Madras High Court Monthly Digest: October 2022 [Citations 419 - 447]

Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 447 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 Mr N Nagarajan v. Mr. Schekar Raj, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425 T.Keeniston Fernando v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 426 Azizul Karim v. PS Kirubakaran and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 427 Murali v. The Inspector of Police ,2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 428 A. Irudayaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Adjudication Cell, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 429 Tamilselvi v. The Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 430 Asia (Chennai) Engineering Company Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 431 Abirami S v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 432 Chennai Water Desalination Ltd. v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, O.P. No. 298 of 2019, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 433 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 Sahil Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 441 M/s ES Mydeen and Co. v. The Designated Officer and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 442 All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v The Branch Manager, Bank of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 443 RKR. Gold P. Ltd Versus ACIT, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 444 The Union of India v. R.K. Constructions, Arb. O.P. (Com Div) No. 148 of 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 445 Rahul Dinesh Surana v. The Senior Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 446 Tamil Nadu Pondy Plastic Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 447 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...

Madras High Court Monthly Digest: October 2022 [Citations 419 - 447]

Upasana Sajeev

Tags