Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: April 4 to April 10, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 146 NOMINAL INDEX M. Ramasamy v. State represented by its chief secretary and anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 G.Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 136 V. Vasanthakumar v. The Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 137 Kamala v. Murugesan and Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 138 Major Frank Ralston Samuel Raj v Kezia Padmini Swarna Pandian, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 139 S.P Chockalingam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 140 K. Vasudevan v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 141 Ms Preethika C (Minor) v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 142 S. Sampoornam v. C.K Shanmugam, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 143 R. Selvaraj(died) and ors v Amutha and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 Popular Front of India v. Haj Committee of India and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 145 B Amudha v K Rajendran(Died) and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 146 1. Law Officers Render Their Services Above Self, Must Be Given Due Respect: Madras High Court Issues Directions To Govt Case Title: M. Ramasamy v. State represented by its chief secretary and anr Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 The Madras High Court has issued a series of directions for proper treatment of law officers, who play a pivotal role in defending both the case of the Government as well as the interest of the general public. The directions issued involve treating of law officers with due respect, disbursal of fees and special fee claimed by the Advocate General and Additional Advocate General for appearing in cases, revision of fee regularly, promptness in getting legal opinions on time, etc. Justice M. Govindaraj observed that Law Officers of the State are cast with the onerous responsibilities to strike a balance between individual and the interest of other fellow citizens and also the interest of the State, its policies, welfare schemes etc. The development comes in a writ petition filed by former AAG S. Ramasamy against denial of special fees claimed by him. 2. Madras High Court Directs Government Of India To Put In More Efforts For Release Of Tamil Fishermen In Srilankan Jail Case Title: G.Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 136 Madras High Court directed the Government of India to continue their efforts and to invoke any existing agreements for ensuring the the release of 68 fisherman laid up in the Srilankan jail. The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing petitions filed for the release of Tamil Nadu fishermen, who were taken into custody with their boats by the Sri Lankan Navy and Coast Guard. The court stated that it did not have any territorial jurisdiction over the matters of the foreign government and could only ask the government to continue their efforts. Thus it was directed to send copies of the order to the government so that necessary action may be taken. 3. Member Of Indian Legal Service Cannot Be Appointed As Judicial Member: Madras High Court Strikes Down Section 32(2) Of Benami Transaction Act Case Title: V. Vasanthakumar v. The Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 137 The Madras High Court has declared Section 32(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed by Mr V Vasanthakumar, appearing in person challenging the validity of Section 9 and Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016. Section 32 of the Act deals with Qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and Members of appellate tribunal and subclause (2) states that in case of a Judicial Member, the person should have been a Member of the Indian Legal Service and has held the post of Additional Secretary or equivalent post in that Service The court highlighted the importance of the concept of Separation of Powers and stated that the concept of independence of judiciary is a vital issue and for that emphasis is made that there should be separation of power. Prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, the adjudication was done by courts. Therefore, with the constitution of tribunal, they would be discharging the work earlier discharged by the courts. 4. Publication To Serve Notice Can't Be Issued Ordinarily By Appellate Court In Second Appeal, Parties Must Mention Correct Address: Madras High Court Case Name: Kamala v. Murugesan and Anr Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 138 The Madras High Court has held that publication to serve notice in the second appeal cannot be ordinarily issued by the appellate Court. ...

Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: April 4 to April 10, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags