that there was a post facto alteration in GST registration. The court noted that the address has been included in the petitioner's place of business in the GST Registration. Thus, there is a post facto inclusion of the address, which was mentioned in the tax invoice raised by the supplier and in the E-way Bill. 4. Mere Signing Of Statement Admitting Tax Liability, Making Payments Under Stress Of Investigation Doesn't Amount To Self-Ascertainment: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Private Limited Versus Senior Intelligence Officer Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 166 The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has held that merely because an assessee ...

Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: April 18 2022 to April 24 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags