Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 21 to November 27, 2022
Upasana Sajeev
28 Nov 2022 4:00 AM GMT
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 471 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 479 NOMINAL INDEX M.R.Sivaramakrishnan v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 471 R Prema Latha and others v State and others, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 472 Dr. K Sri Hari Prashanth and another v The Government of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 473 M Muthu v Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad)...
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 471 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
NOMINAL INDEX
M.R.Sivaramakrishnan v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
R Prema Latha and others v State and others, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 472
Dr. K Sri Hari Prashanth and another v The Government of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
M Muthu v Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
Mr.K Varathan v Mr. Prakash Babu Nakundhi Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
P Muthusamy and ors v Mrs P Vennila and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
M Kala and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
Vinoth R v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
Leelavathi and another v. Kamala and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
REPORTS
Case Title: M.R.Sivaramakrishnan v State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
While dismissing a petition to quash the final report with respect to a sexual harassment case on the ground that the harassment did not occur in the public place, the Madras High Court held that harassment of a woman would still be an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.
Even for the sake of argument, if it is understood that in order to punish the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the occurrence ought to have occurred in a public place, still the harassment of a woman is an offence and the accused can be punished under Section 354 IPC. Because, the Court is not precluded to punish the accused for any other lesser offence, if the offence is cognizable in nature, Justice RN Manjula observed.
Case Title: R Prema Latha and others v State and others
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 472
The Madras High Court recently declared as null and void the appointment of 254 assistant professors in colleges managed by Pachaiyappa Trust after it was found that the appointments were tainted with malpractice.
"The Management of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board is directed to terminate the services of all the appointed candidates forthwith," said the court in the judgment dated November 17.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that since it was not possible to segregate the tainted and non-tainted appointments, it was preferable to cancel the entire appointment.
Case Title: Dr. K Sri Hari Prashanth and another v The Government of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
The Madras High Court has asked the State Government to seek a clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the applicability of the Tamil Nadu government notification earmarking 50% of seats in the Government medical colleges to in-service candidates for the academic year 2022-23.
In the meantime, the court gave liberty to the Centre to continue its process of counselling, provided that no final allocation is given to any candidate infringing the 50% reservation for in-service candidates in view of the Government Order.
Case Title: M Muthu v Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
The Madras High Court recently observed that trained Uniformed Personnels, under no circumstances, can be utilised to perform the menial job in the residences of Higher Authorities.
Justice SM Subramaniam remarked that trained Uniformed Personnel are expected to perform the combatant duty and other law and order duties in the interest of public at large. It added that forcing them to perform menial jobs in the name of orderlies is below their dignity.
The bench has therefore directed the Home Ministry to take strict action against higher officials whenever an incident of practicing orderly system is reported. It also directed that apart from taking departmental action, the salary payable to officials engaged as an orderly must be recovered from the errant higher official.
Case Title: Mr.K Varathan v Mr. Prakash Babu Nakundhi Reddy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a suit does not have an "urgent interim relief" it will be hit by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act which bars any commercial suit wherein pre- institution mediation was not carried out.
Justice M Sundar said that 'interim' relief and 'urgent interim' relief are distinct and one cannot escape pre-litigation mediation unless a case for the latter is proved.
The court thus set out certain tests/parameters (illustrative, not exhaustive) to be looked into to see if a relief was an "urgent interim relief":
Case Title: P Muthusamy and ors v Mrs P Vennila and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
Lamenting the casteism still prevailing in the country, the Madras High Court noted that even after 75 years of Independence, the government still has to provide separate burial grounds on communal lines. Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the government should ensure that at least the burial grounds should be made common to all communities.
But even in the Twenty First Century, we are left grappling with casteism and classification based on caste is made even in matters of burial of the dead. This situation has to change and the change should be for the better. We sincerely hope that the Government of the day would come forward to make a beginning by making at least burial grounds and burning grounds common to all communities.
Case Title: M Kala and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
The Madras High Court recently imposed Rs. 35K cost on a litigant for filing false case against Police personnel. Rs. 5 thousand will be paid to each of the seven police officers impleaded in the proceedings.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that there is a recent trend of filing petitions against police officers without any substance and such practice should never be tolerated.
Observing that the present petition was filed almost 5 years ago, the court added that keeping such petitions pending for long years would cause mental agony to the field officers and thus, the courts should ensure that such frivolous cases are disposed of soon.
Case Title: Vinoth R v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the District Collectors of Tenkasi, Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Coimbatore and Ooty to form a committee to curtail illegal diversion of the natural flow of waterfalls by the private resorts, who have created artificial waterfalls at their properties.
"We are of the view that the natural waterfalls which emerge after thousands of years of natural wear, tear, erosion and geomorphological changes, cannot be permitted to be cut and diverted by illegal means to the private resorts/estates/properties by the private persons," said the court.
The Madurai bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad directed the collectors to form a committee in their districts for inspection of the private resorts or estates in question.
Case Title: Leelavathi and another v. Kamala and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court has apologised to four women litigants before it for the insestivity shown to them by a lawyer, by putting humiliating questions to them during cross-examination.
The four women (plaintiffs) were wife and daughters of one VR Mani (deceased) who abandoned them for want of a son and then married defendant no.1 who gave birth to his son, defendant no. 2.
In a property dispute between the two sides, the lawyer appearing for the defendants "very high-handedly" put questions to Mani's first wife, suggesting that she is of loose character and even questioning the paternity of her two daughters. The Court found that the allegations were not backed by any valid material.
Justice Chakravarthy apologized that such an episode took place under the supervision of the Court and assured the three daughters that they are as good as sons.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Kunnur Seenivasan v Union of India and others
Case No: WP(MD) 26168 of 2022
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has sought the response of the Centre on a plea challenging the fixation of 2.5 lakh as the base income for the purpose of collecting Income Tax in light of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing reservation to Economically Weaker Sections of the society with gross annual income below Rs. 7,99,999.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad on Monday ordered notice to the Union Ministries of Law & Justice, Finance Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension and adjourned the matter by 4 weeks.
The Madras High Court has fixed the terms and conditions for the suspension of sentence of Youtuber/Activist Savukku Shankar.
On 15th September 2022, Shankar was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment in a suo moto contempt proceeding for his remarks against the higher judiciary.
Upon the orders of the court, the Registrar directed Shankar to execute a bond for Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties and to appear before the Judicial Magistrate daily at 10:30 am.
During the period of suspension of sentence, Shankar is directed not to make any comments or any other related activities on the Social Media, as directed by the Apex Court. The court also directed Shankar not to indulge in any other activities offending the judiciary.
3. Madras High Court Recalls Order Quashing Sexual Harassment Case Against Godman Shiva Sankar Baba
Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v State
Case No: Crl OP 23806 of 2021
The Madras High Court on Monday recalled its earlier order quashing a sexual harassment case against self-styled godman Shiva Sankar baba.
On October 17, Justice RN Manjula had allowed a quashing petition filed by Baba after observing that no application to condone the delay was filed along with the complaint under Section 473 of CrPC.
On Monday, the bench recalled the order after the State informed the court that a charge sheet had already been filed when the High Court quashed the FIR. The court also remarked that had it known that the charge sheet was already filed, it would not have quashed the FIR.
Case Title: P Elangovan and others v. R Prema Latha and others
Case No: WA 2558 of 2022
A division bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday kept in abeyance a single judge's recent order terminating appointment of 254 Assistant Professors in the colleges maintained by the Pachaiyappa Trust.
The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the order of the single judge was unsustainable and to be kept in abeyance till the final hearing of the appeal.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has moved the Madras High court challenging an earlier order of the court had imposed certain conditions on the party for conducting its route march. The court directed the organization to conduct the proceeding in compounded premises such as Ground or Stadium. The court had also directed the participants not to bring any stick, lathi or weapon that may cause injury to any one.
The appellants submitted that the single judge was not justified in law to defeat the route march which was a constitutional right of the party. The organization contended that the single judge had modified the order in the writ petition to such an extent that the very definition of "route march" was defeated. The judge had failed to consider that the very definition of the word was not attracted if it is done indoors.
The Madras High Court on Thursday sought responses from the Kerala and Karnataka government on its delay to nominate nodal officers to be part of a Special Investigating Team to probe into wildlife offenses.
Earlier this year, the court had directed constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), state police and Forest Department officials to probe into cases relating to elephant poaching and other forest crime reported in the western ghats area. It had noted that poachers were committing crimes in Tamil Nadu and escaping to neighboring states of Karnataka and Kerala.
The bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy directed both the states to submit their responses by December 22.
