Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 29 to February 4, 2024
Upasana Sajeev
4 Feb 2024 9:25 AM GMT
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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 proprietor of concern would alone be considered as the drawer of a cheque when a prosecution has been initiated against the proprietary concern under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that there were two contradictory views on the same issue and thus an authoritative pronouncement was necessary. This was more so since the provision was under criminal law and had to be given a strict interpretation.
Case Title: P Prabhu v Regional Transport Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
The Madras High Court has recently observed that while exercising powers under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Regional Transport Authority cannot pre-judge the guilt of a person charged under a criminal case and seize driving licenses without filing a final report by the police.
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench was dealing with a batch of pleas seeking directions to the Regional Transport Officer to return the driving license seized by the officials following the registration of criminal cases against the petitioners.
The court noted that the authorities could initiate action under S. 19 of the MV Act only based on a report by the Police and thus, merely on the registration of an FIR, the police officer did not have any power to seize the license. The court added that of any action was to be taken, the police had to forward a report to the concerned RTA, who after being satisfied that any of the contingencies as provided in the Act exists, and after giving an opportunity to the license holder, will pass appropriate orders.
Case Title: XXXX v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court recently quashed a sexual harassment case under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The court added that since the accused person had not been identified for 3 years, continuing the proceedings would be a mockery upon womanhood and bring further embarrassment to the woman who would be put to mental agony.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also lamented that in many sexual abuse cases, not many were willing to come to court and fight against the abuse and even if a few came forward to fight, the system was not very friendly. The court added that in many cases, the victim ended up facing a double whammy by suffering sexual abuse and embarrassment in the court. The court also remarked that this was more of a punishment for the victim.
Revenue Authorities Not Empowered To Issue “No Caste, No Religion Certificate”: Madras High Court
Case Title: H Santhosh v The District Collector
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
The Madras High Court recently observed that while a person could choose not to mention his caste and religion in his documents, the revenue authorities were not empowered to issue a “No Caste No Religion Certificate”. The court observed that issuance of such a certificate will be construed as a general declaration and the Revenue Authorities could not do so in the absence of any powers conferred by the Government.
Justice SM Subramaniam added that the Tahsildars could not issue certificates at their whims and fancies and such unguided powers would lead to administrative anarchy and unconstitutionality.
While the court appreciated the man's desire to secure such a certificate, the court noted that the government did not confer any powers on the Tahsildar to issue a certificate of such nature and in the absence of such powers, the court could not issue directions while exercising its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Pay Perform India Private Limited v The Union of India and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court recently held that the Adjudicating Authority under Section 6 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial tribunal merely because the procedures followed by the authority had some “judicial colour” to it.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea challenging the constitutionality of Section 6(2), 6(3)(a)(ii), and 6(5)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.
Thus, the court observed that the adjudicating authority was an original authority exercising the administrative function under the Act. The court thus opined that the adjudicating authority was in place as a check and balance to ensure that the power was not solely exercised by the investigating officer.
Electricity Qualifies As Input For Grant Of CENVAT Credit: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.India Cements Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
The Madras High Court has held that electricity qualifies as an input for the grant of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (CCR).
The Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice R. Vijayakumar have observed that the captive power plant has been set up at substantial cost by the appellant at one of the company locations. The electricity generated has been used as 'input' only within the appellant group of companies, though at different locations. The consumption is in pari materia with the power generation, and there is no inflated claim.
The court held that the electricity generated has been wheeled through the grid, and thus the process of supply to each of the sister units is transparent and in accordance with the terms and procedures under the wheeling agreement entered into with TANGEDCO. Being related parties and units of one company, it is possible for there to be a check on the methodology adopted by the parties for the transfer of the input, the utilization of the 'input' itself, and all other relevant determinants by the department.
Case Title: Flow Link Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
The Madras High Court, while remanding the matter, held that the refund claim has to be examined and determined based on documents pertaining to the availing of ITC as well as the export of products on a zero-rated basis.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that the petitioner/assessee has made the refund claims on time and cannot be faulted for the delayed processing of claims by the department.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Mrs S Sushma & Ors v The Director General of Police and Others
Case No: WP 7284 of 2021 (Gen Crime)
The Madras High Court on Monday commended the Tamil Nadu government's efforts to bring out a policy- the Tamil Nadu Gender and Sexual Minority (LGBTQ+) Policy, for the welfare of the LGBTQ+ community.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that the policy was a testament to the state's continued commitment to inclusivity and empowerment. The court added that the policy had brought a nuanced approach to services, inclusion, and sensitization and would help in creating an enabling environment, encourage voluntary action, and expand the outreach programs.
The Madras High Court on Tuesday asked how Senthil Balaji could continue as a Minister in the state despite being arrested and being in custody for the past 230 days. The court also commented that Balaji's continuation as Minister did not augur well.
Justice Anand Venkatesh made the above comments while hearing the bail plea filed by arrested Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June last year in connection with a money laundering case.
