Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 21 to November 27, 2022

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 1. Harassment Of Women Would Still Be An Offence Even If Not Committed In Public Place: Madras High Court 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. 2. 'Difficult To Segregate Tainted & Untainted': Madras High Court Orders Termination Of 254 Assistant Professors In Pachaiyappa Colleges 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. 3. Madras HC Asks State To Approach SC For Clarification On 50% Reservation For In-Service Candidates In Super Speciality Courses 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. 4. Uniformed Personnel Expected To Perform Combatant Duty, Menial Jobs Below Their Dignity: Madras HC On Orderly System 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. 5. Madras HC Illustrates Parameters To Determine What Is 'Urgent Interim Relief' To Avoid Pre-Institution Mediation U/S 12A Commercial Courts Act 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' ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 21 to November 27, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags