Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 14 to November 20, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 461 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 470 NOMINAL INDEX Kirankumar Moolchand Jain versus TransUnion CIBIL Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 461 Sunitha v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 462 S Rajarethinam (Deceased) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 463 M/s. Polyhose India Private Limited versus The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 464 M/s. Deetech Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 465 S Muthumalai Rani v The Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 466 Arul Daniel v Suganya and other connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 467 S Jagathrakshakan v The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 468 V Senthil Balaji v Nirmal Kumar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 469 Viacom18 Media Private Limited v Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 470 REPORT 1. Section 31 Of The Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 Does Not Bar Constitution Of An Arbitral Tribunal: Madras High Court Case Title: Kirankumar Moolchand Jain versus TransUnion CIBIL Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 461 The Madras High Court has ruled that the bar contained under Section 31 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (CIC Act) will not apply to proceedings for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, to resolve the disputes in the manner prescribed under the CIC Act. The Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the object and purpose of Section 31 of the CIC Act is to preclude the parties from seeking redressal of grievances in any manner other than that prescribed under the CIC Act. It added that since Section 18 of the CIC Act provides for dispute resolution through arbitration, the provisions of Section 31 would not bar the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. 2. Tamil Nadu Govt Misusing Preventive Detention Laws, Will Order State To Pay Compensation Whenever Detention Is Found Frivolous: Madras High Court Case Title: Sunitha v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 462 Expressing shock over Tamil Nadu government's abuse of preventive detention laws, the Madras High Court has said that it will impose costs on the State whenever a preventive detention order is found to be illegal. The division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh gave the ruling in two habeas corpus petitions filed by relatives of the detenues under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. The court held that callous indifference towards the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution clearly constituted a "Constitutional Tort". It added that such detention orders, which are passed ignoring the law, only to be set aside, clearly shows the State's refusal to follow the law. 3. DK Basu Guidelines Violated: Madras HC Initiates Suo Moto Contempt Proceedings Against DGP & Other Police Officials Over Lawyer's Arrest In 2017 Case Title: S Rajarethinam (Deceased) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 463 The Madras High Court on Monday initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the Director General of Police and other police officials for prima facie flouting the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in DK Basu's case, while arresting a lawyer in 2017. Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the report of the Magistrate concerned revealed about the excessiveness of the police and an act of violation allegedly committed by them. It observed that the police officials are expected to understand the scope of fundamental rights enumerated under Articles 14,16,19 and 21 of the Constitution while initiating action against any individuals. The bench also expressed dismay over the long delay in concluding the disciplinary action that was initiated against the errant officials. The court was satisfied that the procedures as contemplated under DK Basu were not followed. In light of the such matter, the thought it fit to initiate suo moto contempt proceedings against the officials. 4. DGFT Cannot Amend Foreign Trade Policy; Can't Restrict The Benefit Of SHIS Scheme: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Polyhose India Private Limited versus The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 464 The Madras High Court has ruled that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), in exercise of its power to clarify the doubts regarding the...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 14 to November 20, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags