Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 to October 30, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 441 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 447 NOMINAL INDEX Sahil Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 441 M/s ES Mydeen and Co. v. The Designated Officer and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 442 All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v The Branch Manager, Bank of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 443 RKR. Gold P. Ltd Versus ACIT, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 444 The Union of India v. R.K. Constructions, Arb. O.P. (Com Div) No. 148 of 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 445 Rahul Dinesh Surana v. The Senior Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 446 Tamil Nadu Pondy Plastic Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 447 REPORT 1. Bank Account Cannot Be Frozen By Way Of Summons U/S 91 CrPC: Madras High Court Case Title: Sahil Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 441 The Madras High Court has held that the police have no jurisdiction to freeze bank accounts while issuing summons under Section 91 of CrPC. While issuing such summons, the investigating officer can only summon a person to produce the document or other things. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus observed as under: Thus, it is clear that the first respondent (Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime) has no jurisdiction. In the summons issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., the investigation officer summons the person to produce the document or other things. On the summons issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., account cannot be freezed. 2. Govt's Argument Against Tobacco Is Like Devil Quoting Scripture, When It Has Thousands Of Liquor Outlets Of Its Own: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s ES Mydeen and Co. v. The Designated Officer and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 442 Dealing with the State's argument that consumption of tobacco is causing a serious health hazard and Article 47 of the Constitution imposes a duty on it to improve public health, the Madras High Court said the government's contention would have impressed it had the law been enforced into totality. "Unfortunately, that is not the case. The State has monopolized the privilege of selling liquor. The government of Tamil Nadu is raising huge revenue through liquor sale. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), a wholly government owned company, has thousands of retail outlets throughout the State," said the court Justice G R Swaminathan compared the state's argument on Article 47 against tobacco to "devil quoting the scripture or pot calling the kettle black." 3. High Court Directs Madurai DRO To Take Possession Of Golden Armour For Thevar Jayanthi Celebrations Amid Dispute Between OPS And EPS Factions Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v The Branch Manager, Bank of India and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 443 The Madras High Court has directed the District Revenue Officer (RDO), Madurai to take possession of the 13kg gold armour to be adorned on the statue of late freedom fighter Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar during the Guru Pooja Celebrations of his birth anniversary. The Madurai bench of Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan observed that since there were claims and counter-claims going on between AIADMK factions of O Paneerselvam and Edappadi Palanisamy, it was difficult to operate the locker facility of joint account along with the Pasumpon Thevar Ninaivalayam and receive the golden armour that has been kept in the locker facility of the respondent bank. 4. In The Absence Of A Full And True Disclosure, Reassessment Is Not Barred By Limitation: Madras High Court Case Title: RKR. Gold P. Ltd Versus ACIT Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 444 The Madras High Court has held that the criminal investigation wing is separate and distinct from the assessment wing and that disclosure made before one wing will not exonerate the assessee from the requirement of making a "full and true disclosure" before the assessing officer in an assessment. The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that in the absence of full and true disclosure in the first instance, the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing authority beyond the period of four years is not barred by limitation, and cannot be faulted. 5. Arbitral Tribunal Can Award Interest On Security Deposit If The Clause Prohibiting Such Interest Was Not Specifically Pleaded: Madras High Court Case Title: The Union of India v. R.K. Constructions, Arb. O.P. (Com Div) No. 148 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 445 The Madras High Court has held that the arbitral tribunal can award interest despite there being a contractual prohibition if no pleading as to the prohibition was made by the aggrieved party. The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that a...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 to October 30, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags