Madras High Court Monthly Digest - November 2023
Upasana Sajeev
4 Dec 2023 4:25 AM GMT
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 335 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 374 NOMINAL INDEX ML Ravi v The Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 335 Capt.Dr.VRC.Pandiyan v The Chairman and Managing Director, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 336 BR Aravindakshan v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 337 Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 338 Ramar v...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 335 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
NOMINAL INDEX
ML Ravi v The Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
Capt.Dr.VRC.Pandiyan v The Chairman and Managing Director, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
BR Aravindakshan v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
Ramar v State (and connected cases), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
Venu Srinivasan v Rangarajan Narasimhan, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
The Secretary v Elephant G Rajendran and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
M.Kalpana v The Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
Mrs Nirosha v Principal Secretary to Government, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
All India Gaming Federation v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
S Amar Prasad @ Amar Prasad Reddy v Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Limited v Income Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
Tribhuwan Kumar Tiwari v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
KR Jayagopi v The Hon’ble Tamil Nadu Lokayukta and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
R.Revathy Versus ACIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
ITC Limited v Britannia Industries Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
Ringfeder Power Transmission India Private Ltd v Rajesh Mootha, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
M/s.Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
M/s.Shewil Trading Company Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
Mohamed Irfan v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
Dr. D.Hariharan and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
Sushma v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
R.P. Darrmalingam Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Versus PCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
G.Mayakannan v. The District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd v Dr Dheeraj Saurabh, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
AM Paramasivan and another v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
State v XXX, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus JCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills Versus Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
Manav Menon Versus DCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees’ Federation v Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
Gunasekaran v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
State of Tamil Nadu v Enforcement Directorate, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
T M Selvaganapathy and Others v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
Yohann J.Setna v State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
J Jayaraj and Others v The Chief Educational Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
Lakshmichandra Harishchandra Sharma v Union of India and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
Mangalam v. The State Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
K Gopinath v District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
REPORTS
Case Title: ML Ravi v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
While hearing a public interest litigation filed against the signature campaign launched by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against the NEET exam, the Madras High Court remarked that every political party has a right to agitate against something and the same could be interfered with only if it was against the public policy.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Advocate ML Ravi.
"A person may launch a campaign against anything. How can you oppose that. If a particular party wants to agitate against something, they have the right to do that. You can't have a problem with that. But if a decision is taken, which according to you is against the public policy then you can challenge that. There should be a limit to filing these petitions," the court orally remarked.
The court questioned Ravi on how he was affected with a political party carrying out a campaign. The court then directed Ravi to deposit one lakh rupees after which Ravi informed the court that he'll withdraw the plea.
Case Title: Capt.Dr.VRC.Pandiyan v The Chairman and Managing Director
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
The Madras High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Madurai to conduct an investigation into a notification produced by a litigant before it claiming he is an Additional Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench directed the Superintendent to verify the genuineness of a notification dated 19.09.2021, which the litigant, Captain Dr VRC Pandiyan presented before the court saying that he had been appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The court asked the Superintendent to take appropriate action against those responsible for fabrication of notification and to verify whether Pandiyan had availed any benefits out of the notification.
Case Title: BR Aravindakshan v The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to remove all unauthorized flag-poles erected on public roads and other public places and to prevent the erection of unauthorized flag-poles by political parties and other organizations in Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the petitioner, BR Aravindakshan had not given any details of alleged unauthorized erection of flag poles and had filed the plea only to ensure that flag poles are not erected in the future. The court thus observed that it could not entertain any petitions anticipating future contingencies.
The court also noted that the court had already passed orders with respect to erection of hoardings and flag-poles in 2019. The court added that if people continued to erect hoardings despite orders of the court, the same would be a contempt of court for which a contempt proceeding would be a better remedy.
Case Title: Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
While denying permission to conduct a meeting to eradicate “Dravidian Ideology”, the Madras High Court recently observed that no one had a right to propagate divise ideas and conduct meetings to abolish or eradicate any ideology. The court added that co-existence of multiple ideologies was the identity of the country.
Talking about the recent meetings held for eradicating “Sanatana Dharma”, Justice G Jayachandran added that the failure of police to take any action against Ministers and members of the ruling party who had made inflammatory speeches was a dereliction of duty.
The court also added that a person in power should be aware of the ability of speech to divide people and must behave responsibly and restrain themselves from propagating such views. The court instead suggested that such persons could concentrate on eradicating other social evils like intoxicating drinks, drugs etc.
Case Title: Ramar v State (and connected cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
The Madras High Court recently suggested that special courts be set up to deal with offenses relating to illegal mining and transportation under the Mines and Minerals Act.
The court noted that presently the Principal District and Sessions Court assumed jurisdiction under the Act which was already accumulated with a number of cases besides administrative work. The court thus opined that for better implementation of the provisions of the Act, special courts could be constituted and suggested the Government to look into the same.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench made these observations after it was informed by the Director General of Police that from 2015 to May 2023, a total of 59,105 cases were registered under the Act and 63,542 vehicles that were involved in the transportation of illegal minerals had been seized. However, the court was informed that the confiscation proceedings were initiated against only 2,218 vehicles and completed only 385 cases. The court thus remarked that there was a requirement to complete the trial and confiscation proceedings in a timely manner.
Case Title: Venu Srinivasan v Rangarajan Narasimhan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
The Madras High Court recommended a two-week social media detox to a temple activist asking him not to make any posts or comments on social media and imposed a fine of Rs 2000 on him for his distasteful tweets against an industrialist.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice N Mala was hearing a contempt petition filed by industrialist Venu Srinivasan who informed the court that the temple activist, Rangarajan Narasimhan, was continuing to make derogatory comments against him on social media platforms in spite of an earlier order restraining him from making such comments.
Case Title: The Secretary v Elephant G Rajendran and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
A division bench of the Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of a single judge criticizing the Madras Bar Association and its membership policy and imposing a fine of five lakh on the association for denying drinking water to a lawyer.
The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice K Rajasekar allowed the appeal preferred by the association against the single judge order.
The single judge had heavily criticized the bylaws of the association and observed that the bylaws were formulated in such a manner that ordinary Advocates found it difficult to get membership thus resulting in class discrimination. The judge had also noted that since the association was functioning inside the court premises and enjoying all the benefits including free electricity, such elitism could not be allowed in a public place using the money.
Case Title: M.Kalpana v The Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
Coming to the aid of a candidate whose answer paper was invalidated for writing “Jai Hind” at the end of an essay, the Madras High Court recently observed that writing Jai Hind did not invalidate the essay and it was in fact a patriotic slogan which summarised the essence of the topic.
Justice Battu Devanand of the Madurai bench observed that observed that Jai Hindi which meant victory to India was a commonly uttered slogan whenever patriotic fervour was invoked to the motherland. The court also noted that since the essay was to be on the importance and conservation of natural resources, writing Jai Hind was very relevant and appropriate to the question and it could not be treated as an impertinent remark.
Case Title: Mrs Nirosha v Principal Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the wife of Tamil Nadu BJP functionary Amar Prasad Reddy seeking to forbear the State from detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Detention Act.
Justice G Jayachandran found the plea to be premature after taking note of the Public Prosecutor’s submission that the State police had no proposal, as of now, to detain Amar under any prevention laws.
Amar, who is handling the Sports and Skill Development Cell for the BJP Tamil Nadu, was arrested on October 21 this year in connection with the alleged attacking and damage of a JCB machine brought to remove the illegal and unauthorized flag poles outside the residence of TN BJP Chief K Annamalai.
Amar’s wife Nirosha had approached the High Court with the present plea claiming that Amar was not present at the scene of occurrence and that he was arrested from his residence the following day without following any due process as stipulated under the DK Basu guidelines.
TN Law Regulating Online Games Won't Apply To Games Of Skill Like Poker & Rummy : Madras High Court
Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
The Madras High Court upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act 2022. The court, however, added that the Act would not be applicable to games like rummy and poker, which were games of skill and will be applicable only against games of chance.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu thus partly allowed an application filed by the online gaming companies challenging the Act. The online gaming companies had challenged the Act, which came into effect on April 21. Earlier, an attempt was made to challenge the ordinance, but the court allowed the parties to withdraw the same as the Act was yet to be notified.
The court said that while it could not allow the prayer to set aside the Act in its entirety, the provisions of the Act should be restricted to games of chance. The court added that games like rummy and poker were games of skill and thus, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to these games. The court also observed that while the government could regulate the games by restricting the time spent playing the game, setting age-limits etc on both games of skill and chance, it could not totally ban games of skill.
Flagpole Case: Madras High Court Grants Bail To BJP Functionary Amar Prasad Reddy
Case Title: S Amar Prasad @ Amar Prasad Reddy v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Madras High Court granted bail to BJP leader Amar Prasad Reddy arrested in connection with the alleged attacking and damage of a JCB machine brought to remove the illegal and unauthorized flag poles outside the residence of TN BJP Chief K Annamalai.
Justice CV Karthikeyan granted bail to Amar and other accused after recording their undertaking to pay an amount of Rs.12,000 towards the damage caused to the JCB. The court also asked all the accused to submit the undertaking within 3 days of being released on bail.
Interest Income From Co-Operative Bank Entitled To Income Tax Deduction: Madras High Court
Case Title: Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Limited v Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
The Madras High Court recently clarified that interest income received from a Cooperative bank is also entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that as per the Act, a Co-operative society is defined as a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act 1912. Thus, even a cooperative bank would come within the meaning of a Co-Operative society and be entitled to deduction.
Case Title: Tribhuwan Kumar Tiwari v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madras High Court quashed the detention order passed against Youtuber Manish Kashyap under the National Security Act for allegedl circulating fake videos of migrant workers from Bihar being attacked in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The Madurai bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel dropped the proceedings against Kashyap under the National Security Act but allowed the proceedings under the Information Technology Act to continue. While quashing the detention, the court observed that the authorities had not followed due procedure while detaining Kashyap under the NSA Act. The court thus directed Kashyap to be set at liberty if he was not needed in connection with any other case.
Case Title: KR Jayagopi v The Hon’ble Tamil Nadu Lokayukta and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta rejecting a complaint to enquire into alleged corruption in the procurement of gift hampers for Pongal in the year 2022. The Lokayukta had, while rejecting the complaint, observed that it could not entertain the complaint as it fell within Section 13(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act 2018 read with Rules 24(4) (a) to (d).
Justice N Seshasayee observed that the exception would be applicable only when the issue fell within a contract or working terms of a contract. The court added that the present complaint was one that alleged corruption in the procurement of the gift hampers which would come within the purview of the Lokayukta.
Case Title: R.Revathy Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court has held that income tax adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent of each other; the pendency of one does not affect the other.
The bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan has observed that the adjudication proceedings and the criminal prosecution are independent of each other, and the pendency of any adjudication proceeding is not a bar to proceeding with the prosecution.
Case Title: ITC Limited v Britannia Industries Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with an order of a single judge injuncting ITC Limited from selling their “Sunfeast Mom’s Magic Butter Cookies” in a blue wrapper similar to that of Britannia Good day biscuits.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy however, allowed the company to sell its existing stock of products packed in the offending blue color wrap.
Brittania had approached the court claiming that ITC was selling its priducts under the brand name “Sunfeast” in an identical blue colour trade dress/wrapper as that of Britannia and was thus trying to cash in on Brittania’s goodwill and reputation. Brittania claimed that the defendant was selling their product in red colour wrapper and only recently had started selling their butter cookies in blue color wrapper in South India with a dishonest intention to get unlawful gain.
Case Title: Ringfeder Power Transmission India Private Ltd v Rajesh Mootha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
The Madras High Court has observed that when a built suit agreement does not confer any vested right over the property or gives possession of the property, the document will be stamped under Article 5(j) of Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and not under Article 5(i) of the Act.
Justice Abdul Quddhose relied upon the Apex Court decision in Food Corporation of India and others vs. Babulal Agrawal and observed that when no possession, right or title had been passed at the time of execution of the contract, the contract was only an executory agreement and not an agreement creating rights in the immovable property.
Case Title: M/s.Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
The Madras High Court has allowed Parle Agro’s petition challenging the classification of flavoured milk.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the GST Council cannot impose the wrong classification of “flavoured milk” as a “beverage containing milk” under the residuary item "non-alcoholic "beverages" under Subheading 2202 90 30 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The court held that the GST Council is merely recommendatory. It is for the government to fix appropriate rates on the goods that are classifiable under the Customs Tariff Act, of 1975. As long as the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is adopted for the purpose of interpreting Notification No.1/2017-CT(Rate) dated June 28, 2017, classification has to be strictly in accordance with the classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, irrespective of the fact that concessions were given under the earlier regime by the Central Government under Sections 5 and 11C and Section 4A of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Case Title: M/s.Shewil Trading Company Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
The Madras High Court has directed the state tax officer to investigate the misuse of login IDs by unknown persons facilitating tax evasion.
The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the petitioner alleged that the petitioner's login ID was misused by a third party, who filed returns and passed on a huge input tax credit to the third party.
The court held that the Commercial Tax Department shall coordinate with the rest of the respondents and investigate the complaint of the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 18 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till the investigation is completed, all revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. If the complaint of the petitioner turns out to be untrue or was intended to facilitate fraud being committed using the login ID of the petitioner, the assets of the petitioner shall be brought to sale.
Case Title: Mohamed Irfan v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
While granting bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Madras High Court recently observed that merely threatening a person by claiming to be associated with an ISIS terrorist will not be a ground to hold that the person was supporting the terrorist organization. The court added that though such threats would be an offense, it was not an offense under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan also observed that the materials produced by the prosecution did not show an intention to support the terrorist organization but only showed that the appellant had handled the funds for the prime accused which was different than supporting a terrorist organization. The court added that for bail while alleging conspiracy under the UAPA Act, it was necessary to show exactly what the terrorist act was agreed to be committed.
Case Title: Dr. D.Hariharan and Others v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
The Madras High Court recently ruled in favor of granting incentive marks for medical practitioners and PG doctors who were engaged in COVID-19 duty in Government hospitals. The court also observed that the normal rule of "not changing the rules of the game during the course of the game" required a different consideration in view of the COVID-19 scenario and could not come in the way of granting incentive marks to Medical Officers who put their life at risk.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing the pleas filed by applicants who had participated in the recruitment to the post of Assistant Surgeon (General). The challenge was against the GO issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu dated August 17, 2023 deciding to grant incentives to those Health Professionals who worked for COVID - 19 related duty in regular Government appointments.
Case Title: Sushma v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Madras High Court has suggested the state to consider coming up with a procedure for registering the Deed of Familial Association, recognizing the civil union entered into between LGBTQAI+ partners in order to protect the fundamental rights of persons forming part of this community.
Justice Anand Venkatesh gave the suggestion in a plea filed by one Prasanna intervening in the ongoing hearing wherein the court has been passing a series of directions in an attempt to remove the stigma associated with the community and to ensure the welfare of the members of the community. The purport of this Deed, as suggested by the petitioner, is to ensure that two persons will have the right to live in a relationship.
The court, after looking into the recent Supreme Court verdict in Supriyo’s case, noted that the Apex Court had clearly recognised the right to choice of two persons to have and live in a relationship and their right to protection and also their right not to be harassed. The court further observed that the “Deed of Familial Association” would only safeguard the rights that were already guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution.
Assessee Willfully Concealed Income: Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Prosecution
Case Title: R.P. Darrmalingam Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
The Madras High Court has dismissed the assessee’s criminal original petition and held that the assessee was found to have suppressed and concealed the income, and the mens rea is categorically proved against the assessee since he failed to disclose a major portion of the income in his return.
The bench of Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan has observed that the provision makes it punishable under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non-filing of return within the stipulated time and wilfully concealing its true and correct income under Section 276C(1), and the petitioner cannot seek the indulgence of the Court to quash the entire proceedings.
Case Title: Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Versus PCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
The Madras High Court has allowed the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claim on the grounds that filing Form-67 after filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) but before the issuance of an intimation amounts to due compliance.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the returns were filed without FTC; however, the same was filed before passing the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the Act, and it will always be directory in nature.
Case Title: G.Mayakannan v. The District Collector
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
While dismissing a plea challenging the appointment of a woman to the post of Panchayat Secretary claiming that she was not a resident of that place, the Madras High Court observed that a married woman should not be presumed to have disowned the residential rights at her parents home on account of her marriage.
Justice RN Manjula stressed that retaining or waiving the residential address was completely at the will of the married woman and her family in certain circumstances. This will, along with a house was enough to provide her with a residential certificate, the court added.
Case Title: Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd v Dr Dheeraj Saurabh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
Granting relief to the Apollo group, the Madras High Court recently observed that the trademark “Apollo” was a well-known mark in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry and was entitled to highest level of protection as the public associated the name “Apollo” only with the healthcare group.
Justice Abdul Quddhose was hearing a plea by Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd to declare their “Apollo” mark as a well-known trade mark and to injunct the defendant, DR Dheeraj Saurabh, proprietor of New Appolo Hospital in Bihar from using their marks.
With respect to the grant of recognition as well well-known mark, the court observed that after amendment in 2018, the Trade Marks Rules empowered the trademark registry to grant recognition of a trademark as a well-known mark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. However, the court noted that the amendment had not taken away the court’s power to grant such recognition. The court thus observed that the court and the registry had concurrent powers to recognise a mark as a well-known trademark.
Case Title: AM Paramasivan and another v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
While deciding a 23-year-old appeal against the order of Special Judge sentencing former Minister for Labour Welfare Late AM Paramasivam and his wife under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Madras High Court confirmed the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed on the minister’s wife Nallammal.
Paramasivam was a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly during the period 1991 to 1996 and served as the Minister for Labour Welfare in Government of Tamil Nadu during 1993-1996. During this period, Paramasivam, along with his wife had acquired properties beyond their known pecuniary resources during the check period between 1991 to 1996.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the Minister, being a public servant had acquired wealth 400% above his known sources of income and his wife had lend her name in acquiring properties through undeclared sources thus committing the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: State v XXX
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that medical practitioners who continued to conduct Two-Finger Test banned by the Supreme Court will be guilty of misconduct.
The bench of Justice SS Sunder and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation while coming across a Medico-Legal Examination report in a rape case where a Two Finger Test had been conducted. The court expressed regret that even after directions from the Supreme Court and the High Court, doctors were still continuing to conduct the test.
2 Years Limitation To File GST Refund Application Is Directory & Not Mandatory: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus JCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
The Madras High Court has held that the 2-year limitation to file a GST refund application is a directory and not mandatory.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the terms used in Section 54(1) of the CGST Act ''may make application before two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed'', which means that the assessee may make application within two years, and it is not mandatory that the application has to be made within two years, and in appropriate cases, refund applications can be made even beyond two years. The time limit fixed under Section 54(1) is directory-like in nature and is not mandatory. Therefore, even if the application is filed beyond the period of two years, the legitimate claim of refund by the assessee cannot be denied in appropriate cases.
Case Title: M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills Versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
The Madras High Court has held that Section 245C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021) is read down by removing the retrospective last date of the 1st February 2021, as the 31st March 2021.
The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has observed that the Finance Act, 2021, was retrospective in nature. Those who have had a right to approach the Settlement Commission (ITSC) i.e., those who had a case pending against them, would have missed the bus by not actually filing the application before the ITSC as it was retrospectively made inoperative. Only for the action of filing the application, the circular extends the date by 30.09.2021, even though, as per the Income Tax Act, it was only 01.02.2021. When paragraph No. 4 categorically states that only those assessees who are eligible to file an application for settlement as of January 31, 2021, it cannot be said that it introduces an additional clause of eligibility that is not found in the statute. On the other hand, if only clause 4(i) is not there, it would render violence to the Finance Act, 2021.
Case Title: Manav Menon Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
The Madras High Court has held that prosecution under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable as the tax payable after crediting prepaid taxes was less than the prescribed sum of Rs. 3,000.
The bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan has observed that proviso (ii)(b) to Section 276CC takes care of genuine assessees who either file the returns belatedly but within the end of the assessment year or those who have paid substantial amounts of their tax dues by prepaid taxes from the rigour of the prosecution under Section 276CC.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees’ Federation v Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court recently stressed on the importance of Trade unions and observed that unions were as important as a strong opposition in a democratic set up.
Justice R Hemalatha was hearing a plea by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees’ Federation challenging the decision of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited to engage drivers and conductors through a man power agency to operate regular bus operations.
The court advised the authorities to adopt a more transparent and easier process to recruit drivers instead of venturing into the outsourcing mode through man power agencies. The court also allowed the plea and set aside the tender notification calling for employment of drivers and conductor.
Case Title: Gunasekaran v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
While dismissing a challenge made to the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, the Madras High Court observed that a person unauthorisedly occupying a land cannot claim protection under Article 21 of the Constitution when the eviction proceedings were as per law.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy also observed that the Act did not violate Article 19 of the Constitution as a right to reside and settle in any part of the country would not mean residing unauthorisedly. The court added that a person who unauthorisedly possesses a property could not say that he had a constitutional right to unauthorisedly occupy the land.
Madras High Court Stays ED Summons To District Collectors In Sand Mining Money Laundering Case
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court has stayed the operation of the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to the district collectors in sand mining money laundering case. The court has however allowed the investigation to go on.
The division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the interim orders in a batch of pleas challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to District Collectors in Tamil Nadu in an alleged sand mining money laundering case. The court granted three weeks time to the directorate to respond to the case.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Former MP TM Selvaganapathy In Cremation Shed Scam
Case Title: T M Selvaganapathy and Others v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of former Rajya Sabha MP T M Selvaganapathy in the cremation shed scam.
Justice G Jayachandran acquitted Selvaganapathy and set aside the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed by a special court for CBI cases in 2014. Selvaganapathy had lost his Rajya Sabha membership following the conviction.
The CBI court had sentenced Mr. Selvaganapathy, the then Minister for Rural Development and Local Administration; J.T. Acharyulu, former Secretary, Rural Development; M. Sathyamurthy, former Director, Rural Development; M. Krishnamurthy, retired project officer; and T. Bharathi to two-year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on each of them.
Case Title: Yohann J.Setna v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
The Madras High Court recently quashed a forgery case upon noting that the final report on the matter had been filed after an inexplainable delay of seven years. The court noted that the trial court should not have taken cognizance of the final report as the same was barred by limitation.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that the purpose of a speedy trial was to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing a positive obligation on the courts and the prosecution. In the present case, the court observed that when the delay was not due to the fault of the petitioner, allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: J Jayaraj and Others v The Chief Educational Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
The Madras High Court recently underlined that right to protect peacefully without arms was guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and was an integral part of a democratic country like India. The court added that right to protest was an integral part of speech and inherent facet of right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice L Victoria Gowri also noted that when attempts was made to constrain legitimate dissent arbitrarily, which in turn scuttled the democratic values guaranteed by the Constitution, it had to be dealt with iron hands.
Case Title: Lakshmichandra Harishchandra Sharma v Union of India and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
The Madras High Court has asked the Central Government to reconsider enhancing the retirement age of all Coast Guard staff from 57 years to 60 years. The court also set aside an order of the Defence Ministry rejecting a plea by Coast Guard members below the rank of Commandant seeking such enhancement.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy also gave liberty to the members of the Coast Guard to make representations and submit materials justifying how Ministry's rejection of the plea was incorrect.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by members of the Coast Guard challenging the Constitutional Validity of Rule 20(1) of the Indian Coast Guard Rules 1986 and an order passed by the Ministry of Defense refusing to enhance the age of retirement of members of the Coast Guard up to the level of commandant to 60 years from 57 years.
Case Title: Mangalam v. The State Government and Others, WP (MD) 21450/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
While dealing with a case relating to illegal quarrying, the Madras High Court recently remarked that law must be potent enough to deal with people in power and those having higher connections.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that law was not only meant to be used against ordinary citizens but against the powerful also, whenever they committed any illegal act. The court added that if no action was to be taken against such persons, the law will remain a damp squib.
The court was hearing a plea seeking action against a private individual (respondent No.9), alleging that he had been illegally quarrying the lands belonging to the petitioner without any valid permission.
Case Title: K Gopinath v District Collector
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
Upholding the tenets of religious harmony in India, the Madras High Court recently dismissed a man’s review petition against an earlier decision which dismissed his plea challenging the construction of a mosque near a temple.
Noting that no new grounds were set up in the review, the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that an appeal could not be disguised as a review and that the jurisdiction of the court in the review was very narrow and could be exercised only if there was an apparent error.
