A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 339 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
Karthika Agencies Export House v. The Commissioner of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
C Jagadeesan v. Additional Director General of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
Kannan v. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
J Thennarasu v. Anita Nalliah (and other connected cases), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
Aravinth and others v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
Natchal vs. V Chokkalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
R.Silambarasan v. Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
M/s. Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. versus Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB), 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 346
TJ Gnanavel and another v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
A. Viswanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
P Mihiran v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
Case Title: Karthika Agencies Export House v. The Commissioner of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
While ordering de-freezing of an account seized pursuant to investigation into a loan fraud, the Madras High Court held that it was an essential requirement of Section 102(3) of CrPC that information of the seizure should be duly reported to the Magistrate.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that in the case on hand, the information regarding the seizure was made after considerable delay. As this necessary procedure of law was not complied with, the court deemed it fit to set aside the order of seizure of the bank account.
Case Title: C Jagadeesan v. Additional Director General of Police and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
Coming to the rescue of a dismissed Police Officer, the Madras High Court recently observed that once the competent authority has regularized a period of medical leave, no further disciplinary proceedings for misconduct would sustain.
In the present case, though the petitioner was said to be absent from service for over three years, the court held that the same was condoned by the regularisation of his absence.
A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam held that though normally such a lengthy period of absence was not condoned by the authorities, especially if the Police Personnel is a chronic absentee or habitual absentee, however, once the authorities have accepted the reasons for absence, the misconduct is condoned.
Case Title: Kannan v. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a bail court, while considering an application under Section 167(2) CrPC was not concerned with going into the merits of the case. The court had to consider such an application for default bail by considering whether the statutory period for filing a charge sheet or challan had expires, whether the charge sheet or challan had been filed and whether the accused was prepared to and had furnished bail.
Justice Murali Shankar, while setting aside the decision of the lower court, also criticized the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The court expressed shock over the manner in which the impugned order was passed and the personal liberty of the accused was handled by the Judicial Officer.
Case Title: J Thennarasu v. Anita Nalliah (and other connected cases)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
The Madras High Court recently held that cross examination of a party in Rent control proceedings in the state is not a "right" and the Court's discretion to allow or disallow the same must be based on a plane of fairness in judicial proceedings.
Justice N Seshasayee also observed that though the court has been given discretion, the legislative thrust is on adherence to the principles of natural justice. Hence, even if the Rent Court can regulate its own proceeding, the same has to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Aravinth and others v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against 11 law students accused of raising slogans against the Srilankan Government, demanding their "Tamil Ealam issues".
Justice N Satish Kumar observed that the students had democratically raised protest against the inaction of the police and such a gathering could not be held unlawful.
The court also discussed the definition of the term "Unlawful Assembly" and held that the petitioners had not committed any acts that would fall within the meaning of unlawful assembly. That is, they have not shown any criminal force to commit any mischief, crime of any offence or by way of criminal force or tried to take possession of the property or right to use of incorporeal right which is in possession of enjoyment of others or rights.
Case Title: Natchal vs. V Chokkalingam
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
The Madras High Court has held that hormonal imbalance or irregular periods would not amount to impotency of a woman and would not mean that she is unfit to have sex.
Justice RN Manjula observed thus while hearing a revision petition against a Family Court's order directing a woman's medical examination on her husband's plea for annulment of marriage citing non-consummation.
The bench held that when the woman herself had admitted the fact of her hormonal imbalance and details of examination by a gynecologist, it was unnecessary to subject her to medical examination.
Case Title: R.Silambarasan v. Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed to stop the construction of sand quarries at three villages of Nagapattinam District after observing that the same was filed without bonafide.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the petitioner, who himself had a criminal track record under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, had failed to ascertain facts regarding the quarry leases granted to the respondents before filing the writ petition.
Case Title: M/s. Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. versus Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB)
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 346
The Madras High Court has ruled that limitation is a facet of public policy, and hence, an arbitral award which is incorrect qua limitation is hit by Section 34(2)(b)(ii), read with Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that, in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Voltas Limited versus Rolta India Limited (2014), if the counter claimant before an Arbitral Tribunal has invoked the arbitration clause, then, the date of such invocation would be the relevant date to decide the limitation period for raising the counter claim. Hence, the Court ruled that the view of the Arbitral Tribunal that the counter claim raised by the party was barred by limitation, by referring to the date on which it had filed the counter claim before the Tribunal, was incorrect.
Case Title: TJ Gnanavel and another v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed criminal proceedings against cine actor Suriya and director TJ Gnanavel for allegedly hurting the sentiments of the Vanniyar community in his movie Jai Bhim.
Justice N Sathish Kumar allowed the petition filed by the actor and the director to quash the FIR filed by Velachery Police on a complaint by Advocate K Santhosh, president of Rudra Vanniyar Sena. He had approached the Saidapet Magistrate seeking direction to file an FIR. Subsequently, Surya and Gnanavel were charged under Section 295A of the IPC.
The court opined that though the defacto complainant had alleged that the movie was projected in such a manner to incite violence and hostility on a particular community, no specific instance had been recorded. Further, the entire FIR was only based on inference and presumption of the de facto complainant. The court also noted that mere reference to a name would not mean that the said name related to a particular community.
Case Title: A. Viswanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
The Madras High Court, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Viswanathan against the Tamil Nadu Government's decision to shift 1000 crocodiles from Madras Crocodile Bank Trust to Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) in Gujarat.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala dismissed the PIL after considering the fact that the Rehabilitation Centre had the necessary infrastructure. The court pointed out that even experts were satisfied with respect to the infrastructure available at the facility and thus the court did not find any ground to interfere with the decision. There was also photographic evidence that shows the infrastructure available in the facility.
Case Title: P Mihiran v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court recently confirmed the order of the Managing Director of TASMAC to revert an employee from the post of Supervisor to the post of Salesman after observing that his absorption/promotion was not made in accordance to the established rules or principles. The employee had approached the court seeking to quash the order of the Managing Director.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the petitioner could not establish any Rule for his absorption and thus was not entitled to such promotion.
Case Title: Education Promotion Society for India v. Union of India and others
Case No: WP No. 10088 of 2022
A group of Private Medical Colleges, on Monday, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 10 of the National Medical Commission Act 2019 and an office memorandum issued pursuant to the Act by the National Medical Commission directing all private medical colleges to charge a fee equivalent to that charged by the Government in 50% seats of these institutions.
The matter was heard by the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala.
The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 10(1)(i) of the Act and the memorandum issued pursuant to the same contending that the same violated the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to establish and administer educational institutions. They also contended that it would result in cross-subsidizing education as some students will be compelled to pay for the education of others.
Case Title: U. Manickavel v. State rep. by Secretary and others
Case No: WP No. 2627 of 2014
The Madras High Court on Friday expressed deep dissatisfaction that even after 75 years of Independence, the State could not effectively eradicate the colonial practice of engaging uniformed officers as orderlies in the residence of higher officials.
Justice SM Subramaniam made the observation in a matter relating to overstay of officials in government quarters, in violation of rules.