Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Weekly

Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: May 16 2022 to May 22 2022

Upasana Sajeev
22 May 2022 4:15 PM GMT
Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: June 20 2022 to June 26 2022
x

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.

Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 213 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 221

NOMINAL INDEX

P.R Srinivasan v. The Commissioner, HR&CE and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 213

G. Sendrayan v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 214 Nandha Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital represented by Chairman v. The Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy and Others & other connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 215

Pranav Srinivasan v. The Government of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 216

Ramasamy Gounder @ Senban (died) v. Chinnapillai @ Nallammal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 217

Prakash A v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 218

Periammal v. Kamalam and others, LiveLaw (Mad) 219

Sanjay Simon and another v. KG Hospital and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 220

Union of India versus J. Auuamar and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 221

REPORTS

1. "State Obligated To Preserve Practices Of All Religions": Madras High Court Holds Emergent Sitting On Sunday Via WhatsApp To Allow Car Festival

Case Title: P.R Srinivasan v. The Commissioner, HR&CE and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 213

The Madras High Court has reiterated that the State has an obligation to provide basic amenities to the pilgrims whenever there is a large gathering of persons during festival times.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarika v. Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee (2018) the court held that it is the bounded duty of the government to make proper arrangements and to sanction amounts without fear of violation of the concept of secularism.

Justice GR Swaminathan held an emergent sitting and heard the case on Sunday, over a Whatsapp Video call from Nagercoil while the lawyers joined the call from Neelankarai and Anna Nagar. It was upon the plea moved by the Hereditary Trustee of the Arulmighu Abheeshta Varadarajaswamy Temple, Papparapatti Agraharam, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District urging that their village will face "divine wrath" if the proposed Rath festival is not held on the given date, i.e., May 16.

2. Successive Govt Can Review Policy Decision Of Erstwhile Govt But Must Avoid Waste Of Resources: Madras High Court

Case Title: G. Sendrayan v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 214

The Madras High Court has held that if a decision taken by an erstwhile Government is good to the public and the society at large, the successive Government can very well continue the project, if it is yet to be completed or half way through, for which further financial support is required.

Justice R Suresh Kumar said,

"If the erstwhile or the previous Government has taken a decision for any project to be undertaken for the welfare of the people, for which heavy amount of Government exchequer has been already spent, while taking a review in respect of those decision, the successive Government must borne in mind that, such kind of huge spending from exchequer shall not be allowed to go a waste."

The Court stated if an elected Government has taken a policy decision, under which, a project is conceived and put into action, when a subsequent Government is elected by a democratic exercise, it is for the successive Government to review such policy decision, based on the policy under which they have given the election manifesto to the people who vote them to power and accordingly, the earlier decision taken by the erstwhile Government can very well be reviewed by the subsequent Government, ofcourse within the parameters or four corners of the Constitution.

3. Medical College Managements Have Right To Fill Up Vacant Seats In Respective Courses De Hors Sponsorship By Selection Committee: Madras High Court

Case Title: Nandha Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital represented by Chairman v. The Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy and Others & other connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 215

The Madras High Court recently upheld the right of the college management to fill up the vacant seats in the respective courses. Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation in a plea challenging the impugned orders of Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University against admissions made by the management of the colleges.

The court relied on Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, where the Apex Court upheld the right of management to admit students. The court had observed that the seats remaining vacant would amount to a "national waste of resources".

4. Entitlement To Resumption Of Citizenship Can't Be Denied To A Child Who Was In Womb At Time Of Renunciation By His Parents: Madras High Court

Case Title: Pranav Srinivasan v. The Government of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 216

The Madras High Court has recently observed that a foetus or embryo acquires the status of a 'minor child' for the purposes of Section 8 of the Indian Citizenship Act and hence, such an embryo acquires the citizenship of its parents.

It added that if the parents of such 'minor' renounce their citizenship while the child is in his mother's womb, the child will be entitled to seek resumption of his Indian citizenship in terms of Section 8(2) of the Act, upon attaining majority.

Justice Anita Sumanth made the observations in a plea challenging an order of the Government of India wherein an application for Resumption of Citizenship under Section 8 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was rejected and the petitioner was asked to apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f) (g) of the Act if he so desires.

5. Mere Joining Of Son In Execution Of Sale Deed Does Not Raise Presumption That Subject Property Is "Family Property": Madras High Court

Case Title: Ramasamy Gounder @ Senban (died) v. Chinnapillai @ Nallammal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 217

The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that merely because a son has been added as a co-vendor in a sale deed would not give rise to the presumption that the property being dealt with is a family property.

The court further held that the burden of proof to prove that the property was a joint family property or was purchased from the surplus income from the ancestral properties was upon the person claiming so. The same shall not be assumed per se and has to be pleaded and proved through evidence.

The court opined merely because a property is described as an ancestral property in the recitals of the document, that by itself is not a conclusive proof as to what is stated therein, more particularly when there are other materials to show that properties concerned are not ancestral properties.

6. "Will Have Serious Impact On The Judicial Institution": Madras High Court Denies Bail To Office Assistant Accused Of Stabbing Judicial Officer

Case Title: Prakash A v. The State represented by Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 218

The Madras High Court on Thursday denied bail to an office assistant who was accused of stabbing a Judicial Officer. Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the issue had to be dealt with utmost seriousness as it had an impact on the institution at large.

The court opined that while granting bail, it was necessary to consider the seriousness of the allegations. Thus, the court was not inclined to grant bail.

However, the court directed the Committal court to commit the matter to the concerned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court was directed to conduct the proceedings on day to day basis and complete the case within a period of six weeks. The court further directed the Sessions Court to decide the case purely on merit and in accordance with law and that the present order should not have any bearing on the outcome of the case.

7. Plaintiff Can Take A Plea Of Adverse Possession In A Suit For Declaration Of Title And For Recovery Of Possession: Madras HC

Case Title: Periammal v. Kamalam and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 219

The Madras High Court has held that there is no bar under the Limitation Act on a plaintiff taking the plea of adverse possession in a suit for declaration of title and for the recovery of possession. Justice Teekaa Raman held that the age-old axiomatic of law that the plaintiff cannot raise the plea of adverse possession and that it can only be a defence of the defendant no longer holds the field.

The court also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others v. Manjit Kaur and others (2019) where the Supreme Court observed as below:

"Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by Plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in the case of infringement of any rights of a Plaintiff."

8. Madras High Court Comes To Aid Of Kidney Patient, Directs Authorisation Committee To Take Immediate Decision On Transplant

Case Title: Sanjay Simon and another v. KG Hospital and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 220

The Madras High Court on Thursday granted relief to a 27 years old kidney patient, who claimed that he is in great pain and the Authorization Committee (Transplantation) has been sitting on his request to permit surgical transplant.

Justice SM Subramaniam directed the Authorisation Committee (Transplantation) to scrutinise the documents of the petitioner and take appropropriate decisions on merits in accordance with law. The Committee was directed to communicate the decision on the same day at about 7:00 pm

9. Arbitral Award Rendered Mechanically, Awarding Lower Value For Land Acquired Under NHA: Madras High Court Remits Matter Back To Arbitrator

Case Title: Union of India versus J. Auuamar and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 221

The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award rendered by the District Collector awarding a lower value to the land owners with respect to the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 without following the mandate of Section 3G (7) of the National Highways Act, is rendered mechanically.

The Bench, consisting of Justices R. Subramanian and N. Sathish Kumar, remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator for fixing the value of the land acquired under the National Highways Act afresh in terms of Section 3G (7) of the National Highways Act.

The Court held that the District Collectors who are nominated as Arbitrators by the Central Government are expected to follow the decisions of the higher Courts while deciding the compensation payable in lieu of the land acquired under the National Highways Act. The Court added that the District Collectors often do not devote the required attention and the arbitral awards are passed by them mechanically without adverting to the relevant provisions of the law.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

1. Madras High Court Constitutes Full Bench To Decide Upon High Court's Jurisdiction To Hear Child Custody Matters On Original Side

The Chief Justice of Madras High Court Munishwar Nath Bhandari has constituted a full bench comprising five judges of the Madras High Court to hear the question pertaining to the High Court's jurisdiction on the original side to make decisions on child custody and guardianship cases, owing to the advent of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The five judges who are part of the full bench are Justice P.N Prakash, Justice R Mahadevan, Justice M Sundar, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, and Justice AA Nakkiran.

2. "Serious Allegations Of Encroachment, Will Cause Inconvenience To Public": Madras High Court Directs District Collector To Conduct Site Inspection

Case Title: G.Karthick v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: W.M.P No. 12421 & 12422 of 2022 in WP No. 12929 of 2022

The Madras High Court has directed the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai to inspect specified areas around Vengikkal Village to ascertain the facts with respect to alleged encroachment of a water culvert connecting the town water channel with the "Nochi Eri" river.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad passed the interim order on a writ petition filed by one G. Karthick who contended that the respondents colluded with government authorities and encroached upon the said public land.

Considering the gravity of the allegation raised by the petitioner and that the fact that encroachment would cause inconvenience to the people at large and may even cause flooding during the monsoon season, the Court deemed it necessary to ascertain whether there was any encroachment. Hence, directions were issued to the District Collector.

3. Madras High Court Keeps In Abeyance Single Judge Order Allowing Two Sects To Chant Recitals In Temple

The Madras High Court on Friday kept in abeyance the order of the Single judge allowing two sects- Thengalai sect and the Vadagalai Sect to chant the initial recital namely Srisaila Dayapathram. at the Devarajaswamy temple in Kancheepuram.

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice G.K Ilanthiraiyan was informed that other cases with respect to disputes between the sects were pending before different benches of the High Court. The court therefore opined that all of these connected matters needed to be heard together and directed the registry to post all the matters after summer vacations.

Also Read: Freedom Of Religion Also Extends To Rites And Ceremonies Associated With A Religion: Madras High Court


Next Story