SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Daily Archive: July 5, 2021

Full cooperative order -THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.Nos.12706, 12689, 12905, 12979, 13016, 13260, 13311, 13330, 13185, 13225, 13229, 13238, 13251, 13396,— Senior Counsel for Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram W.P.No.12689 of 2021 : Mr.S.R.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Munusamy W.P.Nos.12979 and 13185/2021 : Mr.M.Baskar W.P.Nos.13780, 13787, 13790, 13794, 13788, 13800, 13803, 13805, 13808, 13810, 13814, 13817, 13820, 13822, 13823, 13827, 13834, 13837, 13840, 13829 : Mr.V.Janarthanan of 2021 For Respondents : Mr.P.Shanmugasundaram Advocate General, assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran, Government Advocate COMMON ORDER — Though the petitioners made allegations against the officials of the respondents with regard to interfering and harassing the petitioners without following due process of law, at this stage, the same cannot be gone into by this Court without placing any supporting materials to substantiate these allegations. 15. The learned counsel for the parties have raised the issue/contention with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions. This Court has not gone into the issue with regard to maintainability of the writ petitioners, in view of the statement made by the first respondent in the Status Report. 16. This Court has recorded above, the submission made by the learned Advocate General, based on the Status Report of the first respondent. It is made clear that if any action taken by the respondents is contrary to the procedures as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and Rules, 1988, it is always open to the elected office bearers of the Societies to agitate the same before the appropriate forum. 17. With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Uncategorized

Full cooperative order -THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.Nos.12706, 12689, 12905, 12979, 13016, 13260, 13311, 13330, 13185, 13225, 13229, 13238, 13251, 13396,— Senior Counsel for Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram W.P.No.12689 of 2021 : Mr.S.R.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Munusamy W.P.Nos.12979 and 13185/2021 : Mr.M.Baskar W.P.Nos.13780, 13787, 13790, 13794, 13788, 13800, 13803, 13805, 13808, 13810, 13814, 13817, 13820, 13822, 13823, 13827, 13834, 13837, 13840, 13829 : Mr.V.Janarthanan of 2021 For Respondents : Mr.P.Shanmugasundaram Advocate General, assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran, Government Advocate COMMON ORDER — Though the petitioners made allegations against the officials of the respondents with regard to interfering and harassing the petitioners without following due process of law, at this stage, the same cannot be gone into by this Court without placing any supporting materials to substantiate these allegations. 15. The learned counsel for the parties have raised the issue/contention with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions. This Court has not gone into the issue with regard to maintainability of the writ petitioners, in view of the statement made by the first respondent in the Status Report. 16. This Court has recorded above, the submission made by the learned Advocate General, based on the Status Report of the first respondent. It is made clear that if any action taken by the respondents is contrary to the procedures as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and Rules, 1988, it is always open to the elected office bearers of the Societies to agitate the same before the appropriate forum. 17. With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.07.2021 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.Nos.12706, 12689, 12905, 12979, 13016, 13260, 13311, 13330, 13185, 13225, 13229, 13238, 13251, 13396, 13509, 13544, 13569, 13684,...

Full order HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD).No.12456 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD).No.9288 of 2019 Jeyarani … Petitioner Vs.——17.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the grevious injuries sustained by the petitioner’s son and after considering the report of the Tahsildar and the Collector, this Court deems it fit to fix a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) payable by the first respondent from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund to the petitioner. This payment shall be made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this order should not be taken as a precedent in all other cases, where such a claim is made and the direction issued by this Court is based on the peculiar facts of the present case, where this Court found that there was no serious dispute in the manner in which the petitioner’s son sustained grevious injuries. 18.In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Uncategorized

Full order HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD).No.12456 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD).No.9288 of 2019 Jeyarani … Petitioner Vs.——17.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the grevious injuries sustained by the petitioner’s son and after considering the report of the Tahsildar and the Collector, this Court deems it fit to fix a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) payable by the first respondent from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund to the petitioner. This payment shall be made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this order should not be taken as a precedent in all other cases, where such a claim is made and the direction issued by this Court is based on the peculiar facts of the present case, where this Court found that there was no serious dispute in the manner in which the petitioner’s son sustained grevious injuries. 18.In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.07.2021 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD).No.12456 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD).No.9288 of 2019 Jeyarani … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Secretary / The...

Full order THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.16686, 16758, 16689, 16692, 16693, 16695, 16698, 16710, 16716, 16719, 16760 and 16764 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.20690, 20691, 20730, 20733, 20774, 20775, 20701, 20703, 20713, 20721, 20728, 20693, 20685, 20694, 20695, 20737, 20768, 20770, 20771, 20772, 20687, 20696, 20698 & 20699 of 2020 W.P.No.16686 of 2020 Karti P.Chidambaram petner# the actions in this regard, he has to defend his case before the competent authority in the manner known to law. Such an adjudication with reference to the transactions, seizure and impounded materials cannot be undertaken by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the assessee to defend his case before the competent authority by submitting the documents and evidences and establish his case both based on the provisions of the Act and on facts. At the stage of Show Cause Notice, High Court would not enter into the venture of conducting an adjudication of disputed facts. It is the duty of the fact finding authority to adjudicate the facts and arrive a conclusion. Under these circumstances, the ground of legal malice is not established by the petitioners, so as to set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice. This Court has considered the procedures contemplated under the Act. However, the disputed facts are to be adjudicated. 127. In this regard, the purpose of Section 153C, the proceedings under which shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A of the Act, the date of initiation of search shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person, as per the first proviso to Section 153C of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner is the “such other person”. The “Satisfaction Note” along with the relevant materials from the Assessing Officer of M/s.Agni Estates and Foundations Private Limited was received on 28.11.2019 by the third respondent under Section 153C of the Act as the Assessing Officer of the petitioner assessee / other person. 128. The date of search for the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act in the present case, is 28.11.2019, on which date, the reopening proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was pending. Thus, the said proceedings stood abated on initiation of assessment / reassessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Act on 16.12.2019. Under these circumstances, it cannot be construed as a lapse. It stood abated pursuant to the Proviso clause to Section 153C of the Act. Thus, the ground of legal malice is not established by the petitioners. 129. All these writ petitions are filed, challenging the Show Cause Notices issued under Section 153C of the Act. The procedures for assessment / reassessment are yet to commence. The petitioners are expected to avail the opportunity and defend their case in the manner known to law. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinize the processes and procedures through which a decision is arrived in consonance with the provisions of the Statutes by the competent authority, but not the decision itself. In the present case, the authority competent must be allowed to scrutinize the searched and impounded materials and provide an opportunity to the assessee to defend their case. Such an adjudicatory process alone would provide justice to the parties to the lis and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere at the stage of ‘show cause notice’ as far as the present writ petitions are concerned. The factual controversies and intricacies involved are to be adjudicated elaborately for the purpose of culling out the truth and such an adjudication is the dictum of law and thus, this Court has opined that interference at this stage would cause prejudice to the due process of law to be undertaken by the authorities. Thus, the respondents are directed to proceed with the assessment / reassessment by following the procedures as contemplated and by affording opportunity to the petitioners and complete the same as expeditiously as possible. 130. In result, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 05.07.2021 Kak Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking order To 1.The Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Income Tax Investigation Wing Building,

Uncategorized

Full order THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.16686, 16758, 16689, 16692, 16693, 16695, 16698, 16710, 16716, 16719, 16760 and 16764 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.20690, 20691, 20730, 20733, 20774, 20775, 20701, 20703, 20713, 20721, 20728, 20693, 20685, 20694, 20695, 20737, 20768, 20770, 20771, 20772, 20687, 20696, 20698 & 20699 of 2020 W.P.No.16686 of 2020 Karti P.Chidambaram petner# the actions in this regard, he has to defend his case before the competent authority in the manner known to law. Such an adjudication with reference to the transactions, seizure and impounded materials cannot be undertaken by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the assessee to defend his case before the competent authority by submitting the documents and evidences and establish his case both based on the provisions of the Act and on facts. At the stage of Show Cause Notice, High Court would not enter into the venture of conducting an adjudication of disputed facts. It is the duty of the fact finding authority to adjudicate the facts and arrive a conclusion. Under these circumstances, the ground of legal malice is not established by the petitioners, so as to set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice. This Court has considered the procedures contemplated under the Act. However, the disputed facts are to be adjudicated. 127. In this regard, the purpose of Section 153C, the proceedings under which shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A of the Act, the date of initiation of search shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person, as per the first proviso to Section 153C of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner is the “such other person”. The “Satisfaction Note” along with the relevant materials from the Assessing Officer of M/s.Agni Estates and Foundations Private Limited was received on 28.11.2019 by the third respondent under Section 153C of the Act as the Assessing Officer of the petitioner assessee / other person. 128. The date of search for the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act in the present case, is 28.11.2019, on which date, the reopening proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was pending. Thus, the said proceedings stood abated on initiation of assessment / reassessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Act on 16.12.2019. Under these circumstances, it cannot be construed as a lapse. It stood abated pursuant to the Proviso clause to Section 153C of the Act. Thus, the ground of legal malice is not established by the petitioners. 129. All these writ petitions are filed, challenging the Show Cause Notices issued under Section 153C of the Act. The procedures for assessment / reassessment are yet to commence. The petitioners are expected to avail the opportunity and defend their case in the manner known to law. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinize the processes and procedures through which a decision is arrived in consonance with the provisions of the Statutes by the competent authority, but not the decision itself. In the present case, the authority competent must be allowed to scrutinize the searched and impounded materials and provide an opportunity to the assessee to defend their case. Such an adjudicatory process alone would provide justice to the parties to the lis and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere at the stage of ‘show cause notice’ as far as the present writ petitions are concerned. The factual controversies and intricacies involved are to be adjudicated elaborately for the purpose of culling out the truth and such an adjudication is the dictum of law and thus, this Court has opined that interference at this stage would cause prejudice to the due process of law to be undertaken by the authorities. Thus, the respondents are directed to proceed with the assessment / reassessment by following the procedures as contemplated and by affording opportunity to the petitioners and complete the same as expeditiously as possible. 130. In result, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 05.07.2021 Kak Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking order To 1.The Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Income Tax Investigation Wing Building,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.07.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.16686, 16758, 16689, 16692, 16693, 16695, 16698, 16710, 16716, 16719, 16760 and 16764 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.20690, 20691,...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) W.M.P.No. of 2021 IN W.P.No. 13384 of 2021 Suba.Veerapandian advocate arul.moli mam –I submit that the speculation of an interested party to a litigation cannot create a ground for Public Interest Litigation. The fact that there is a large number of students in rural areas and sub-urban localities who are not opting for Science Groups in Higher Secondary Level and the number of students dropping out without writing NEET exam after filing applications are also a matter for concern of the state. Further, the lower middle class children especially the women students are not enjoying the luxury of staying at home for 2 or 3 years to make consecutive attempts to write the NEET and secure admission. These adversities are not limited to the points mentioned above alone. Even assuming that state decides to submit a review application to reconsider the decision dated 29.04.2020 made in CMC, Vellore Vs Union Of India, the state needs a data collected by a competent Committee. Hence constituting a committee to examine effects of NEET cannot be considered as an effort to thwart the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Uncategorized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) W.M.P.No. of 2021 IN W.P.No. 13384 of 2021 Suba.Veerapandian advocate arul.moli mam –I submit that the speculation of an interested party to a litigation cannot create a ground for Public Interest Litigation. The fact that there is a large number of students in rural areas and sub-urban localities who are not opting for Science Groups in Higher Secondary Level and the number of students dropping out without writing NEET exam after filing applications are also a matter for concern of the state. Further, the lower middle class children especially the women students are not enjoying the luxury of staying at home for 2 or 3 years to make consecutive attempts to write the NEET and secure admission. These adversities are not limited to the points mentioned above alone. Even assuming that state decides to submit a review application to reconsider the decision dated 29.04.2020 made in CMC, Vellore Vs Union Of India, the state needs a data collected by a competent Committee. Hence constituting a committee to examine effects of NEET cannot be considered as an effort to thwart the judgment of the Supreme Court.

https://youtu.be/v4f06jbwXUk CLEAN COPY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) W.M.P.No. of 2021 IN W.P.No. 13384 of 2021 Suba.Veerapandian Aged 70 years S/o. Visalatchi Ramasubbaiya No. 28, SBS Colony, Alwar...

Sekarreporter: நீட் வழக்கு திருமாவளன் சார்பாக வக்கீல் தீபிகா மனு [7/5, 11:37] Sekarreporter: Page No.1 No.of Corrections: Nil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.M.P. in of 2021 in W.P. No.13384 of 2021 Dr.Thol Thirumavalavan, aged about 56 years,

Uncategorized

Sekarreporter: நீட் வழக்கு திருமாவளன் சார்பாக வக்கீல் தீபிகா மனு [7/5, 11:37] Sekarreporter: Page No.1 No.of Corrections: Nil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.M.P. in of 2021 in W.P. No.13384 of 2021 Dr.Thol Thirumavalavan, aged about 56 years,

[7/5, 11:36] Sekarreporter: நீட் வழக்கு திருமாவளன் சார்பாக வக்கீல் தீபிகா மனு [7/5, 11:37] Sekarreporter: Page No.1 No.of Corrections: Nil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.M.P. in of 2021 in...

[7/5, 08:13] Sekarreporter: Madras HC quashes punishment of cop for escape of accused – http://toi.in/Rp0iaZ16/a31gj Use the TOI app to get Breaking news and headlines. Download now: https://timesofindia.onelink.me/efRt/ASmwebshare [7/5, 08:13] Sekarreporter: ..

Uncategorized

[7/5, 08:13] Sekarreporter: Madras HC quashes punishment of cop for escape of accused – http://toi.in/Rp0iaZ16/a31gj Use the TOI app to get Breaking news and headlines. Download now: https://timesofindia.onelink.me/efRt/ASmwebshare [7/5, 08:13] Sekarreporter: ..

[7/5, 08:13] Sekarreporter: Madras HC quashes punishment of cop for escape of accused – http://toi.in/Rp0iaZ16/a31gj Use the TOI app to get Breaking news and headlines. Download now: https://timesofindia.onelink.me/efRt/ASmwebshare [7/5, 08:13] Sekarreporter: ..

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com