Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 11 to March 17, 2024

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 NOMINAL INDEX M/s.Saravana Selvarathnam Retails Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101 The State v Muneeswaran and Others, 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 102 R Manibhyarathi v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 103 The Director General and Others v Narender Chauhan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 104 Suganya Jebi Sarojini v The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 105 V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 106 Taeyang Metal India Private Limited vs DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 107 The Ramco Cements Limited vs ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 108 A Aashifa Begum v Khader Beevi and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 109 M/s.Sabari Alloys & Metals India Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 110 R Rajamani v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 111 Seva Bharathi TamilNadu v Surendar @ Naathikan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 112 J Ramesh Kumar v Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 113 Ankit Tiwari v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 REPORT CBDT's Digital Evidence Investigation Manual Is Mandatory For Income Tax Dept. While Conducting Searches, Seizing Electronic Evidence: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.Saravana Selvarathnam Retails Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101 The Madras High Court has held that it is mandatory for the income tax department to follow the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) while conducting searches and seizing electronic evidence. The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the electronic data has been collected in.txt files in violation of the provisions of the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual. Though the procedures have not been followed while collecting the electronic data in.txt files, the data collected by the respondents can be relied upon only if the said data are supported by the corroborative evidence. Magistrate Cannot Entertain Voluntary Surrender Of Accused When There Is No Jurisdiction To Try The Case: Madras High Court Case Title: The State v Muneeswaran and Others Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Mad) 102 The Madras High Court has directed the Judicial Magistrates to not accept the voluntary surrender petitions of accused persons when the Magistrate court does not have jurisdiction to try the case. The court made it clear that as per Section 167 of CrPC an accused had to be “forwarded” to the Magistrate by the police and only then the court could entertain a surrender petition filed by the accused. Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that remand report and case diary are jurisdictional conditions for authorising detention under Section 167(2) as it allows the Magistrate to apply his mind anad effectively determine whether a case for remand is made out. Thus, in the court's opinion, when an accused voluntarily surrenders, the remand, based on only the FIR copy is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. “Water Bodies Can't Be Obliterated In Name Of Public Interest”: Madras HC Directs State To Open Website With Details Of Waterbodies Across TN Case Title: R Manibhyarathi v Union of India and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 103 While emphasizing the need to protect the fast-disappearing water bodies in the state of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court has directed the State government to open a dedicated website containing the details of all water bodies across the state, including their survey number, physical location, details of village, taluk, etc. The Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi observed that water bodies belonged to the society and though their ownership technically existed with the government, it also belonged to other living beings and thus it was the duty of the officials to ensure that the quality of water was not affected in any manner. The court also made it clear that water bodies could not be obliterated in the name of public interest. Reacting With 'Thumbs Up' Emoji To WhatsApp Message Informing Of Murder Does Not Amount To Celebrating The Murder: Madras High Court Case Title: The Director General and Others v Narender Chauhan Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 104 The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of a single judge reinstating a police constable into the service who was dismissed from service for reacting with a “thumbs up” emoji to a message about the brutal murder of a superior officer. The Madurai bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the thumbs-up signal was also an alternative for the word “OK” and sharing the same could not be considered as celebrating the brutal murder. ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 11 to March 17, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags