Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 13 to February 19, 2023

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 50 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 NOMINAL INDEX Flora Madiazagane v GG Hospital and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 50 Tvl Metal Trade Incorporation Versus The Special Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 51 The Federal Bank Ltd. V The Sub Registrar and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 G Devarajan v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 V Kamala v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 54 Venkatesan @ Venkatesh v. State and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 Hina Suneet Sharma & Anr. versus M/s Nissan Renault Financial Services India Pvt Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 REPORT Botched Up Surgery: Madras High Court Directs Infertility Treatment Hospital To Pay ₹40 Lakh Compensation To Srilankan Woman Case Title: Flora Madiazagane v GG Hospital and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 50 The Madras High Court recently directed a private infertility treatment hospital to compensate a Srilankan woman after a botched up surgery left her permanently disabled. Justice G Chandrasekharan noted that the doctors and the hospital knew about the medical history of the woman and yet continued with the surgery with no proper precaution to avoid damage. The woman was left with a perforated colon and permanent disabilities following her surgery. State GST Authority Can’t Prosecute If The Central Authority Has Already Initiated Action: Madras High Court Case Title: Tvl Metal Trade Incorporation Versus The Special Secretary Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 51 The Madras High Court has held that the State Authority cannot prosecute the petitioner once again as the Central Authority has already initiated action against the petitioner in respect of the very same subject matter. The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has observed that the petitioner will have to participate in the personal hearing and state all his objections with regard to the action launched by the State Authority under the TNGST Act, 2017. Unless and until the petitioner participates in the impugned proceedings, viz., the summons dated October 18, 2022, the truth cannot be unearthed with regard to the petitioner's contentions. Rule Empowering Registrar To Refuse Registration Of Property Under Mortgage, Attachment Beyond Scope Of Parent Act: Madras High Court Case Title: The Federal Bank Ltd. V The Sub Registrar and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 The Madras High Court has held that the proviso to Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules is invalid and unconstitutional as it goes against the scope of its parent act – the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the authorities under the Registration Act did not have such powers to make rules which directly went against the objectives of the parent acts such as the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. Madras High Court Asks State To Continue Monitoring Movie Ticket Prices Case Title: G Devarajan v. The Chief Secretary and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 The Madras High Court has directed the State government to continue its measures to monitor the amount of fees charged by way of movie tickets in cinema theatres . Justice Anita Sumanth was dealing with three writ petitions which had been filed seeking action against theatre owners for charging more than the actual ticket rate fixed by the government for three movies- Kabali, Singam III and Bairavaa. The court also directed the State to take a decision on dealing with the excess charges already collected by the theatres. 'Adjourned More Than 50 Times, Witnesses Are Senior Citizens': Madras High Court Expedites Trial In 2013 Murder Of BJP Leader Ramesh Case Title: V Kamala v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 54 The Madras High Court has directed the Sessions Court for the exclusive trial of bomb blast/NIA cases, Poonamalle to complete the trial in the 2013 auditor Ramesh murder case within two months. Justice RN Manjula noted that even though charges were framed in 2014, the case was pending for all these years. The court also expressed anguish over the fact that the case had been adjourned more than fifty times for counseling. The court added that even if the counseling was to be given to the victims, the same should not have affected the trial. [Sample Analysis] Unless Mandatory Time Limits Prescribed In Concerned Statutes Are Complied, Test Results Will Be Unreliable: Madras High Court Case Title: Venkatesan @ Venkatesh v. State and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 While quashing proceedings initiated against a man under Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 and...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 13 to February 19, 2023

Upasana Sajeev

Tags