Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 19 To September 25, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414 NOMINAL INDEX Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407 M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408 R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409 Sowdha Mani v. State, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 410 M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411 Manokaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 412 Dr. R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 413V Anusha v. B Krishnan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 414 REPORT 1. Registrar Can't Accept Deed Of Cancellation Which Seeks To Nullify A Deed Of Conveyance Which Has Already Been Acted Upon: Madras High Court (FB) Case Title: Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 While answering a reference, the Madras High Court Bench of Justice SS Sundar, Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the Registrar does not have the power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify a deed of conveyance made earlier, when the deed of conveyance has already been acted upon. The court was answering a reference made by Justice S Vaidyanathan with respect to the maintainability of a writ petition against the Registration of a unilateral cancellation deed. 2. Cannot Ask State To Treat All Visually Impaired Persons On Par With Other Disabled Persons: Madras High Court Case Title: Nethrodaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 407 The Madras High Court on Monday said that it cannot not direct the State Government to treat all Visually Impaired Persons on par with other Differently Abled Persons who may be incapable of any employment. The division bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation on a plea by Nethrodaya, an organisation working for the differently abled community. The petitioner organization had sought for transfer of the Pension Scheme for the Visually Impaired from the Social Welfare Department to the Differently Abled Department. The second prayer was to enhance the pension of the Visually Impaired persons from Rs. 1000 to Rs.1500 on par with that given to other Differently Abled Persons. 3. GST Department Did Not Recognize Concept Of 'Working Day' And 'Holiday' In Matters Of Interception, Seizure, Detention: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408 The Madras High Court has held that in the matters of interception, seizure, and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of "working day" and "holiday" since substantial civil rights of the parties were at stake. The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that neither the assessee nor the department could have the luxury of reference to a holiday to delay or protract the proceedings. The acts of interception and retention, though an invasion of the rights of citizens have been accorded statutory sanction in pursuance of the aims and objects of the Goods and Services Act. Thus, it was imperative that the intrusive acts be carried out in strict compliance with the statutory provisions. 4. Police Law & Order Wing Pivotal To Protect Citizens' Fundamental Rights; Can't Depute Dishonest Personnel: Madras High Court Case Title: R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409 While dealing with a petition seeking conversion of some Police Officers from Armed Reserve to Law and Order, the Madras High Court observed that suitability and eligibility, etc had to be assessed by the concerned departments and High Courts could not interfere in such matters. Interference was only possible when there was an irregularity in appointments. The court emphasized that the authorities were the best persons to assess the eligibility of the personnel. Since the personnel posted in the Law and order category had more responsibility and accountability, the government thought it fit to prescribe certain additional criterias. Further, conversion could not be claimed as a matter of right. Even if the conversion was granted to certain personnel violating the guidelines, illegality could not be a ground to claim equality. 5. Objectionable Retweet: Madras HC Orders Action Against IO For Six Days Delay In Producing BJP Functionary's Seized Mobile Before Magistrate Case Title: Sowdha Mani v. State Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 410 While dealing with a petition by BJP functionary Sowdha Mani seeking return of her phone which was seized in...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 19 To September 25, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags