Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 17 to October 23, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 434 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 440 NOMINAL INDEX Vikas Rambal and others v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 434 P Rajendran v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 435 Mrs Karthika v. Superintendent of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 436 Shiva Sankar Baba v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 437 M/s.Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438 P Ramkumar v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 439 Balamurugan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 440 REPORT 1. All Directors Of Pharma Company Liable For Production Of Substandard Drugs: Madras High Court Case Title: Vikas Rambal and others v. The State Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 434 The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by directors of Sunrise International Labs for quashing a criminal proceeding initiated against them alleging that the company supplied drugs of substandard quality. Justice G Jayachandran rejected the contention of the directors that the prosecution should be quashed against them since they were not involved in the day to day functioning of the company. The court observed that the decision to manufacture drugs was a collective decision of the board of directors and thus all the directors will be made liable. The directors could not merely claim that they were not involved in the production of the drugs. 2. Person Not Prosecuted For Predicate Offence Can Be Prosecuted For Money Laundering Under PMLA: Madras High Court Case Title: P Rajendran v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 435 The Madras High Court has made it clear that Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others does not preclude the Enforcement Directorate from prosecuting a person for offence of money laundering under PMLA, merely because such person was not prosecuted for the predicate offence. The bench of Justices PN Prakash and Teeka Raman found force in the submission that while a person may not be involved in the original criminal activity that had resulted in the generation of "proceeds of crime", such person may later help the main accused in laundering the proceeds of crime. 3. 'Ego' Is A Small Three Letter Word That Spoils Relationships: Madras High Court Case Title: Mrs Karthika v. Superintendent of Police Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 436 While dismissing a wife's habeas corpus petition claiming that her husband had kept their four year old son in illegal custody, the Madras High Court stressed that parents must keep aside their 'ego' for the welfare of the child. Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice C Saravanan dismissed the petition observing that the child was not in the illegal custody of the husband. The court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and work out her remedy for the custody of the child. 4. Madras HC Quashes Sexual Harassment Case Against Godman Shivshankar Baba, Says Complaint Not Accompanied By Application To Condone Delay Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 437 The Madras High Court has allowed the quashing petition filed by self-styled Godman Shivshankar Baba in a case pertaining to sexual harassment. The Court had observed that the FIR was registered in 2021 while the offence was alleged to have been committed in 2010-2011. Though the court found the allegations to be serious, since no application was filed under 473 CrPC to condone the delay, the prosecution was held to be barred by limitation. 5. Failure To Issue ASMT 10 In Respect Of Aspects Forming Subject Matter Of Proceedings Vitiates Entire Proceedings: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438 The Madras High Court has held that ASMT 10 is mandatory before proceeding to issue GST DRC-01. Failure to issue ASMT 10 in respect of the discrepancies forming the subject matter in GST DRC-01 culminating in GST DRC-07 would vitiate the entire proceedings. The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that any proceeding in GST DRC-01A/1 culminating in an Order in GST DRC-07, if pursuant to scrutiny under Section 61 of the TNGST Act, ought to be preceded by the issuance of Form ASMT 10. 6. Visually Challenged & Print-Disabled Persons Facing "Book Famine": Madras High Court Case Title: P Ramkumar v State and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 439 The Madras High Court recently expressed concern over the "book famine" being faced by the present generation where people with print disabilities including visually challenged persons do not have access to...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 17 to October 23, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags