Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 12 to August 18, 2024

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 317 NOMINAL INDEX The Official Assignee v S Arjunlal Sunderdas (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 Kannan Swaminathan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 308 T Balaji v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 D Kumaresh v The Chief Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 310 C. Ve Shanmugam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 311 A Krishna Prasath v The Director General of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 312 C Ve Shanmugam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 313 M/s.Jindal Pipes Limited Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer (Int), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 314 V Senthil v The Secretary, Bar Council of TN & Puducherry, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 315 K Amrithalal v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 316 M Selva Kumar v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 317 REPORT Madras High Court Directs Production Company 'Studio Green' To Deposit ₹1 Crore Each Before Releasing 'Thangalaan' And 'Kanguva' Movies Case Title: The Official Assignee v S Arjunlal Sunderdas (Died) and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 The Madras High Court had directed the production company Studio Green to deposit one crore each before releasing the movies Thangalaan starring Chiyan Vikram and Kanguva starring Suriya. The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice CV Karthikeyan made the orders on an execution petition filed by an Official Assignee appointed by the High Court to deal with the estate of realtor and financier Arjunlal Sunderdas after he was declared insolvent. In 2019, the division bench had allowed a petition filed by the Official Assignee directing Studio Green to pay a sum of Rs. 10,35,00,000/- with an interest of 18% p.a. Madras High Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Litigant For "Disruptive Attitude" During PIL Hearing Case Title: Kannan Swaminathan v Union of India and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 308 The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a litigant for filing a public interest litigation without any public element. The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji noted that the litigant had displayed a disruptive attitude during court proceedings and had no regard for the court's decorum. Even after engaging a counsel, the court observed that the litigant kept arguing parallelly and disrupted the court proceedings. The court thus directed him to deposit Rs. 50K to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. No Bar In Registering Case And Counter Case Arising Out Of Same Incident, IO Must Probe Both Versions According To Standing Orders: Madras HC Case Title: T Balaji v The State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 The Madras High Court has issued a set of guidelines to all stakeholders for dealing with cases and counter cases. A full bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice M Nirmal Kumar, and Justice N Anand Venkatesh were answering a reference made to it relating to case and counter case and how the courts and investigation agencies were required to handle them. The question that was referred to the full bench was whether the police were required to mandatorily follow the procedure prescribed in the Police Standing Order 566 while investigating a case and counter case and what was the effect of its non-compliance. The court observed that there was no legal bar in registering two FIRs in a case and a counter-case arising out of rival versions of the same incident. In such cases, the court added that the investigation officer was required to thoroughly investigate both rival versions keeping in mind the PSO. Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy | Financial Relief Not 'Reward' For Victims But To Help Dependents: Madras HC Dismisses Plea Challenging ₹10 Lakh Compensation Case Title: D Kumaresh v The Chief Secretary Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 310 The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the payment of Rs 10 Lakh as ex gratia payment to the families of Kallakurichi Hooch tragedy victims. Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar dismissed the plea after noting that the ex gratia payments were made on humanitarian grounds. The court noted that the relief was to reward the victims but to help the dependents of the victims who had lost their breadwinners and were struggling economically. The court further held that the petition was filed without collecting much information challenging a relief package that was paid to ensure the survival of the victim's family with dignity. The court was thus not inclined to entertain the plea, which was challenging the policy decision of the government. Madras High Court Quashes Case Against AIADMK Leader C Ve Shanmugam For Comments Against MK Stalin, Other DMK Ministers Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad)...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 12 to August 18, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags