Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 3 to September 10, 2023

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 260 NOMINAL INDEX V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 Mohammed Hasan Kuthous v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 253 S Ramachandran v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 Dr. L Murugan v Murasoli Trust rep by its Trustee R.S. Bharathi, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 M Jeya v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 A Chinnaponnu v Union of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 257 Senthil Mallar v The Commissioner of Police and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 R Girija v S Ramalingam and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 259 Malaravan v Praveen Travels Private Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 260 REPORT Madras High Court Directs Principal Sessions Court To Hear Senthil Balaji’s Bail Plea, Sets Aside Transfer Of Case To MP/MLA Court Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Principle Sessions Court in Chennai to hear the bail plea moved by Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case. The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that since the offence alleged to have been committed by Balaji was one punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, only a Special Court designated under Section 43(1) of the Act by the Central Government could try the same. Order Allowing Extension Of Remand Is A Final Order, Appealable Under Section 21 NIA Act: Madras High Court Case Title: Mohammed Hasan Kuthous v State Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 253 The Madras High Court has held that an order of trial court allowing an application filed by the prosecution seeking extension of remand of accused is not an interlocutory order but a final order and the same is amenable to appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act. The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel rejected the prosecutor’s argument that an order acceding to prayer for extension of remand is an interlocutory order. Prosecutor argued that while an order rejecting the extension of remand is appealable, an order allowing the same is not appealable. However, the court did not accept this view and referred to the age old adage “Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander too”. ALSO READ: S.43D UAPA | Application For Extension Of Remand Ought Not To Be Heard Without Production Of Accused: Madras High Court Grants Default Bail Senthil Balaji’s Continuation As Minister Without Portfolio Doesn’t Augur Well With Constitutional Principles : Madras High Court Case Title: S Ramachandran v State Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 The Madras High Court on Tuesday left it to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu MK Stalin to take a call on the continuation of Minister Senthil Balaji - who is now under custody in a money laundering case - in the cabinet as a Minister without portfolio. The court added that Balaji’s continuation in the cabinet without a portfolio did not serve any purpose and did not auger well with the purity of administration. Calling it a “constitutional travesty” the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that the founding fathers of the constitution may not have comprehended corrosion of governance to such an extent that a elected member in custody was rewarded with the status of Minister. Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Against Union Minister And Former Tamil Nadu BJP Head L Murugan Case Title: Dr. L Murugan v Murasoli Trust rep by its Trustee R.S. Bharathi Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 The Madras High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a defamation case filed against Union Minister Dr. L Murugan by DMK mouthpiece Murasoli Trust. The court also directed the Special Court to complete the trial within a period of three months. The trust had filed a private complaint against the Minister under Section 499 and Section 500 of the IPC, for the remarks made by him in a press meet. It was alleged that the Minister's statements gave an impression that the Trust was being run on Panchami land (land that is distributed for Dalits in Tamil Nadu). While refusing to quash the proceedings pending before the Special Court, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that in cases of defamation, the statements had to be tested only from the point of view of common prudent man and that the statements put forward by the Minister would be understood as questioning the right and title of the property. Custodial Torture: Madras High Court Directs State To Pay ₹25 Lakh Compensation To Deceased Minor's Parents Case Title: M Jeya v The Principal Secretary and Others ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 3 to September 10, 2023

Upasana Sajeev

Tags