Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 to October 9, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 424 NOMINAL INDEX P Senthil v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419 Kaladi v. District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 420 K Seeni Thevar v. The Joint Commissioner and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. versus J. Vengatesh & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 422 SEEMAN and others Vs. IOP, CHENNAI, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 423 Ravichandran v. State [Crl.A.No.65 of 2020], 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 424 REPORTS 1. [Matrimonial Disputes] Evidence Of Woman's Family Members Cannot Be Brushed Aside Merely Because They Are Interested Parties: Madras HC Case Title: P Senthil v. State Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419 The Madras High Court recently observed that while deciding upon matters involving matrimonial disputes, the courts should not brush aside the evidence of the woman's family members merely because they are interested parties. Justice P Velmurugan observed that in these types of matters, it is the family members who can notice the incidents and come forward to give evidence since a third party may not interfere in such matters thinking that it's a family dispute. The court observed that mere non-production of a medical certificate or not lodging of the complaint soon after the occurrence was not fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially in matrimonial disputes. This was because a newly married girl will not immediately rush to the police station to lodge a complaint in a quarrel as she would take time to settle the issues instead. 2. Ambedkar & Periyar Respected Leaders, No Objection On Installing Their Statues In Tamil Nadu: High Court Case Title: Kaladi v. District Collector and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 420 Directing the Thoothukudi District Collector to take a decision on a resident's representation seeking permission to install statues of social reformer Thanthai Periyar and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar at his property, the Madras High Court has said there cannot be any objection from anyone against it as both of them are respected by people in the state. "As far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, there cannot be any objection from anyone for erecting the statues of Thanthai Periyar or Dr.Ambedkar. The people individually have respects for these leaders," said Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup. 3. Worshipping God Is Every Individual's Right: Madras High Court Directs HR&CE To Enquire Into Affairs Of Temple Closed For Over A Decade Case Title: K Seeni Thevar v. The Joint Commissioner and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 The Madras High Court recently emphasized on the right of every individual to worship a god according to his personal faith. The court was dealing with a challenge against a notice issued by the "Fit Person" of Arulmigu Gurunathasamy Temple, which has remained closed since 2011, stating that the temple will be re-opened on 7th October 2022. Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed, In the light of the fact that the worshipping of a god is a right of every individual according to his personal faith, it would be appropriate to direct the 1st respondent herein to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the temple under the provisions of the HR & CE Act [The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act], and decide the rights of the parties in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 4. Arbitral Award Directing Specific Performance Of Contract, Cannot Be Set Aside On Ground Of Inequitable Nature Of Contract: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. versus J. Vengatesh & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 422 The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award directing specific performance of a contract, cannot be set aside on the ground that the nature of agreement between the parties was not capable of specific enforcement. The Court added that the said issue related to the construction of an agreement, which cannot be made a ground for interference of the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Division Bench of Justices Paresh Upadhyay and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that an arbitral award cannot be interfered on the ground that it directed specific performance of a contract which was inequitable in nature and which gave an unfair advantage to a party. 5. Madras High Court Quashes Case Against 13 Protestors Who Allegedly Raised Slogans Against National Education Policy 2020 Case title - SEEMAN and others Vs. IOP, CHENNAI Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 423 The Madras High Court recently quashed a case against 13 persons who had allegedly raised slogans condemning the implementation of National Education Police 2020 by the Union Government. Quashing the...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 to October 9, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags