Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 206 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 NOMINAL INDEX Lakshmi Ammal (died) and Others v. Ammayi Ammal (died) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 206 K. Murugan v. The Registrar and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 207 M/s.Vetrivel Explosives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 208 N. Sarojini v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 209 S. Mohankumar v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 210 R Barathbaran (died) and others v. R. Nallathambi, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 211 P. Anandhraj, Joint Director and Others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 1. Law Does Not Permit A Person To Both Approbate & Reprobate, Party Can't Accept & Reject The Same Instrument: Madras High Court Reiterates Case Title: Lakshmi Ammal (died) and Others v. Ammayi Ammal (died) and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 206 Explaining the legal principle of Approbate and Reprobate, the Madras High Court has recently observed that the foundation of the law of election is that a person cannot accept and reject the same instrument. Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that a person cannot be allowed to make a judicial or a quasi-judicial forum to act upon a document in order to get a favorable order and thereafter disown the document and continue to deal with the property. A competent Civil Court cannot give its approval for such dishonest conduct and sanctify such illegal act. The court also discussed a recent decision where the court had similarly held that the party claiming right over the scheduled property cannot take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/ courts. 2. Departmental Proceedings Are Necessary Even For Termination Of Temporary Employee: Madras High Court Case Titile: K. Murugan v. The Registrar and Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 207 The Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy recently observed that the employer shall follow the procedures in departmental proceedings including framing of charge, giving an opportunity to the employee, conducting a disciplinary enquiry and thereafter deciding the issue even with respect to temporary employees. The court also found merit in the submission of the petitioner that even termination of a temporary employee must be by following due procedure of law. The court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Special Officer and the order passed by the Registrar. The court also directed that the Special Officer was entitled to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of issuing a charge and take a decision in accordance with law by either permitting the petitioner to rejoin duty or by placing him under suspension. The court also directed that the entire enquiry should be carried out within a period of three months from the receipt of the order copy. Considering the nature of allegations that were levelled against the petitioner, the court chose not to award back wages and held that the same could be decided only after the outcome of the enquiry conducted by the Special Officer. 3. Transition Of ITC cannot Be Denied Merely For Technical Difficulties: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.Vetrivel Explosives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 208 The Madras High Court held that in case the department is unable to permit the filing of TRAN-1 belatedly, they have to credit the corresponding amount in the electronic cash register provided that the credit remained unutilized on the cut-off date. The single judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that since the input tax credit is equivalent to cash meant to be used for discharging the tax liability, the transition of the input tax credit cannot be restricted or denied merely because there were technical difficulties. The court disposed of the writ petition, by directing the respondents to verify whether the petitioner had any input tax credit on the date of the accident. The monthly returns, which would have been filed for the months of October and November 2016, would show the quantum of unutilized input tax credit on input service tax and capital goods credit. "If it existed on that day, I see no reason why such credit should not be allowed to the petitioner either by way of suitable credit entry in the electronic cash register of the petitioner or by way of a cash refund to the petitioner. I therefore direct the respondents to verify the same and allow such credit which remained unutilized on the date of accident in the regular returns filed by the petitioner," the court said. 4. A Convicted Prisoner Has No Fundamental Or Statutory Right To Be Released Prematurely: Madras High Court Case Title: N. Sarojini v. The State of Tamilnadu Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 209 The Madras High Court has reiterated that a convicted ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags