Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Weekly

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

Upasana Sajeev
15 May 2022 12:45 PM GMT
Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022
x

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)...

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 prisoner has no fundamental or statutory right to be released prematurely. The court was considering a petition filed by the mother of a life convict Hariharan challenging the Government order rejecting his premature release.

The bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice A. A Nakkiran observed that once material is shown to exist, the Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of facts and such sufficiency of facts is beyond the ken of judicial review under Article 226.

The court also opined that while exercising the power under Article 161, the interest of the society at large and the family of the victims should also be considered.

5. Suppressed Material Facts With Intention To Abuse Judicial Process: Madras High Court Imposes Rs.25000 Cost On Lawyer For Frivolous Litigation

Case Title: S. Mohankumar v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 210

The Madras High Court recently directed a lawyer, appearing for the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000 as exemplary costs in favour of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry finding that the petitioner had come to the court with unclean hands merely to abuse the judicial process of law.

Justice P. Velmurugan made the above orders after observing that the petitioner had submitted the representation to the authorities on 22.04.2022 and had approached the court on the same day without giving the authorities sufficient time and opportunity to consider his application.

6. Both Signature & Thumb Impression Are Not Mandatory For A Pro-Note Under Negotiable Instruments Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: R Barathbaran (died) and others v. R. Nallathambi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 211

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Teeka Raman has held that it is not mandatory under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 to obtain both signature and thumb impression for a pro-note to be valid.

The court also opined that when the defendant had not denied the execution of the pro-note, the lower appellate court could not raise suspicion with regard to the execution of the note merely on the ground that the thumb impression of the defendant was not obtained.

The court also stated that when there is a statutory presumption is favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden is on the defendant to prove otherwise. The defendant cannot merely rebut the presumption by a bare explanation but only by proof. The court was of the opinion that the evidence of the defendant was not sufficient to discharge this onus of proof and that the approach of the lower appellate court in condemnable.

7. Consider Forming "TN Administrative Service": Madras High Court Tells State

Case Title: P. Anandhraj, Joint Director and Others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 212

The Madras High Court has directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider forming of "Tamil Nadu Administrative Service" including all the Departments connected to the Revenue and General Administration, Implementation of State policies for development in General as has been done by the Kerala Government.

The bench of Justice M. Govindaraj further directed the Government to consider taking steps to treat all State Level Officers alike and provide equal opportunity to them by making an appropriate recommendation to the Central Government to bring them into Administrative Service. The state was further directed to constitute a Committee for the purpose of identifying the posts, which can be brought under the definition of Deputy Collector. The government is expected to initiate all these processes within a period of six months.

The bench made the above directions in a plea challenging the rejection of a request to include posts of Joint Director and Additional Director of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, in the "State Civil Service" by the Government of Tamil Nadu. All the writ petitioners belonged to the Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

1. Bar Council Of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Bars Practice of 19 Advocates Pending Disciplinary Proceedings

The Bar Council Of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, on 09.05.2022 has passed a prohibitory order against 19 lawyers from practicing as advocates in all Courts, Tribunals and other authorities in India either in their name or under any assumed name.

The notification, issued by the Secretary of the Bar Council, was in light of the Disciplinary Proceedings pending against these advocates. These advocates have been charged with various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, SC/ST Act 2015, Prevention Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 among others. The bar council has also barred lawyers involved in a large scale scam involving the filing of vexatious motor accident claim petitions before the courts in the State.

2. Supreme Court Collegium Recommends To Make 9 Additional Judges Of Madras High Court Permanent

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the appointment of nine Additional Judges of the Madras High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court. The Collegium has also recommended that Justice A.A. Nakkiran be appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court for a fresh term of one-year w.e.f. 3rd December, 2022.

The judges are 1. Justice Govindarajulu Chandrasekharan, 2.Justice Veerasamy Sivagnanam, 3. Justice Ganesan Ilangovan, 4. Justice Ananthi Subramanian, 5. Justice Kannammal Shanmuga Sundaram, 6. Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, 7. Justice Murali Shankar Kuppuraju, 8. Justice Manjula Ramaraju Nalliah, and 9. Justice Thamilselvi T. Valayapalayam.

3. Madras High Court Refuses To Stall State Decision To Supply 40,000Tonnes Of Rice To Sri Lanka Amid Economic Crisis

Case Title: A Jaisankar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others

Case No: W.P No 12680 of 2022

The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to stay the Government's decision for procuring 40,000 tonnes of rice to be supplied to Srilankan nationals in view of the current economic crisis prevalent in the country.

The bench of Justice G.R Swaminathan and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy was hearing a PIL filed by one A. Jaisankar seeking to quash the present government order for procuring the rice at an exorbitant amount and further to direct the respondent to procure the rice from the fifth and sixth respondents (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and Food Corporation of India respectively). The petitioner also sought a vigilance enquiry into the current decision of the government to acquire rice at an exorbitant price. The petitioner had also sought an interim stay on the operation of the government decision pending disposal of the writ petition.

4. Madras High Court Issues Notice In Plea Against Implementation Of Corridor 4 Of Phase II Of Chennai Metro Rail Project

Case Title: G. Gouthaman and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others

Case No: W.P 12697 of 2022

The Madras High Court bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on Thursday issued notice to the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Chennai Metro Rail Limited in a plea against the implementation of the Corridor 4 of Phase II of the Chennai Metro Rail Project.

The petition has been filed by one G Gouthaman and two others seeking to declare eight structures - (i)Mylai Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple, (ii)Vadapalani Murugan Temple, (iii) Vadapalani Sri Vengeeswarar Temple, (iv) Vadapalani Sri Alagar Perumal Temple, (v) Virugambakkam Sri Sundaravardharaja Perumal Temple, (vi) Valasaravakkam Sri Velveeswarar Temple, (vii) Poonamallee Sri Thirukachi Nambigal and Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple, (viii) Poonamallee Sri Thirukachi Nambigal and Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple Tank as ancient monuments and Heritage Structures under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remain Act 1958 and to pass an ad-interim injunction restraining Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) from proceeding with the Corridor 4 of Phase II of the Chennai Metro Rail Project.

5. Temple Funds Shall Not Be Appropriated For Construction Of Senior Citizen Homes: TN Govt Assures Madras High Court

Case Title: T.R Ramesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: W.P No 12673 of 2022

In a plea seeking to quash an order issued by the Tamil Nadu government for constructing Senior Citizen Homes in Chennai, Pazhani, and Tirunelveli using excess temple funds, the Madras High Court has been assured that the scheme will not be implemented for six weeks.

Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram submitted, "no appropriation from any source pursuant to the impugned G.O. will be made for a period of six weeks"

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy was hearing public interest litigation filed by the President of Indic Collective Trust and the Temple Worshippers Society, Mr. T.R Ramesh challenging the GO issued by Tourism, Culture, and Religious Endowments Department on January 12, pursuant to the announcements made by the Minister for HR&CE Department during the Budget Session of the Tamil Nadu Assembly in 2021-2022.

Next Story