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

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. 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 REPORTS1. Past Service Not Forfeited For Calculation Of Pensionary Benefits If Subsequent Govt Job Is Taken With Permission From Competent Authority: Madras HCCase 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 CourtCase 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...

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

Upasana Sajeev

Tags