Tag: Madras High Court

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements

The Supreme Court ruled that naming government welfare schemes after political leaders is not prohibited by law. It clarified that the Common Cause judgments primarily regulate the use of photographs in government advertisements, not the naming of schemes themselves, thereby setting aside the interim order of the High Court. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tamil Nadu government launched a welfare initiative named the "Ungaludan Stalin" (Your's Stalin) scheme. Its stated objective was to bridge the gap between citizens and existing government programs by organizing camps and dispatching volunteers to help people understand and access their entitled benefits. An opposition Member of Parliament filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging the scheme's name and ass...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher

The Supreme Court modified the contributory negligence apportionment to 20% on the claimant, 50% on the car driver, and 30% on the bus driver. It enhanced compensation by revising the notional income calculation for an engineering student and reinstated attendant charges, emphasizing just compensation for 100% disability. Facts Of The Case: On January 7, 2017, the appellant, a 20-year-old engineering student, was riding a motorcycle with a friend on the pillion. A car ahead, driven by respondent no. 2, suddenly applied its brakes on the highway because the driver's pregnant wife felt a vomiting sensation. This caused the appellant to collide with the rear of the car and fall onto the road. Subsequently, a bus, insured by respondent no. 1, which was coming from behind, ran over the appell...
Read More
Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Orders Eviction of Bidder Who Failed to Pay for 3 Decades
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Orders Eviction of Bidder Who Failed to Pay for 3 Decades

The Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu Housing Board's cancellation of allotment due to the respondent's chronic default in payment over decades. The Court emphasized that public property must be managed transparently and in the public interest, rejecting the respondent's claims. It ruled that prolonged non-payment justified eviction, denying further indulgence and ordering possession to be surrendered within four months. The judgment reinforced that contractual obligations must be honored and that courts cannot indefinitely protect defaulters at the cost of public welfare. Facts Of The Case: In 1986, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board auctioned a prime commercial plot in Chennai, with S. Ganesan emerging as the highest bidder at ₹4,78,921. Despite the Board's acceptance of his bid, Gan...
Read More
Supreme Court Awards Compensation & Reforms for Disabled Advocate From Torture to Justice
8Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Awards Compensation & Reforms for Disabled Advocate From Torture to Justice

The Supreme Court upheld the rights of prisoners with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and Article 21 of the Constitution. It mandated accessible prison infrastructure, reasonable accommodations, and healthcare for disabled inmates, while emphasizing state accountability under UNCRPD obligations. The Court also reinforced compensation for rights violations and directed systemic reforms, including training for prison staff and periodic audits to ensure compliance with disability-inclusive standards. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, L. Muruganantham, a physically challenged advocate suffering from Becker Muscular Dystrophy (80% disability) and autism, was falsely implicated in a criminal case at the behest of his paternal uncle. Based on a fa...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named

The Supreme Court ruled that in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a partnership firm need not be separately arraigned as an accused if its partners are prosecuted. The notice to partners constitutes notice to the firm, as partners are jointly and severally liable. The Court clarified that unlike companies, partnership firms lack a separate legal identity, making partners directly liable. The judgment distinguishes between vicarious liability (for companies) and joint liability (for firms), upholding the complaint’s validity despite the firm’s omission. The High Court’s order quashing the complaint was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Dhansingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of ₹21 lakh to the respondents, Chandrasekar and another, who were partners of the fi...
Read More
Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Limits on High Court’s Revisional Powers
16Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Limits on High Court’s Revisional Powers

The Supreme Court of India, in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that in an appeal filed by an accused against conviction, the High Court cannot suo motu exercise revisional powers to enhance the sentence or convict on a charge for which the trial court acquitted the accused, especially when no appeal or revision was filed by the State, victim, or complainant. The Court emphasized the principle of no reformatio in peius, meaning an appellant should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal Facts Of The Case: Nagarajan, the appellant, was the neighbor of the deceased, Mariammal. On the night of July 11, 2003, the appellant entered Mariammal's room, hugged her, and attempted to outrage her modesty. Mariammal's mother-in-law intervened, scolded the appel...
Read More
Big Relief for Mothers: Supreme Court Backs Woman’s Right to Benefit After Remarriage
11Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Big Relief for Mothers: Supreme Court Backs Woman’s Right to Benefit After Remarriage

The Supreme Court ruled that K. Umadevi is entitled to maternity leave under FR 101(a), setting aside the High Court Division Bench's decision. The Court emphasized a purposive and liberal interpretation of maternity benefit provisions, aligning with reproductive rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and international conventions, irrespective of prior children not in the mother's custody or born from a previous marriage. Facts Of The Case: K. Umadevi, the appellant, married A. Suresh in 2006, having two children from this wedlock in 2007 and 2011. Their marriage was dissolved in 2017, and the children remained in the custody of her former husband. In December 2012, she joined government service as an English Teacher in Tamil Nadu. On September 12, 2018, the appellant remarried M...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals

The Supreme Court ruled that ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) violate environmental jurisprudence and are alien to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the EIA Notification, 2006. Stressing the precautionary principle and Article 21 (right to a pollution-free environment), the Court struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 OM permitting retrospective ECs, holding them arbitrary and illegal. It reiterated that prior EC is mandatory, and no regularization of violations is permissible, aligning with its earlier judgments in Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals. The Court barred future exemptions but spared already granted ECs. Facts Of The Case: The case involved multiple writ petitions and a civil appeal challenging the legality of the 2017 notification and 2021 ...
Read More