Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 25 2022 To May 1, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 178 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 191 NOMINAL INDEX K. Gopinath v. The Director of School Education Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 178 State of Tamil Nadu Versus Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 179 The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Olympics Association v. S. Nithya and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 180 M Thamilselvi @ Meera Mithun v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 181 Sri Ram Samaj v. The Commissioner and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 182 N. Karunanidhi v. The Union of India and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 183 Udayanithi Stalin v. R Premalatha, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 184 Suresh Kumar Kankariya v. K Jigibai @Pushpammal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 185 M/s.Color Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s.Color Castle Owners Society, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 186 Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research v. D Ganeshlan and Another, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 187 Tvl.Asian Paints Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 188 The Chief Engineer / Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways), Southern Railway and Anr. versus M/s. Progressive-Aliens, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 189 S. David Leo v. The Principal Secretary to the Government and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 190 A. Periyakaruppan v. The Principle Secretary to Government and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 191 1. "Let Supreme Court Decide": Madras High Court On Plea For Restricting Dresses &Accessories Of Religious Significance In Schools Case Title: K. Gopinath v. The Director of School Education Department and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 178 The Madras High Court bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice T.V Thamilselvi dismissed as withdrawn a petition filed for directing the Department of School Education to restrict the students from wearing dresses and accessories with religious significance to the schools and educational institutions. The bench observed that since the issue is already pending before the Supreme Court, it is not in a position to consider it at this stage. The petition was filed by advocate K Gopinath, leader of Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam. 2. Assessee To Claim Refund of Tax Collected By State Without Authority Within 3 Years From The Date of Payment: Madras High Court Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu Versus Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 179 The Madras High Court bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice Mohhammed Shaffiq has held that any tax collected without authority would certainly amount to unjust enrichment and the assessees must claim a refund of the tax collected or retained by the state within three years from the date of their payments to the department. The issue raised was whether the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" would apply in the absence of an express provision and whether "unjust enrichment" would apply to taxes paid on raw materials and captively consumed in the manufacture of finished goods within the state. The court held that "unjust enrichment" means the retention of a benefit by a person that was unjust or inequitable. It occurs when a person retains money or benefits that, in justice, equity, and good conscience, belong to someone else. As a result, the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" states that no one can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the expense of another. 3. "What Is The Need For Politicians In Sports?": Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Single Judge Order For Appointments In Sports AssociationsCase Title: The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Olympics Association v. S. Nithya and Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 180 The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu Olympic Association challenging a single judge order specifying that only sportsperson should be appointed as President or Vice President of the sports associations and organisations. Coming down strongly on the appellants, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy highlighted the plight of sportspersons in the country. The court highlighted how worst facilities are given to sportspersons who represent the district, state and country and all the good facilities are given to politicians who accompany them and who have no connection to sports. The court further asked why a person having any affiliation to a political party be appointed as the chairman, president or vice president of these organisations. When it is neither their profession or nor their expertise, what is the need for them to enter into this area, it asked. 4. Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Tamil Actress Charged With Making Objectionable Remarks Against CM Case Title: M Thamilselvi @ Meera Mithun v. The State Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 181 The Madras High Court bench of Justice G...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 25 2022 To May 1, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags