Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 22 To August 28, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373 NOMINAL INDEX Sathish v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 363 All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 364 A Priyanka and others v. The Principal Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 365 U Manickavel v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 366 M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367 Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry v. VK Sethukumar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 368 Air Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 369 Narayanan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 370 Subramanian P v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 371 M Sekar v. The District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 372 Sadam Hussain v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373 REPORT 1. Sunday Hearing: Madras High Court Grants Interim Bail To Accused For Observing Rituals Following Father's Demise Case Title: Sathish v. State Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 The Madras High Court conducted a special sitting on Sunday after an urgent petition was filed seeking bail for an incarcerated accused on the ground that his father had died and he, being an only son was to perform the last rites. Justice G Jayachandran granted an interim bail of 3 days to the Petitioner, subject to his own bond, to enable him to perform post rituals. He has been directed to report and surrender before the authorities on 24th. The police has been directed to escort the Petitioner to his village. 2.Cut/Sized Shade Trees Constitutes "Agricultural Produce", No Sales Tax Applicable: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has held that the cut and sized shade trees would constitute "agricultural produce" and, therefore, fall outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act, 1959). The court rejected the claim of the petitioner that the cut/sized Silver Oak/shade tree would constitute "firewood". 3. Magistrate Cannot Act As A "Post Office" & Direct For Registration Of FIR Mechanically, It Affects Individual's Rights: Madras High Court Case Title: Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 363 The Madras High Court, while emphasizing that FIR is not an ordinary thing and could affect the rights of the individual, heavily criticised the order of a Magistrate directing registration of FIR against an accused, without due application of mind. The court also noted that there was a lack of jurisdiction. 4. 'Agamas Will Govern' : Madras High Court Exempts Archakas In Temples Constructed As Per Agamas From TN Govt Rules 2020 Case Title: All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 364 In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court on Monday exempted temples constructed as per agamas from the rules brought by the Tamil Nadu Government in 2020 in relation to the qualifications and appointments of archakas/poojaris. A division bench of the High Court read down Rules 7 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 to hold that they will not apply to temples constructed as per agamas. The High Court said that reading down these Rules are necessary so as to exempt temples constructed as per agamas. Otherwise, it would offend the fundamental rights to practice religion and the rights of a religious denomination to manage its affairs guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Court however refrained from striking down the said Rules in their entirety, as they dealt with other appointments as well. 5. [NEET] Intake Cannot Be Beyond Sanctioned Limit Or Time Schedule For Completing Admissions: Madras High Court Case Title: A Priyanka and others v. The Principal Secretary and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 365 In context of admissions to MBBS courses, the Madras High Court has reiterated that admission to the courses had to be commensurate with the annual intake capacity of the institution. The court also highlighted that the admissions cannot be made beyond the time limit fixed by the Apex Court for completing admissions. The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose was hearing petitions filed by children of defence...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 22 To August 28, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags