Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: May 2 2022 to May 8 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 205 NOMINAL INDEX Agavai (Name Changed) v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 Case Title: M.Ani v. The Government of Tamilnadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 193 Hema Jwaalini and others v. The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 194 Nakshatra Bind A.K v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 195 The Project Director (LA), NHAI versus T. Palanisamy and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 196 The Deputy Superintendent of Police v. The Deputy Director Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 197 Mrs. Noorjahan Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 198 Suresh Rajan v. The State rep. by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 199 Thirumalai and Others v. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 200 Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College & Hospital v. The Government of Puducherry and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 201 M/s.Srinivasa Stampings Versus The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 202 Lakshmi Ammal and Others v. Gejaraj (died) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 203 Mrs. Noorjahan versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and M/s. AMK Solutions Private Ltd. & Ors. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 204 Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot Versus The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 205 1. Juvenile Offenders Are Often "Victims" Of Society: Madras High Court Endorses Reformative Approach Under JJ Act, Quashes Detention Order Case Title: Agavai (Name Changed) v. The State represented by Inspector of Police Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 The Madras High Court set aside the detention order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Thiruvallur against a 15 years old child in conflict with law, observing that the order was passed in a hasty manner without going into the genuineness of the matter. Justice AD Jagadish Chandra also observed that a child offender should not be given punishment based on the kind of offense he/she has committed but should be given an individual treatment that is reformative in nature and which is based on his/her need, psychological and social background. The court also opined that the parents, teachers, schools, community, and law enforcement agencies need to understand, prevent and reduce risk factors that may push children towards adopting behaviors that may harm them. The court further observed that no child is born criminal and it is his/her social factors that make them do acts against the law. 2. TET Not Mandatory For Teachers In Minority Institutions: Madras High Court ReiteratesCase Title: M.Ani v. The Government of Tamilnadu and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 193 The Madras High Court has reiterated that TET qualification cannot be made applicable to minority institutions. The bench of Justice V Parthiban further confirmed the legal position that the prescription of TET qualification in terms of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was not applicable to minority institutions. In light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pramti Educational and Cultural Trust and Ors. v. Union of India and ors. (2014), the court ordered the educational institutions to grant appropriate annual increment and medical benefits to the petitioner teacher and refund of any amount recovered from the teacher merely on the ground that she has not cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).3. Procedure For Search Under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act Is Directory & Not Mandatory: Madras High CourtCase Title: Hema Jwaalini and others v. The Commissioner of Police and Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 194 The Madras High Court recently dismissed a criminal petition filed challenging the action taken by Police Authorities against the owners and manager of Willow & Spa and charging them under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), and 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira observed that the petition did not have any merits as the petitioners had suppressed material facts and had merely claimed that the respondent police had fabricated the case due to a cold war existing between them. With respect to the search procedure to be followed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the court held that the procedures were directory and not mandatory and a mere violation of the same will not vitiate the entire proceedings.4. Specific Marks Can't Be Awarded To Students When Exams Not Conducted Due To Covid-19:Madras High Court Upholds State Board's DecisionCase Title: Nakshatra Bind A.K v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad)...

Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: May 2 2022 to May 8 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags