Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 7 To March 13, 2022

Sebin James

14 March 2022 6:26 AM GMT

  • Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 7 To March 13, 2022

    A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 88 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98NOMINAL INDEXD.Balasubramanian v. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department & Ors and Prabhu Nambiappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 88Immaculate College Of Education For Women v. Pondicherry...

    A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.

    Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 88 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

    NOMINAL INDEX

    D.Balasubramanian v. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department & Ors and Prabhu Nambiappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

    Immaculate College Of Education For Women v. Pondicherry University & Anr. and Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

    M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Deputy General Manager v. Rajeswari & Ors and Connected Cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

    P. Pugalenthi, Director, Prisoners Rights Forum v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

    Ashraf & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

    T. Akshaya & Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

    S. Meena & Anr. v. Sivakumar & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

    Pueblo Holdings Limited v. Emirates Trading Agency LLC & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

    N. Rahul Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

    Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected Matte, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

    M/s. V.R.S. Traders Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

    1. 'Propensity To Stoke Communal Disharmony': Madras High Court Disallows Lalgudi Temple Car Festival To Pass Through Streets

    Case Title: D.Balasubramanian v. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department & Ors and Prabhu Nambiappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

    Madras High Court has observed that the temple car procession/ festival in Achiramavalli Amman Kovil at Jangamarajapuram cannot be allowed this year since it has the potential to stoke communal tension like in 2021.

    The court was hearing two separate writ petitions filed in 2021 and 2022 about the conduct of the Temple/ Car Festival in the Trichy District .

    In the common order, the single-judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan added that the reports submitted by the Tahsildar and Deputy Inspector of Police indicated that the temple/car festival was not conducted in a peaceful manner in 2021, which saw partial boycott and pelting of stones, injuring public and police.

    2. Pondicherry University Empowered To Collect University Development Fund Paid By Students: Madras High Court

    Case Title: Immaculate College Of Education For Women v. Pondicherry University & Anr. and Connected Matters

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

    Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of writ appeals filed against the single judge bench order dated 05.01.2022 in favour of Pondicheryy University collecting University Development Fund paid by students from the Individual colleges.

    The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the University can demand 'other charges' in addition to the fees stipulated in Section 27(e) Pondicherry University Act,1985. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal by saying that the demand notices issued to colleges for University Development Fund are not beyond the University's competency since it is covered by Section 5(20) of the Act.

    "The appellant counsel referred to Section 27 of the Act by taking note of the subject matters mentioned therein with regards to ordinances and not the powers of the University under Section 5 of the Act", the court pointed out.

    The single bench judgment in 2020 had dismissed the plea by the appellant colleges filed in 2010 which challenged the imposition of Rs 1000/- as University Development Fund.

    3. 'Interest To Solatium A Must': Madras High Court Modifies Award Of Additional Compensation For Land Acquired By ONGC

    Case Title: M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Deputy General Manager v. Rajeswari & Ors and Connected Cases

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

    While upholding the additional compensation per Are granted by a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'Act') , Madras High Court has held that interest for Solatium is a mandatory component as per Section 28 of the Act.

    The single Bench of Dr Justice G. Jayachandran was hearing a batch of appeal suits preferred by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) under Section 54 of the Act.

    With respect to the interest that must be paid on Solatium, the court observed that there was an omission from the Reference Court since Section 28 of the Act [Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation] and Supreme Court Judgments mandate such interest even if the landowners have not preferred any cross objection or appeal for the interest portion on the solatium.

    "...their right to seek interest to solatium in the appeal filed by the third party/Requisition Authority has to be entertained. The cardinal principle in land acquisition is, when a person is deprived of his Constitutional Right to hold property, he must be paid just and fair compensation. Therefore, when the statute prescribes interest to compensation at a particular rate (i.e) 9% p.a., from the date of award, till the date of possession plus one year and at the rate of 15% thereafter, the same has to be applied on the solatium also, as mandated under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894", the court underscored.

    4. 'Can't Order DVAC Inquiry In Absence Of FIR': Madras HC Disposes Plea For Investigation Into Alleged Stationery Supply Scam By Madurai Prison

    Case Title: P. Pugalenthi, Director, Prisoners Rights Forum v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

    In a plea seeking direction upon the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to investigate the alleged scam in the supply of stationery articles by the officials of Madurai Central Prison, the Madras High Court has asked the petitioner to seek registration of FIR or to file a private complaint invoking Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

    The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed,

    "The prayer has been made to direct the fourth respondent to cause investigation pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner without realizing that the investigation into the matter can be conducted by the Police or Anti-Corruption Department only after registration of the First Information Report."

    The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Director of Prisoners Rights Forum, P. Pugalenthi.

    Case Title: Ashraf & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

    Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against some office bearers and members of 'Campus Front of India' who organised a protest in front of IIT-Madras seeking justice for a suicide victim.

    Admittedly, the members assembled and protested for arresting the faculty implicated in the suicide note of Fathima Latheef, a first-year Humanities student who hung herself in a ceiling fan in her hostel room in November 2019.

    The single bench of Justice A.D Jagadish Chandira observed that no act of violence has occurred during the protest and no untoward incident has taken place, which warrants the quashing of the FIR registered against the protesters.

    While allowing the criminal original petition, the court noted as below:

    "...admittedly, no violation is reported in this case and the protest has also not ended in any violence. Therefore, this Court, is of the considered view that further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2962 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai is liable to be quashed".

    6. 'Can't Thrust Gujarat Model Of Underground Transmission Lines On Authorities': Madras HC Dismisses Appeals Against Electricity Project In Krishnagiri

    Case Title:T. Akshaya & Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

    Madras High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ appeal challenging the laying of high tension transmission lines at Sevaganappalli in Krishnagiri, allegedly contravention of distance norms and disregard for potential health hazards.

    The appellants argued that the sub-station would be supplying electricity solely to Exide Industries Limited while the State submitted that the project will be equally beneficial to the nearby villages that experience electricity deficit. Apart from challenging the grant of approval by pitting it against Article 14, the writ appellants/ petitioners further submitted that realigning the 110 KV DC lines or laying underground transmission lines like in Gujarat will be a plausible alternative.

    About the alternatives proposed by the appellants, the court noted in the judgment that the 'Gujarat Model' cannot be imposed on the Respondent Authorities, especially when 24 towers have already been erected and transmission lines are being laid.

    "A reference of Gujarat model has been given, but it cannot be imposed on the respondent authorities because they have wisdom to decide as to whether to go with underground transmission lines or overhead lines. This court cannot thrust the opinion of the appellants upon the respondents to go for underground transmission lines for the remaining towers...", the court noted.

    7. 'Factum Of Cohabitation & Marriage Can't Be Proved With A Single Photograph Together': Madras High Court

    Case Title: S. Meena & Anr. v. Sivakumar & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

    While dismissing an appeal suit filed by a woman claiming 1/7th share for herself and her son in the ancestral property of her deceased husband's family, Madras High Court has underscored that the factum of marriage cannot be inferred from a single photograph where both are seen together.

    The single-judge bench of Justice G. Jayachandran added that though the courts should generally 'lean upon legitimacy and frown upon bastardy' [as laid down in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others] it can also not consider a deceased person as responsible for the birth of the minor appellant. Attempts made to obtain the property of a deceased person by claiming parentage must be equally frowned upon, the court remarked.

    Before the bench, an appeal suit under Section 96 CPC was filed by submitting that the appellants are the widow and son of one late Sakthivel. They contended that they are the legal heirs of Sakthivel, and therefore, they are legally entitled to 1/7th share in the ancestral property jointly held by defendants who are the brothers, mother and father of the deceased Sakthivel.

    "The factum of marriage and long cohabitation are not matters, which can be inferred through a single photograph, where a male and female are seen together. More so, when only the positive is filed without negative and the person, who took the photograph not examined. The Ex.A-1, the photograph is in colour and new...", the court said while clarifying that the photo and the CD that contains the photograph will not be admissible in evidence.

    8. Madras HC Holds Execution Petition Over Beneficial Ownership Of Award Debtor In Shares Held Ostensibly By Third Parties Maintainable

    Case Title: Pueblo Holdings Limited v. Emirates Trading Agency LLC & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

    Madras High Court has recently held that the execution petition filed by a company incorporated in the Republic of Marshall Islands, in pursuance of a foreign arbitral award in its favour, against another company with its registered office in Dubai is maintainable before it.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has held that the consecutive third execution petition filed by Award Holder, Pueblo Holdings Limited, seeking the enforcement of the decree against UAE based Award Debtor, Emirates Trading Agency LLC, by attaching the assets held ostensibly by third parties in the prominently Chennai based ETA Group is maintainable.

    9. Alleged Scam Of 20,000 Crores Involving Cholamandalam Group and Public Servants: Madras HC Refuses To Direct Investigation By CBI

    Case Title: N. Rahul Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

    Madras High Court has recently iterated that when two posts carry equivalent scale of pay and are treated as equal categories under the Rules, the petitioners have no right to claim a particular post as a matter of right or choice.

    The Madurai bench of Madras High Court underscored that when the service conditions are not infringed from and out of the administrative transfers effected, the Government employees have no right to claim a specific post as their choice.

    Justice S M Subramaniam was hearing a plea made by petitioners who were initially appointed as B.T.Assistants (Bachelor of Teaching) and some others who were promoted as B.T. Assistants from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Petitioners belonging to both categories has passed the Deputy Inspector's Test and were qualified to be transferred and appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, an equivalent cadre carrying identical pay scale. Since they met the requirements under Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service, they were appointed as Deputy Inspectors.

    The petitioners were challenging the 6th January notification by the Joint Director of School Education directing the District level Chief Educational Officers to make administrative transfers and accordingly post these Deputy Inspectors as B.T Assistants by 7th January.

    10.'Air India Was A Sinking Company, Interests Of Employees Protected': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against Disinvestment

    Case Title: Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected Matters

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

    Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Air Corporation Employees Union challenging Air India disinvestment, who feared that certain terms and conditions of service enjoyed by the employees under the erstwhile public sector management will be severely affected.

    "Considering the fact that Air India Ltd prior to the disinvestment initiative was a sinking company, a fortuitous transformation has happened for their own good. In the opinion of this Court, various conditions of service under the SPA are the best that the Government could wrangle out from the fourth respondent towards ensuring protection of the employees' interest. Therefore, the employees conjecturing they have been treated unfairly and unjustly is misplaced and misconceived", Justice V. Parthiban observed.

    On the Petitioner's apprehension regarding alteration of service conditions, the Bench said,

    "...Any decision concerning the service conditions would obviously be taken within the framework of the existing laws on the subject. In case of any infraction, deviation or violation of any existing laws, the employees always have a recourse to judicial mechanisms. This Court, therefore, need not assume any advisory role in emphasizing the sacrosanct legal position as every private or public entity is mandated to act in accordance with law."

    Also Read: Air India Employees Can't Demand Pre-Decisional Hearing In Economic Policy Matters Like Disinvestment: Madras High Court

    11. GST Dept. Should Issue DRC-1 Notice, Grant Fair Opportunity Of Hearing Before Passing Assessment Order: Madras High Court

    Case Title: M/s. V.R.S. Traders Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

    The Madras High Court has held that the DRC-01 notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act must be issued before passing the assessment order.

    The single bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar has remitted the after back to the respondent/department for reconsideration and directed that the department to issue DRC-01 notice to the petitioner and after giving a fair opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/assessee, necessary orders shall be passed with regard to the assessment.

    If any taxpayer has to pay tax, interest and penalty under sub-section (1) of section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act then, the authorised officer should first communicate the details of the tax, interest and penalty ascertained in Form GST DRC-01A to the taxpayer.

    Other Developments

    12. 'Shocking To The Conscience': Madras HC Orders Registration Of FIR Against Headmaster For Alleged Sexual Harassment Of Teachers

    Case Title: G.Joseph Jeyaseelan v. The Director of Elementary Education & Ors

    The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court observed yesterday that the frequent allegations of sexual harassment inside educational institutions are troublesome and warrant immediate intervention.

    Justice S.M Subramaniam was hearing a petition filed by the Headmaster of a school, calling for the records relating to the order cancelling the deputation of two women teachers by the District Educational Officer, Thallakulam, Madurai District.

    Previously, the respondent teachers had sent representations to the Educational authorities alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner Headmaster. The same Headmaster impleaded the two teachers as respondents in the current proceedings initiated against the cancellation of their deputation.

    Taking note of the rampant untoward incidents in educational institutions, the single-judge bench directed that the letters sent by the teachers to Educational Authorities alleging sexual harassment at the workplace must be registered as complaints by All Women Police Station, Keerathurai. The bench has also given an instruction to commence investigation while also directing the jurisdictional police to submit copies of the FIR on the next date of hearing.

    13. TN Local Body Polls: Returning Officer Admits To Tampering With Results Due To External 'Pressure', Madras HC Asks To File Affidavit

    Case Title: R.Palaniselvi v. The Tamilnadu State Election Commission & Ors.

    The returning officer of Ward No.10 of Kallupatti in Madurai District has submitted before the Madras High Court that he illegally modified the election results and declared a DMK candidate as the winner due to external pressure by a group of persons.

    The First Bench comprising of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a case filed by an independent candidate named R. Palaniselvi who claimed to have won the urban local body polls in Ward No. 10. The court had earlier taken cognisance of the grave allegation against the Returning Officer and the DMK Candidate K. Subbulakshmi, who changed the result of the election after its declaration.

    During the last hearing, the court had mandated the Returning Officer who was suspended by the State Election Commission to appear before the Court. Taking note of the manipulation in changing results, the bench has directed the Returning Officer to file an affidavit detailing the entire incident as well as details about the persons who allegedly exerted undue pressure upon the former. The affidavit must be submitted to the court within ten days. The DMK candidate who was declared as the winning candidate may also file a counter-affidavit to the writ petition within ten days, the court clarified.

    14. Dam Safety Act Does Not Alter Existing Ownership & Water Rights Of States: Centre Tells Madras High Court

    Case Title: S.Ramalingam v. The Union Of India & Another

    In the plea challenging vires of the Dam Safety Act, the Central Government has filed a counter-affidavit before the Madras High Court, claiming that the 2021 legislation does not seek to alter the existing ownership and water rights of the states. The law is merely intended to create a mechanism for proper surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of Dams.

    "The Dam Safety Act, 2021 does not alter any existing arrangements with regard to dam ownership, operation and maintenance (O&M), project benefits and water rights of Tamil Nadu. Hence stated apprehensions are unfounded," the reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Water Resources states.

    The writ petition was filed by DMK MP S. Ramalingam from Mayiladuthurai, stating that the Parliament lacks the legislative competence to enact the impugned legislation since States have the authority to make laws on "Water, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of List I".

    Defending the Act, the Central government has claimed that most of the Dams in the country are across interstate rivers and states can't legislate beyond their territories. Thus, it is imperative for the Central government to exercise its prerogative in the national interest and legislate on the subject of dam.



    Next Story