Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 - December 11, 2022

Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 495 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 503 NOMINAL INDEX Murali Krishna Chakrala Versus Deputy Director, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 495 Ramesh Dugar v The Deputy Director and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 496 Shakil Ahamed v The Superintendent of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 497 Dr P Balakrishnan v The Tamil Nadu Medical Council and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 498 Karunyam Mission (Trust) rep. by Trustee v. H Ganapathy and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 499 J Nithya v The Director of Elementary Education, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 500 Ravi @ Virumandi v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 501 Molasi Primary Agricultural Versus ITO, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 502 Tax Recovery Officer Versus Union Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 503 REPORT 1. Ingenuine Documents Submitted By Clients For Form 15CB, CA Cannot Be Prosecuted Under PMLA: Madras High Court Case Title: Murali Krishna Chakrala Versus Deputy Director, Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 495 The Madras High Court has held that the chartered accountant (CA) is not required to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the documents submitted by his clients. "A Panel Advocate, who has no means to go into the genuinity of title deeds and who gives an opinion based on such title deeds, cannot be prosecuted along with the principal offender. Applying the same anomaly, we find that the prosecution of Murali Krishna Chakrala, in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, cannot be sustained," the division bench of Justice P. N. Prakash and Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed. 2. Search And Seizure Does Not Give Jurisdiction To Court To Order Return Of Articles When Investigation Is Held In A Different Place: Madras High Court Case Title: Ramesh Dugar v The Deputy Director and another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 496 The Madras High Court has held that when the investigation is being carried out in a different place, the court does not have territorial jurisdiction to order the return of seized articles even though the search and seizure were carried out within its territorial limits. It observed that the search and seizure was the effect of the investigation and not the cause of the investigation. Therefore, as the investigation by the CBI and the ED was being held in Delhi, the court could not interfere in the matter. Thus, the court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum. 3. [NDPS Act] Investigating Officer's Request For Extension Of Time Not Substitute For Report Of Public Prosecutor: Madras High Court Reiterates Case Title: Shakil Ahamed v The Superintendent of Customs Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 497 While allowing a criminal revision petition and granting statutory bail to a petitioner in a NDPS case, the Madras High Court observed that even if the investigating agency has filed an application seeking an extension of time for completing the investigation, the public prosecutor has to file a separate report, showing that he had applied his mind and was satisfied with the investigation. Even if the application is routed through the Public Prosecutor that will not be sufficient, he is expected to apply his mind independently, while seeking extension of time by the investigating agency Justice G Ilangovan observed. 4. High Court Directs State To Revamp "Archaic" Madras Medical Registration Act, Defers TN Medical Council Polls By 3 Months Case Title: Dr P Balakrishnan v The Tamil Nadu Medical Council and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 498 The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the state to revamp the "archaic" Madras Medical Registration Act, 1914 after it was brought to the court's notice that the old Act was still being used by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council to conduct its elections and appoint office bearers. Justice R Subramaniam directed the State government to revamp the old act within a period of three months and directed the Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC) to defer its elections till that time. In the meantime, the court also directed that the present court order will not have an impact on the working of the present office bearers. The court directed them to continue till new rules are framed by the government. 5. Madras High Court Orders Police Inquiry Against Litigant For Filing False Affidavit In Court Case Title: Karunyam Mission (Trust) rep. by Trustee v. H Ganapathy and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 499 The Madras High Court recently directed the Joint Registrar Original Side to lodge a police complaint against a litigant who had approached the court with false affidavit and other documents. Justice CV Karthikeyan made the above direction after observing that the litigant had created a false death certificate, false legal heirship certificate, false Will with false signatures, all of which...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 - December 11, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags