Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 6 to March 12 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 84 NOMINAL INDEX The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77 KS Manoj v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 78 The Superintendent of Police v. S Rajeshkumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 79 Saravanan and another v. Semmayee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 SR v. MCR, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 81 M/s.Re Sustainability Health Care Solutions Ltd v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 82 K Karthick and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 83 SKS Builders and Promoters Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 84 REPORT High Court's Administrative Side Cannot Seek Review Of Order Passed On Judicial Side: Madras High Court Case Title: The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77 While dismissing a review application filed by the High Court of Madras on its administrative side, the Madras High Court held that the administrative side cannot seek a review of its own judgments on the judicial side as it would amount to undermining the judicial fibre. Justice PT Asha noted that while an administrative order of the High Court can be subject to scrutiny, the vice versa was not true. Madras High Court Terminates Admission Of 3rd Year MBBS Student After Finding He Had Made Baseless Allegations Of Change In NEET OMR Answer Sheet Case Title: KS Manoj v. Union of India and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 78 The Madras High Court has recently terminated the admission of a 3rd year MBBS Student who had participated in the NEET (UG) 2020 examination and claimed that the OMR Answer sheet uploaded on the official website was not his. After extensive investigation into the matter, Justice CV Karthikeyan was satisfied that the original OMR Sheet as produced by the respondent agencies was the only one in existence in which the candidate had scored 248 marks out of 720. Thus, the court found that the writ did not stand and the interim permission that was granted by the single judge, allowing the candidate to participate in the admission process would have to be interfered with. Conviction As Juvenile Does Not Stigmatize Future Employment As Police Constable: Madras High Court Case Title: The Superintendent of Police v. S Rajeshkumar Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 79 The Madras High Court has noted that rejecting a candidate’s appointment for the sole reason that he was acquitted/convicted as a minor would go against the objectives of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. Justice R Subramanian and Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumarakurup came to the aid of a candidate who had applied for the post of Police Constable. His candidature was rejected when the authorities came to know that he was involved in a criminal offence. Hence, even though he got selected in the written test and the physical test, his name was rejected. It noted that when a special enactment had sought to remove the stigma, the police should not be acting against the provisions of the Act and claim that the rejection was based on the Service Rules. Hindu Succession Act Will Not Come In Way Of Inheritance By Tribal Women: Madras High Court Case Title: Saravanan and another v. Semmayee and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 The Madras High Court has recently come to the support of tribal women in their struggle for equal succession rights. The court has noted that the Hindu Succession Law does not to exclude tribal women from its operation but only intends to positively include the customs. Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act states that the Act shall not apply to the members of the Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government by notification in the official gazette otherwise directs. Justice SM Subramaniam highlighted that the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act should not come in the way of inheritance by tribal women in areas where Hinduism and Buddhism were being followed. 'Husband Not Incapacitated': Madras High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order Asking Wife To Pay Interim Maintenance Case Title: SR v. MCR Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 81 The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Family Court directing the wife to pay twenty thousand rupees as interim maintenance to her husband during the pendency of their divorce petition. Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi noted that the Family Court judge had "magnified" a small procedure and had misplaced sympathy. The family judge had noted that the husband had undergone angioplasty and had a stent fixed which made him incapable to work. Madras High Court Issues Directions For Movement Of Biomedical Waste, Criticises Villagers Who...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 6 to March 12 2023

Upasana Sajeev

Tags