The Madras High Court recently dismissed a man’s petition to use a buffallo for protest stating that such act would constitute animal cruelty. The matter was between K Muthu v. The State and another. (W .P.No.21 681 of 2022) and was presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Satish Kumar.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarized Mandamus requesting the records relating to the order made by the second respondent bearing Seyalmurai Aanai and to quash the same as illegal. The petitioner had objected to the Inspector of Police’s decision and asked for authorization to use a microphone to protest while handing a petition to a buffalo.

JUDGMENT:

The hon’ble court observed that
“At the outset, this Court is of the view that to make such democratic protest, animals need not be subjected to cruelty. Therefore, the prayer as sought for by the petitioner to take buffalo or any other animal and keep them from morning to evening cannot be permitted. Such act itself would amount to cruelty of the animals and violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.”

When the petitioner’s attorney asked for permission to hold a democratic demonstration devoid of the use of animals, the court ordered the responding police to take the attorney’s argument into consideration and give permission with the customary restrictions.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY ADITI PRIYADARSHI

Click here to view judgment

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court had ruled that Shade trees that have been cut and sized would be considered “agricultural produce” and would be exempt from the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The matter was between Title: M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (W.P. Nos.46464 to 46470 of 2006) and was presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.

ISSUE RAISED:

​​Whether the sales of cut / sized Silver Oak (Scientific name : Grevillea robusta) grown as shade trees in the Tea Estates of the petitioner admittedly in cubic metre and charged per cubic metre would constitute “agricultural produce” in terms of Section 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for the sake of brevity, “TNGST Act, 1959”) or would constitute sales of “firewood” and thus exempt in terms of Entry 52 of Part B of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959 or would constitute sales of “timber” liable to tax under the TNGST Act, 1959?

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner contested the Tribunal’s decision to levy the tax on the grounds that selling shade trees that have been trimmed or sized for shipping would still be considered “agricultural produce.” The TNGST Act, 1959’s definition of turnover would not apply to it.

The Court was dealing with  whether the sales of cut/sized Silver Oak grown as shade trees in the Tea Estates would constitute “agricultural produce” or sales of “firewood” or sales of “timber”. 

The petitioner contended that the department erred in deciding whether the wood or other products sold were timber, firewood, or agricultural produce by focusing on the billing process.

JUDGMENT:

The petitioner’s argument that the Silver Oak/shade tree would qualify as “firewood” was denied by the court. 

“Despite the fact that both parties mentioned a number of rulings, we believe it may not be essential to investigate the additional issue of whether the wood or items sold were firewood or timber. The aforementioned exercise would only be academic, and we have no intention of participating in it “The judge stated.

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq thus held that the cut and sized shade trees would constitute “agricultural produce” and, therefore, fall outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act, 1959).

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY ADITI PRIYADARSHI

Click here to view judgment

The Madras High Court has declared that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 apply to the Central Registrar’s authority to select an arbitrator and determine the expenses of arbitration under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act) (A&C Act). The matter was between Air Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies (W.P. No.28719 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.33551 & 33555 of 2018) and was presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Savaranan.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari. Sundaramoorthy has raised an Arbitration claim under Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 against the Chief Executive/Manager of the Society before the State Registrar and requested for appointment of an Arbitrator.

The petitioner Co-operative Society argued before the High Court that when a dispute is referred to arbitration under Section 84 of the MSCS Act, only the Central Registrar is authorized to appoint an Arbitrator and that the State Registrar lacks the authority to do so. The petitioner thus claimed that the State Registrar made a mistake while determining the Arbitrator’s costs.

JUDGMENT:

The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan set aside the State Registrar’s order ordering the petitioner to pay the fees and expenses to the Arbitrator, concluding that there is no provision under the MSCS Act where an exemption has been provided with respect to Section 38 of the A&C Act, which requires the parties to equally bear the advance costs to be deposited before the Arbitral Tribunal. 

The State Registrar’s ruling instructing the petitioner to pay the Arbitrator’s costs and expenses was thus reversed by the Court. By using Sections 31(8), 31A, and 38 of the A&C Act as well as the pertinent MSCS Act provisions, the Court instructed the Arbitrator to use discretion and determine the fees that the parties would be required to pay.

The court stated that
“Rule 30 (1) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, makes it clear for that the Central Registrar may appoint Arbitrar and fix the fee of the arbitrator subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus the method for appointment and fixation of the arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has to be followed.” 

The Court finally ruled that the power of the Central Registrar to appoint an arbitrator and fix the fees of arbitration under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

Further the writ petition was dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY ADITI PRIYADARSHI

Click here to view judgment

In a recent judgment dated 28.10.2022, the Madras High Court has  held that harassment of a woman would still be an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, even if not done in a public place. The matter was between M.R.Sivaramakrishnan v State and another (Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021 And Crl.M.P Nos.10016 & 10017 of 2021) and was presided over by The Hon’ble Ms. Justice R.N. Manjula.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

A Criminal Original Petition was filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to quash the final report filed in C.C No.159 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 

The petitioner is said to have intimidated the de facto complaint regarding an ongoing civil lawsuit while also harassing the sister and de facto complainant in connection with a parking issue. As a result, the petitioner was accused of violating IPC Sections 341, 294(b), 323, and 506(i) as well as Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

JUDGMENT:

The Madras High Court concluded that harassment of a woman would still be an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC while rejecting a plea to quash the final report with regard to a sexual harassment case on the grounds that the harassment did not occur in a public place. 

The court agreed that there were sufficient materials to charge the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

The Madras High Court’s decision in Anbazhagan v. State , represented by the Inspector of Police, in which the court applied the Ejusdem Generis principle and declared that only offences committed in public places would be considered offences under the Act, was cited by the petitioners.

The petitioner has not brought out any challenges, the court said, with the exception of the technical interpretation. Additionally, even if the crime was not committed in a public area, it would still be considered a crime under the IPC.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY ADITI PRIYADARSHI

Click hereto view judgment

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to vacate stay on 27% on OBC quota, the case was presided over by Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Virendra Singh.

 

 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh heard a bunch of petitions for and against the government order to hike OBC reservation from 14% to 27%. Counsels for the government and petitioners supporting the increase in OBC quota requested the court to vacate the stay in the light of a Supreme Court order in the EWS quota case.  The counsel argued that the stay on 27% reservation has led in the delay of several recruitment tests including MPPCS.

All this began with the Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pradesh high court struck down the 27% quota for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the main examination of state’s Public Service Commission (PSC), held in 2019.

 

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

 

Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh heard a bunch of petitions for and against the government order to hike OBC reservation from 14% to 27%, has refused to vacate its interim stays on its implementation. The HC declined to vacate the stay.

 

 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VYSHNAVI KRISHNAN.