Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 29 to February 4, 2024

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 45 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 NOMINAL INDEX A.Kaliyaperumal v. The Superintendent of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 45 S Paulraj v The Principal District Judge and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 46 D Senthilkumar v Government of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 47 Annadurai v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 48 Vikas Chudiwala v R Ravinder Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 49 P Prabhu v Regional Transport Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 50 XXXX v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 51 H Santhosh v The District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 Pay Perform India Private Limited v The Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 M/s.India Cements Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 54 Flow Link Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 REPORT S.468 CrPC | Reckoning Date For Limitation Is The Date Of Filing Final Report, Not Registration Of FIR: Madras High Court Case Title: A.Kaliyaperumal v. The Superintendent of Police Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 45 The Madras High Court has recently held that the reckoning date for calculating the limitation period under Section 469 of CrPC would be from the date of filing of the final report and not the date of registration of FIR. Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that in a case emanating from the FIR, cognizance is taken by the Magistrate upon the filing of the final report. The court added that the basis of the FIR is only information received by the police authorities and not a “complaint” of which cognizance is taken. [Missing Court Documents] Madras HC Refuses To Interfere With Disciplinary Authority's Order Against Head Clerk, Calls It Grave Misconduct Case Title: S Paulraj v The Principal District Judge and Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 46 The Madras High Court recently refused to quash the punishment imposed on the Head Clerk of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur in connection with the missing of two plaints and pro-notes in plaints. The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice R Vijayakumar held that the order of imposing a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was not in any way disproportionate to the misconduct and gross dereliction of duty committed by the Head Clerk. The court added that the Head Clerk, who was in charge of the custody of the documents had committed grave misconduct and even chose not to bring the matter to the notice of the Presiding Officer. Palani Temple Not A Picnic Spot, Cannot Allow Entry Of Non-Hindus Beyond Flagpole: Madras High Court Case Title: D Senthilkumar v Government of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 47 While directing the state government to install boards indicating that non-Hindus are not permitted entry into the Palani temple beyond the flag pole situated at the entrance of the temple, the Madras High Court today emphasized that temples are not covered under Article 15 of the Constitution and hence restriction of entry for non-Hindus could not be said to be improper. The court also directed the authorities to maintain the temple as per Agamas, customs and practices. The court said temples are not tourist spots and even if one wanted to admire the architecture of the temple, entry should be restricted to the “kodimaram” or flag pole situated at the entrance of the temple. MMDR Act | Special Court Cannot Take Cognisance Of Offence, Application For Releasing Vehicle Will Lie Before Magistrate: Madras High Court Case Title: Annadurai v The Inspector of Police Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 48 The Madras High Court recently observed that the court competent to initiate confiscation proceedings and issue directions for disposal of seized materials with respect to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act is the Magistrate Court, which is the court competent to take cognisance of the offence. Justice Anand Venkatesh thus took a different view than what had been laid down by the full bench of the Madras High Court last year. The court noted that under the Mines and Minerals Act, the Special courts were established for speedy disposal of the cases but these courts could not take cognisance of an offence without an order of committal. This was because under Section 30-C of the Act, a Special court was deemed to be a court of session and as per Section 193 CrPC, a Sessions Court was barred from directly taking cognizance. S. 138 NI Act | Whether Authorised Signatory Will Be Liable Along With Proprietor When Proceedings Are Initiated? Madras HC Refers To Division Bench Case Title: Vikas Chudiwala v R Ravinder Kumar Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 49 The Madras High Court has referred to a division bench the question of whether the...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 29 to February 4, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags