MADRAS HIGH COURT Archives - Page 5 of 6

26 Jun

Equal share of Husband’s Property to Wife Clarifies Madras High Court.

blog, Blog # Equal share of Property, # Husband's Property, # Right to Property, MADRAS HIGH COURT

Case Title: Kannaian Naidu (Died) and Anrs… Appellants/Plaintiffs
Versus
Kamsala Ammal @ Banumathi and Anrs … Respondents/Defendants
And

                 Kamsala Ammal @ Banumathi … Cross Objector
                                          Verus
                 Kannaian Naidu (Died)  … Respondents

Date of Decision: Reserved On 21.03.2023
Pronounced On 21.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

Citation: S.A.No.59 of 2016 and Cross Objection No.26 of 2017

Introduction:

The Madras High Court, in a recent judgement, held that when a wife contributes to the acquisition of various assets in a family by performing household chores, then she should be entitled to an equal share in the family properties, as she has also contributed to their purchase.

The court said, “The contribution which wives make towards acquisition of the family assets by performing their domestic chores, thereby releasing their husbands for gainful employment, would be a factor which, this court would specifically take into account while deciding the right in the properties either the title stand in the name of the husband or wife and certainly, the spouse who looks after the home and cares for family for decades, entitled to a share in the property.”

Facts:

The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are husband and wife, married in the year 1965 and were living in Neyveli. The plaintiff was working in Neyveli Lignite Corporation till December, 1982. Since the plaintiff got a job in a Steel Company in Saudi Arabia, he started earning a
lot of money. After the plaintiff left for Saudi Arabia, the 1st defendant continued to live in Neyveli children and she was entrusted with the funds of the plaintiff which had swollen to huge proportions. During his visit to India between 1983 and 1994, he brought various articles of value, jewellery and cash. The 1st defendant had no income of her own.
She was only managing and administering the affairs of the plaintiff prudently and operating the accounts and thus was acting in effect as the agent in a fiduciary capacity. While managing the affairs of the plaintiff, she purchased items 1 to 4 properties on behalf of the plaintiff utilizing the funds of the plaintiff. He found to his utter shock and dismay that the 1st defendant had led a wayward life and developed an affair with the 2nd defendant.

The 1st defendant is an educated woman but she is crafty and wily. Finding that she can no longer dissipate the funds of the plaintiff, she began to give out with the assistance of the 2nd defendant to alienate the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit in O.S.No.479 of 1995 before the District Munsif Court at Chidambaram for permanent injunction against the defendants.

Issues:

The court found several issues in this case but the main issues in this case are

Whether the contribution made by the 1st defendant/wife towards acquisition of family assets by performing their domestic chores?
Whether looking after home and family/caring for the family, taking care of the children etc, thereby releasing her husband for gainful employment would be a factor in determining the rights in acquiring the property?

Legal Analysis:

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy also said that there was no provision regarding the contributions made by a wife, but that court could observe it.

He said, “No law prevents the Judges from recognizing the contributions made by a wife facilitating her husband to purchase the property. In my view, if the acquisition of assets is made by joint contribution (directly or indirectly) of both the spouses for the welfare of the family, certainly, both are entitled to equal share.”

The court said that usually in marriages, “The wife bears and rears children and minds the home”. The court said, that the wife frees her husband for conducting economic activities. It further said that since it is her duty which enables the husband to perform his own. “She is in justice, entitled to share in its fruits”, the court added.

The court observed, “For taking care of the children and family, it is nothing like 8 hours job, what the husband was doing abroad but it is 24 hours job. The 1st defendant, being a wife, had physically contributed to the family for 24 hours. However, the husband, out of his 8 hours job at abroad, had financially contributed to the family and sent the money out of his savings, from which they had purchased the property. The said savings were done because of the 24 hours efforts put by the 1st defendant/wife for the family, whereby she had made her husband to save money without contributing much towards the house maid etc., and for payment of money towards other jobs.”

The court also added that the contribution made either by the husband by earning or the wife by serving and looking after the family and children, would be for the welfare of the family and both are entitled equally to whatever they earned by their joint effort.

It said, “The proper presumption is that the beneficial interest belongs to them jointly. The property may be purchased either in the name of husband or wife alone, but nevertheless, it is purchased with the monies saved by their joint efforts.”

Judgement:

The court was hearing a dispute between a couple who got married in 1965. In 2002, the husband Kannaian Naidu had filed an injunction suit stating that while he worked abroad, his wife tried to take over properties bought on his behalf by his money.

Whereas, the wife stated that she was entitled to a right over the properties since she took care of the family while the husband lived abroad and hence had given up on her employment opportunities.

She further said that she sold her ancestral properties to fun her husband’s trips. Adding that she saved money by tailoring and tutoring from which she bought some of the properties mentioned in the suit.

The Court held that Item Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the schedule mentioned properties, that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to half share each and as far as Item No.3 and 5 of the schedule mentioned property are concerned, the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of

In the result, the Second Appeal and the Cross Objection are partly allowed and accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2015 in A.S.No.1 of 2007 passed by the first appellate Court, is modified to the extent stated above.

Conclusion:

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that while no legislation has been enacted so far in India to recognise the contributions made by a wife either directly or indirectly, the Court could very well recognise such contribution.

“The contribution which wives make towards acquisition of the family assets by performing their domestic chores, thereby releasing their husbands for gainful employment, would be a factor which, this Court would specifically take into account while deciding the right in the properties either the title stand in the name of the husband or wife and certainly, the spouse who looks after the home and cares for family for decades, entitled to a share in the property. If, on marriage, she gives up her paid work in order to devote herself to caring for her husband and children, it is an unwarrantable hardship when in consequence she finds herself in the end with nothing she can call her own,” the High Court said.

Hence, if the acquisition of assets is made by joint contribution, directly or indirectly, of both the spouses for the welfare of the family, both would be entitled to equal share.

“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 JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement

22 Jun

Madras High Court Directs DGP to issue necessary appointment orders to the Constable applicant.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # Constable, # DGP, # Recruitment, MADRAS HIGH COURT

Case Title:

The State of Tamil Nadu and Anrs.     …Appellants
                         Vs
S.Govindaraj                                        … Respondent

Date of Decision:

Reserved on: 08.03.2023

Delivered on: 16.06.2023

Coram:

                THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
                                          AND
       THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

Citation:

W.A.No. 2746 of 2018 and CMP.No. 22611 of 2018

Introduction:

The writ petitioner/respondent had participated in the recruitment process for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable and passed the written test, physical endurance test, physical efficiency test and medical test and he was disqualified since he was acquitted in a criminal case viz.Crime No.46 of 2011. The 3^rd appellant herein has passed rejection order in Na.Ka.No. A2(3)/49777/2012 dated 03.01.2013.

Facts:

The petitioner had passed the written test, physical endurance test, physical efficiency test and medical test, he was disqualified on the basis of his involvement in ciriminal case and acquittal on the beneift of doubt. Challenging the same, the respondent has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5718 of 2013, the learned Judge allowed the said writ petition directing the appellants herein to select the writ petitioner in the selection process. Challenging the same, the appellant/Government has preferred the instant Writ Appeal.

Issues:

Whether the Recruiting board could disqualify the petitioner
from the appointment?

Whether the claim of privilege by the respondents is justified or not?

Legal Analysis:

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellants would submit that though the petitioner had passed the
written test, physical endurance test, physical efficiency test and
medical test, he was disqualified on the basis of his involvement in
ciriminal case and acquittal on the beneift of doubt. The learned Single
Judge without considering the fact that a person acquittal on benefit of
doubt or discharged from his criminal case, can still be considered as
qualified for selection to Police Service, has allowed the writ petition
filed by the appellant.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the criminal case initiated against the respondent ended in acquittal. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the said aspect and quashed the rejection order passed by the 3rd appellant. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the post on which the writ petitioner is seeking the appointment is the post of Police Constable Grade II. It cannot be disputed that the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order. Therefore, it is expected that he should be honest, trustworthy and that his integrity is above board and that he is reliable. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity, as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.

Judgement:

It is clear from the records that the criminal case registered against the
respondent/writ petitioner had ended in honourable acquittal. The Writ Court has rightly considered these aspects in proper perspective and directed the department to complete the selection process and issue suitable appointment order to the writ petitioner.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court. Accordingly, this
Writ Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the order of the Writ Court
dated 11.11.2016 made in W.P.No.5718 of 2013. The appellants are
directed to consider the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner
as laid down in paragraph 19(a) of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court cited supra and also in the light of the communication of the Director General of Police dated 17.12.2015 and issue necessary appointment orders to the respondent/writ petitioner, subject to the antecedents and character of the writ petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Conclusion:

Pending the recruitment process, if a candidate is discharged from the criminal case or acquitted in the criminal case, he/she shall be eligible to be considered for the next recruitment process as per Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules.” Since the candidate was eligible to the recruitment process he can’t be denied from recruitment process. So the court interpreted the case in right way and gave a good Judgement.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement

22 Jun

T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Should release the consequential benefits with penal interest — Madras High Court.

Prime Legal

Blog # Authority, # Recovery, # TN Civil Supply, MADRAS HIGH COURT

Case Title:

V.Jotheeswari … Petitioner
Vs.

TamilNaduCivil Supplies Corporation and Anrs. …Respondents

Date of Decision:

Reserved on:07.06.2023

Delivered on: 19.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

Citation:

W.P.No.26113 of 2017 & W.M.P.Nos.27738 and 27739 of 2017

Introduction:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings AD 5/86045/14 dated 21.01.2016 of the 1^st respondent along with the proceedings No.AD1/27580/2017 dated 08.08.2017 of the 2nd respondent and the consequential recovery proceedings Na.Ka.E1/4203/2015 dated 06.03.2017 of the 3rd respondent, quash all the three orders and consequently direct respondents to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.

Facts:

The Petitioner in the affidavit in support of her Writ Petition are that she was holding the post of Deputy Manager (Movement) with the respondent Corporation and she reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. A special audit was ordered into the storage and movement of rice from 11.11.2014 to 17.11.2014 and the audit report has given a finding of irregularity in Storage and Movement of rice resulting in loss of Rs.35,67,379/-. According to the Writ Petitioner, the 4th respondent was the Senior Regional Manager and Head of the Chennai North Region and one S.Manimozhi was the Manager
(Storage and Movement) and that the petitioner was subordinate to these two persons. The audit report, besides suggesting action against the Writ Petitioner also suggested action to be taken various other employees responsible for the loss. However, excepting the 4th respondent, Tmt. S.Nirmala and the petitioner all others were let off and charges were framed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 03.03.2015. Charges against both the two persons were identical, accusing all responsible for heavy loss to the Corporation.

Issues:

Whether the disciplinary authority is entitled to take a different view from the one taken by the enquiry officer?

Does the principles of natural justice would certainly require that the
disciplinary authority to afford a fair opportunity to the Petitioner?

Legal Analysis:

Learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through various
charges and also the grounds raised in support of the Writ Petition and made his elaborate submissions with regard to each of the grounds, especially the right of the 1st respondent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings thereby the very charge memo itself being vitiated as one without jurisdiction.

The petitioner was only in charge of “Movement” and not “Storage and Movement” and when the enquiry officer had rightly found the main charge of monetary loss having been caused to the respondent Corporation in favour of the petitioner by holding that the said charge is not proved.

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
Corporation that Civil suit has already been filed and therefore all these issues can be thrashed out in the Civil suit and that the Writ Petition should not be entertained does not merit any consideration.

The very claim made in the suit is only a consequential action of the respondent Corporation in furtherance of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent. If the impugned order itself is bad in the eye of law, the very cause of action for filing of the Civil Suit itself vanishes and therefore the Writ Petition, is certainly maintainable as prayed and the pendency of the Civil Suit is no way a bar for this Court entertaining the Writ Petition and dispose of the same on
merits.

Judgement:

The Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records in AD 5/86045/14 dated 21.01.2016 of the 1st respondent along with the proceedings No.AD1/27580/2017 dated 08.08.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent and the consequential recovery proceedings Na.Ka.E1/4203/2015 dated 06.03.2017 on the file of the 3rd respondent, and to quash all the three orders and consequently direct respondents to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.

Conclusion:

The appellate authority should consider the charges, discuss the
explanation offered by the delinquent officer or employee concerned one assess the same independently before concurring or dissenting with the findings of disciplinary authority. Merely endorsing the findings of the disciplinary authority as confirmed is certainly deplorable, especially in a case where the disciplinary authority has differed with the findings of the enquiry officer. The Court interpreted in right way and ordered the Civil Supplies to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement

20 Jun

Madras High Court imposes a fine of Rupees ONE Lakh on Youtuber as Contempt.

Prime Legal

Blog # Contempt of Court, # Minister, # Youtuber, #defamation, MADRAS HIGH COURT

CASE TITLE: V. Senthil Balaji Vs. Shankar

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU.

Date of Decison: Reserved on 20.03.2023

Delivered on 16.06.2023

CITATION: A.No.1045 of 2023 in C.S.No.172 of 2022

INTRODUCTION:

The case of V.Senthil Balaji Vs. A.Shankar is a defamation case filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister V Senthil Balaji against YouTuber Savukku Shankar. In August 2022, Senthil Balaji filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking an injunction against Shankar from making any defamatory statements against him on social media.The court granted the injunction and restrained Shankar from making any such statements.

However, Shankar continued to make derogatory statements against Senthil Balaji on social media. In February 2023, Senthil Balaji filed a contempt petition against Shankar in the Madras High Court. The court found Shankar guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on him.

FACTS:

The case was filed by V. Senthil Balaji, a Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu, against Shankar alias Savukku Shankar, a YouTuber. Shankar had made a number of videos and statements about Balaji on his YouTube channel, alleging that he was corrupt and had engaged in various wrongdoings. In these videos and posts, Shankar made a number of defamatory statements about Senthil Balaji, including allegations that he was corrupt, had links to the underworld, and had been involved in the death of a former colleague. Balaji claimed that these statements were defamatory and that they had damaged his reputation.

ISSUES:

The main issue in the case was whether Shankar’s statements were defamatory.
If they were defamatory, then Balaji was entitled to an injunction restraining Shankar from making further statements.

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Senthil Balaji’s case: Senthil Balaji filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking an injunction against Shankar from making any further defamatory statements about him. He argued that Shankar’s statements had damaged his reputation and caused him considerable distress. He also argued that Shankar’s statements were false and malicious.

Counter Case of Shankar: Shankar defended his actions by arguing that he was entitled to freedom of speech. He argued that he was simply reporting on matters of public interest and that his statements were true. He also argued that Senthil Balaji was a public figure and that he should therefore be more tolerant of criticism.

Decision of the Madras High Court:

The Madras High Court granted Senthil Balaji’s petition and issued an injunction restraining Shankar from making any further defamatory statements about him. The court found that Shankar’s statements were false and malicious and that they had caused Senthil Balaji considerable distress. The court also found that Shankar’s statements were not protected by freedom of speech because they were not made in the public interest. There are a few ways to protect freedom of speech in the face of defamatory statements about public figures. One way is to have strong anti-SLAPP laws in place. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation, and these laws are designed to protect people from being sued for defamation when they speak out about matters of public interest.

Since the conduct of the respondent was very much negligent without any remorse impinging upon the majesty of the Court, The court direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks from today. He shall also file an affidavit of undertaking that in future he shall guard himself against violating any orders passed by any Court, or even make any comments which may impinge the majesty of the Courts. Such affidavit shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today.

CONCLUSION:

The V.Senthil Balaji Vs. A.Shankar case is a landmark case that sets a precedent for the protection of the reputation of public figures from defamatory statements made on social media. The case also highlights the importance of freedom of speech and the need to balance it with the right to privacy and reputation. Since the Respondent act was “Contempt”, is the crime of being disobedient to order passed by court it imposed a fine of Rupees 1 lakh to the Youtuber.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement

20 Jun

Madras High Court grants One week ordinary leave to the convict prisoner.

Prime Legal

Blog # Constitutional Power, # Prisoners leave, # Writ Petition, MADRAS HIGH COURT

CASE TITLE: Saranya Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Chennai Range, Chennai and The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

Date of Decision: 16th June 2023

CORAM:
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
                                 and
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

Citation: W.P.No.17740 of 2023

INTRODUCTION:

The Petition filed by Saranya D/o: Thiru V. Ashok kumar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant 15 days ordinary leave enabling the petitioner’s father Ashok Kumar, son of Viswanathan, male, aged 63 years, convict prisoner No.9826, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai to attend naming ceremony of his grand child and also to take medical treatment to his ailment.

FACTS:

The Convict Thiru.V.Ashok Kumar, son of Thiru.Viswanathan, aged 63 years was trailed before the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai and he was acquitted by the trail court on 31.07.2013 and an Appeal was preferred by state and the Madras High Court reversed the judgement of trail court and convicted him on 24.02.2023. The convict prisoner was convicted inter-alia under Section 7 of ‘The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988’ and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and also one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/.

The convict prisoner is now serving sentence; that the convict prisoner’s daughter (writ petitioner) sent a representation dated 08.06.2023 to the respondents seeking 15 days ordinary leave on two grounds; that one ground is the cradle ceremony (name giving ceremony) of the petitioner’s child i.e., convict prisoner’s grand child on 15.06.2023 and the other ground is ill-health of the convict prisoner and taking native treatment for the same at home.

ISSUES:

Can the Court grant leave to the Convict prisoners before completion of 1 year imprisonment?
Can the court issue writ Mandamus to direct the prison authorities to leave the convict prisoner?

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Learned Prosecutor adverted to Rules 22 and 21 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 submitted that the
sentence itself is for one year and therefore Rule 22(1)(a) is an
impediment for grant of ordinary leave.

As the lone objection of the learned Prosecutor turning on Rule 22 (1)(a) of said Rules does not cut ice with us owing to sentences added upto 18 months as alluded to supra, The Court found that this is an appropriate case to grant one week ordinary leave to the convict prisoner. We also notice that the name giving ceremony/function was held on 15.06.2023 and therefore the convict prisoner will have the benefit of being with his grand child over the week end and can also take suitable native treatment at home for his ailments.

Though Rule 22 (1) (a) of said Rules may not present a problem in the manner in which it was projected before court, it may still pose a problem as the convict prisoner has not completed one year of imprisonment.

Therefore, The court deemed it appropriate to exempt the convict prisoner from this provision by exercising our constitutional powers.

The court granted leave by imposing few conditions:

The convict prisoner shall surrender to the prison authority i.e., Central Prison, Puzhal – I, Chennai on 26.06.2023 in the evening before dusk e., by 05.30 p.m.
The convict prisoner shall present himself every day of leave and sign in a suitable register in the jurisdictional police station the jurisdictional police station is Thirumullaivoyal Police Station.
The convict prisoner shall stay in his daughter’s house at No.10, Gayathri Nagar, School Street, Ayapakkam, Thiruvallur District 600 077 during the leave period.

CONCLUSION:

The Court granted leave for the convict prison by using its constitutional power and directed the prison authorities to leave him by issuing the writ of mandamus, this order will not serve as a precedent for all and every case and cases of this nature have to be dealt with on case to case basis depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case the Madras High court sanctioned the leave for the convict prison by using Constitutional powers.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

click here to view Judgement

1 … 3 4 5 6