Madras High Court - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: TET Mandatory for All Teachers, But RTE Act’s Application to Minority Schools Under Scrutiny

6Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: TET Mandatory for All Teachers, But RTE Act’s Application to Minority Schools Under Scrutiny

This Supreme Court judgment holds that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for the appointment and promotion of all teachers under the RTE Act. However, the Bench expressed doubts about the correctness of the precedent in Pramati which exempts all minority institutions from the RTE Act, and has referred this specific constitutional question for reconsideration by a larger bench. Facts Of The Case: This set of civil appeals originated from conflicting judgments of the Bombay and Madras High Courts concerning the applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, and specifically the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to minority educational institutions. The appellants included minority educational institutions, state authorit...

Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process

30Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process

The Supreme Court quashed the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that its continuation after a conclusive settlement order granting immunity from penalty was an abuse of process. The Revenue's action was in blatant disregard of its own binding circulars which mandated prosecution only after penalty confirmation by the ITAT. Facts Of The Case: A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the appellant's residence on 24.04.2016, leading to the seizure of unaccounted cash. Based on this, the Revenue initiated prosecution u/s 276C(1) for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, alleging a wilful attempt to evade tax. The appellant's petition before the High Court to quash these proceedings was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed an...

Supreme Court Reinstates Separate Compensation for “Loss of Enjoyment of Life” in Motor Accident Cases

25Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Separate Compensation for “Loss of Enjoyment of Life” in Motor Accident Cases

The Supreme Court held that compensation for permanent disability is a distinct head from loss of income and cannot be denied merely because the latter is awarded. It further ruled that future medical and attendant charges must account for the victim's full life expectancy, not a restricted period. The Court also reinstated compensation for loss of enjoyment of life and family's pain and suffering, emphasizing these are legitimate and independent heads of claim. Facts Of The Case: On July 3, 2011, the appellant, Kavin, a 21-year-old arts student, was travelling as a passenger in an Omni bus from Coimbatore to Chennai. At around 10:15 PM, the bus, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed against a tamarind tree on the left side of the road. The accident resulted in grievous inj...

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

20Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

The Supreme Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, finding the delayed payment of dues, while a violation, was not wilful. It reinforced that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate new claims like pension, which were not part of the original decree. The Court, however, awarded compensatory costs for the protracted litigation. Facts Of The Case: A.K. Jayaprakash, a manager at Nedungadi Bank Ltd., was dismissed from service in 1985 on grounds of alleged irregularities in sanctioning loans and delays in reporting. He challenged this dismissal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour initially set aside the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement. This decision was repeatedly challenged by the Bank, first in the Madras Hi...

Husband’s Second Marriage Leads Supreme Court to Use Special Power for Divorce

18Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Husband’s Second Marriage Leads Supreme Court to Use Special Power for Divorce

The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The decree was granted subject to the husband paying a one-time permanent alimony of ₹1.25 crores to the wife, ensuring a complete settlement. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between the appellant-husband, A. Ranjithkumar, and the respondent-wife, E. Kavitha, was solemnized on February 15, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the couple relocated to the United States of America, where the husband was employed. A son was born from the union on April 7, 2010. However, the marital relationship soured, leading the husband to file a divorce petition on September 26, 2012, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. Th...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...