Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 12 to December 18, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 504 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 510 NOMINAL INDEX Tmt.R.Nalini v Tmt.R.Nirmala, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 504 GP Bhaskar v Sumathi and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 505 Narendra Kumar Gupta v State rep by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 506 Isha Foundation v Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 507 S Selvaraj Simpson v The District Collector and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 508 M Ramya v N Satish Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 509 M/s. Raj Kishore Engineering Construction (P) Ltd. Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 510 REPORTS 1. Revenue Divisional Officer Not Empowered To Order Recovery Of Possession Under TN Tenancy Law: High Court Case Title: Tmt.R.Nalini v Tmt.R.Nirmala Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 504 The Madras High Court has held that the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is a rent authority, does not have powers to order for recovery of possession as per the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. Justice SM Subramaniam observed that as per Section 21(2) of the Act, a "rent court" could make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises. 2. Madras High Court Imposes 50K Cost On Litigant Who Filed Contempt Petition Against Family Court Judge Case Title: GP Bhaskar v Sumathi and another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 505 The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant who had initiated contempt proceedings against a presiding judge of family court claiming that the family court did not comply with high court directions to dispose of his divorce petition within a time frame. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed the petitioner to deposit the amount to the relief fund of the Chief Justice of the High Court within a period of two weeks. The court noted that even though the High Court had directed the Family Court to dispose of the divorce petition by 11.01.2017, soon after, the petitioner had filed an appeal against an order of interim monthly maintenance. 3. Personal Liberty Cannot Be Curtailed On Mere Suspicion And Half-Baked Investigation: Madras HC Grants Bail To PMLA Accused Case Title: Narendra Kumar Gupta v State rep by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 506 While allowing the bail plea of a man charged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Madras High Court reiterated that personal liberty could not be arbitrarily taken away unless in accordance with law. The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, after observing that the petitioner was also suffering from a medical condition remarked that the man needed medical intervention. Since there was no concrete ground for denial of personal liberty and being satisfied that the petitioner had complied with the twin conditions for granting bail, the court allowed the petition on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the title deeds of immovable property worth 5 crores and executing a bond for a sum of rupees ten thousand. 4. Isha Foundation's Yoga Centre Is An Educational Institution, Doesn't Require Prior Environmental Clearance For Construction: Madras High Court Case Title: Isha Foundation v Union of India and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 507 Madras High Court on Wednesday allowed Isha Foundation's plea against a show cause notice issued to it in Tamil Nadu for carrying out construction work between 2006-2014 at Coimbatore without obtaining mandatory environmental clearance as per the Central Government's Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar observed that since the foundation was carrying on construction work for promoting group development activities and for promoting yoga, it came within the definition of an educational institution and thus was exempted from seeking prior environmental clearance. 5. Transfer Of Property Can't Be Declared Void U/S 23 Senior Citizens Act In Absence Of Clause Obligating Transferee To Maintain Transferor: Madras HC Case Title: S Selvaraj Simpson v The District Collector and another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 508 The Madras High Court has recently held that though the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act provides for declaring certain property transfers as void, a settlement of property cannot be cancelled unless it fulfills the conditions of the Act. While dismissing a litigant's plea seeking directions to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider his application, Justice R Subramanian observed that since the settlement deed did not contain a clause imposing an obligation on the settlee or transferree to maintain the settlor or transferor,...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 12 to December 18, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags