Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 1 To August 7, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 326 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 338 NOMINAL INDEX S.Bhanupriya v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 326 P.Arumugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 P.Ranganathan and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 328 Vasmi Sudarshini v. The Sub Registrar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 P.Ganesan v. M.Revathy Prema Rubarani, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 S.Pongulali v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 331 Subburaj and another v. State and another , 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 332 Jayalakshmi v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 333 The District Collector v. Mr R Vetri and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 334 Dr. Lakshmi v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 335 KL Prabakar v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 336 Azhagan @ Prabhu v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 337 White Cliffs Hair Studio Private Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 338 ARTICLE 1. Hospital's Delay To Shift Patient To Another Hospital For Proper Treatment Amounts To Negligence: Madras HC Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation Case Title: S.Bhanupriya v. The State and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 326 The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh has ordered lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a young mother who was forced to undergo three surgeries due to delay on part of a government hospital to shift her to a better facility, consequently kept away from her newborn baby for nine months. Since the hospital was a government hospital, the State was vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. Thus, the court directed the state to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 2. Police Officials Making False Statements Before Criminal Court To Protect Fellow Officer Amounts To "Misconduct": Madras High Court Case Title: P.Arumugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 While upholding the disciplinary action against an erring police official, the Madras High Court heavily criticized the manner in which his fellow officials had given false statements before the trial court in the connected criminal case. Justice SM Subramaniam remarked that police officials making false or incorrect statements before the criminal courts could be construed as "misconduct" under the Government Service Conduct Rules. 3. Buddha Sculpture Found In Temple : Madras High Court Directs Take Over By Archeological Dept, Halts Poojas Case Title: P.Ranganathan and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 328 The Madras High Court recently directed the Archaeological Department to take control of the property of Thalaivetti Muniyappan Temple at Kottai Road, Periyeri Village, Salem District after the Archaeological department confirmed that the idol inside the temple depicted the mahalakshanas of Lord Buddha. The court also prevented any further pooja from being conducted in the temple. Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that allowing Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) department to continue treating the sculpture as that of Thalaivetti Muniappan would be against the tenets of Buddhism. 4. 'Right To Marry Is A Fundamental Human Right': Madras HC Allows Couple To Solemnize Marriage Virtually Case Title: Vasmi Sudarshini v. The Sub Registrar Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 Coming to the aid of a young couple, the Madras High Court allowed solemnisation of marriage through virtual mode with the groom in USA and bride in India. The court also allowed the bride's plea for getting marriage certificate by observing that she could affix signature in the certificate for both herself and the groom as she had a power of attorney to that effect. Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench observed that Section 12 of the Special Marriage Act 1954, gives liberty to the parties to adopt any form of solemnisation of marriage provided that it must be recognised and reasonable and not against public policy. 5. Proceedings Under Domestic Violence Act Civil In Nature, Can Be Transferred To Family Court With Victim's Consent: Madras High Court Case Title: P.Ganesan v. M.Revathy Prema Rubarani Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 The Madras High Court has held that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, though before a Magistrate, are civil in nature. It observed that the intention of the legislature in enacting the Domestic Violence Act was to ensure civil law remedies to the victims of domestic abuse by adopting criminal procedure. The court also held that since the legislature had clear intentions while granting special powers to the Magistrate under the Act, the same could not be diluted by transferring the ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 1 To August 7, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags