Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 23 2022 To May 29, 2022

Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 222 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 227

NOMINAL INDEX

1. S.S.S Prahalathan v. The Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 222

2. The Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co Ltd v. Kathamuthu and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 223

3. Amutha v. The Additional Principal Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 224

4. Ganapathy and others v. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 225

5. C Shamilakumari v P Chandrasekar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 226

6. M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another with connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 227

REPORTS

1. Past Service Not Forfeited For Calculation Of Pensionary Benefits If Subsequent Govt Job Is Taken With Permission From Competent Authority: Madras HC

Case Title: S.S.S Prahalathan v. The Secretary and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 222

The Madras High Court bench of Justice SM Subramaniam has held that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted with proper permission to take up another Government appointment, where service qualifies. In such circumstances, the period of service in the previous employment shall be taken into consideration for calculating the pension benefits under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

The court agreed with the submission of the petitioner and was satisfied that the petitioner had obtained proper permission as contemplated under the Rules. The Board was aware that the petitioner had obtained permission and participated in the process of selection. Therefore, the resignation cannot be considered as an independent resignation and it is to be considered as consequential to the permission granted by the TWAD Board. Thus, it would not attract forfeiture of services under Rule 23, but falls under proviso to Rule 23(1) of the Rules.

2. Amount Paid By Insurance Company Under Mediclaim Policy Deductible From Compensation In Motor Accident Claim: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co Ltd v. Kathamuthu and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 223

The Madras High Court has held that the compensation for medical expenses is a matter of reimbursement and hence once the insurance company has chosen to compensate the victim of road accident for medical expenses, the same cannot be once again claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The bench of Justice Teeka Raman thus held that the amount paid to the hospital directly by the insurance company under a medical policy coverage shall be deducted by the Motor Accident Tribunal while calculating the compensation to the injured.

The court observed that what has not been paid by the original petitioner to the hospital cannot be granted as compensation in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the court deducted the amount already paid by the insurance company and directed the appellant company to pay the remaining along with compensation for disability, pain and suffering, permanent disability loss of income etc together with an interest of 7.5% per annum

3. Must Discourage The Trend Of Filing Writ Petitions Against Public Officials Without Following Due Procedure: Madras High Court

Case Title: Amutha v. The Additional Principal Secretary and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 224

The Madras High Court has expressed concern over the growing "trend" of filing writ petitions in High Court against the public officials, more specifically, Police officials, whenever a criminal case is registered against some persons.

A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed that this trend should not be encouraged and whenever any litigant faces ill-treatment in a Police Station, a representation should first be made to the Higher Officials. The Higher Officials shall accept the representation if there are grounds and shall conduct an enquiry.

4. Bar Associations Cannot Pass Resolutions Against Representing A Person, Shall Amount To Violation Of Constitution: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ganapathy and others v. State represented by Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 225

Condemning the act of the Karaikudi Bar Association in passing a resolution stating that no one shall represent certain accused in a case, Justice K Murali Shankar of the Madras High Court held that such a resolution is illegal; and null and void and the same shall have no force of law. Even in instances where there has been an attack on advocates, the same should be condemned sternly and the attackers should be dealt with with iron hands. But even so, the bar association is not expected to pass such resolutions, violating the constitution and the law of the and declared by the Supreme Court.

The court observed that such resolutions are against professional ethics. Whenever a client was ready to pay the fee, if the lawyer was not engaged otherwise, it was his professional duty to not refuse a brief. It is against the great traditions of the Bar which has always stood up for defending persons accused of a crime. Such a resolution is, in fact, a disgrace to the legal community.

5. Delay In Deciding Custody Cases May Prolong Harassment Of Minor Children: Madras High Court

Case Title: C Shamilakumari v P Chandrasekar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 226

The Madras High Court has observed that while dealing with matters relating to custody of minor children under the Guardians and Wards Act, the Courts have a duty to ensure that minor children are protected and their interests, vision and wishes are preserved to the maximum possible extent, giving them a better life.

A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and Sathya Narayana Prasad observed that matters of custody of minor children have to be decided expeditiously by the courts. If the decision of the court is delayed, it may lead to prolonged harassment of the minor children.

The court also observed that today's younger generation is wise and intelligent and can assess human behaviors. Hence, when the children are left in a lurch by the father and mother, the minor children have to be enquired and the veracity of the statement made by them has to be assessed in a proper manner to arrive at a conclusion in the interest of children.

6. Madras High Court Upholds Validity Of Section 6 Of The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006

Case Title: M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another with connected cases.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 227

The Madras High Court recently upheld the validity of amendments made to Section 6 of The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The court observed that in matters relating to tax, the interest of the State must be considered as against the interest of certain individuals. The court also discussed the power of the legislature in taking decisions with respect to tax

"The hardship that is caused to individuals seldom matters as validity of any fiscal enactment ought to be tested on the basis of generality of its operation and not on the basis of few individual cases"

Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq also held that the assessment orders made under the Act could not be challenged in the writ petitions and should be challenged through the remedy of appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax act 2006.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

1. Relief For Kamal Haasan Starrer "Vikram": Madras High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Unauthorised Screening By 1.3K Websites

Case Title: Raaj Kamal Films International v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and others

Case No: OA 295 of 2022 in CS (Comm Div) 100/2022

Justice C Saravanan of the Madras High Court on Thursday granted an interim injunction restraining a series of Internet Service Providers and over 1,300 websites from unauthorizedly displaying or exhibiting the upcoming cinematographic film "Vikram", directed by Lokesh Kanagaraj and starring Kamal Haasan, Vijay Sethupathi, and Fahadh Faasil among others.

The film is set to hit the theatres on June 3.

The petition was filed by Raaj Kamal Films International, who are the producers of the film, seeking an interim injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from infringing the copyrighted cinematographic work.