#Madras High Court

[taxationplanning]

Form 15CB: CA is Not Required To Check Genuineness Of Documents For Issuing Form 15CB: Madras High Court

Form 15CB: CA Is Not Required To Check Genuineness Of Documents Form 15CB Case: Murali Krishna Chakrala vs The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Judgement in Short: Even on a demurrer, on a perusal of Form 15CB, we find that a Chartered Accountant is required to only examine the nature of the remittance and nothing more. The Chartered Accountant is not required to go into the…

[youthchronical]

Let veterinarian interact with baby monkey at Vandalur zoo, orders Madras High Court

Veterinarian V. Vallaiappan of Coimbatore and the baby monkey at his residence in Coimbatore before they were separated by the Forest Department officials in October 2024 | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement The Madras High Court on Wednesday (November 6, 2024) decided to let a Coimbatore-based veterinary surgeon interact with a baby monkey that he had taken care of for the last 10 months, but…

[todayworldnews2k21]

Let veterinarian interact with baby monkey at Vandalur zoo, orders Madras High Court

Veterinarian V. Vallaiappan of Coimbatore and the baby monkey at his residence in Coimbatore before they were separated by the Forest Department officials in October 2024 | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement The Madras High Court on Wednesday (November 6, 2024) decided to let a Coimbatore-based veterinary surgeon interact with a baby monkey that he had taken care of for the last 10 months, but…

[seemabhatnagar]

Madras High Court Orders Partial Defreezing of Account Amid Cryptocurrency Investigation

Freezing an account indefinitely without informing the account holder violates his fundamental rights. Freezing orders should be specific to the amount under investigation and not disrupt the entire financial life of individual.

Background

The petitioner, Mohammed Saifullah's, bank account, was frozen by HDFC Bank based on the instructions from the Cyber Crime Bureau of Telangana, received via the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.

The account was frozen due to an ongoing investigation into a cybercrime case related to cryptocurrency, in which an amount of Rs. 2,48,835 is suspected to be linked to the crime.

The total balance in the petitioner’s account was Rs. 9,69,580, and he had not been informed for over a year as to why the account was frozen or when it would be unfrozen.

The petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to defreeze his account and release of his balance.

Mohd. Saifullah v. Reserve Bank Of India and 5 others

WP 25631/2024

Before the High Court of Madras

Heard by Hon'ble Dr. Justice G Jayachandran J

Legal Issue

Whether the authorities can freeze a bank account indefinitely without informing the account holder or quantifying the suspected amount, thereby affecting the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade and business) and Article 21 (right to livelihood) of the Constitution of India.

Argument of the Parties

Petitioner's Argument

The freezing of his account was without proper communication or justification from the authorities, and without a defined time frame, violating his fundamental rights.

Freezing of his account has seriously impacted his business and financial well-being.

Respondent's Argument

Freezing of the account was based on the ongoing investigation into cybercrime, specifically involving suspected cryptocurrency transactions.

They were acting on instructions from the Cyber Crime Bureau of Telangana and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.

Court's Observation

While the authorities have the statutory power to freeze bank accounts during investigations, it is essential to ensure that such powers are not exercised arbitrarily.

Freezing the entire account without specifying the amount under suspicion and failing to communicate the reasons to the account holder is not acceptable.

Courts order

HDFC Bank, was ordered to defreeze the petitioner's account, allowing him to operate it with the condition that a lien of ₹2,50,000 is kept on the account. The petitioner must ensure that a minimum balance of ₹2,50,000 is maintained in the account at all times, pending the investigation.

Seema Bhatnagar

[rightnewshindi]

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यूट्यूब चैनल को बंद करने के मद्रास हाई कोर्ट के आदेश पर लगाई रोक, जानें क्या है आपत्तिजनक टिप्पणी से जुड़ा मामला

Delhi News: सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने शुक्रवार (6 सितंबर, 2024) को मद्रास हाईकोर्ट के उस निर्देश पर रोक लगा दी, जिसमें यूट्यूबर फेलिक्स जेराल्ड को जमानत देने की शर्तों के तहत अपना चैनल रेडपिक्स 24×7 बंद करने का निर्देश दिया गया था. फेलिक्स जेराल्ड को अपने यूट्यूब चैनल पर एक अन्य यूट्यूबर सवुक्कू शंकर का आपत्तिजनक साक्षात्कार प्रसारित करने के लिए गिरफ्तार किया गया था. सवुक्कू शंकर ने मद्रास हाईकोर्ट के…

[bhaskarlive]

Madras HC directs Studio Green to deposit Rs 1 cr each before releasing ‘Thangalaan’, ‘Kanguva’

The Madras High Court on Monday flagged the release of two big-budget Tamil movies — ‘Thangalan’ starring ‘Chiyaan’ Vikram and ‘Kanguva’ featuring Suriya.

A division bench of the high court comprising Justices G. Jayachandran and C.V. Karthikeyan directed ‘Studio Green’ production company run by K.E. Gnanavelraja to deposit Rs 1 crore each for the two films with the official assignee on or before Wednesday (August 14).

Source: bhaskarlive.in

[lawtoppers]

Madras High Court Ruling on Advocate Stickers; मद्रास उच्च न्यायालयाचे अधिवक्ता स्टीकर वापराबद्दल निर्णय

मद्रास उच्च न्यायालयाने वाहनांवर 'अधिवक्ता स्टीकर' च्या गैरवापराबद्दल महत्त्वपूर्ण निर्णय दिला आहे. जाणून घ्या काय आहे हा निर्णय आणि त्याचे परिणाम.

Madras High Court Ruling on Advocate Stickers Madras High Court Ruling on Advocate Stickers The Madras High Court has issued a significant ruling concerning the misuse of ‘advocate stickers’ on vehicles. The court declared that police authorities have the right to take action against lawyers who misuse these stickers to evade legal obligations or claim immunity from traffic rules and other…

[news-venue]

Madras High Court delivers split verdict on release of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji

Justices J Nisha Banu and D Bharatha Chakravarthy gave the ruling on the HCP filed by Balaji's wife against her husband's "illegal detention".

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on a habeas corpus petition (HCP) seeking to declare Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji’s arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on money laundering charges was illegal and setting him free.

While Justice J Nisha Banu, presiding the bench, held that the HCP is maintainable and the ED was not entrusted to get police custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and ordered setting Senthil Balaji free, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy dissented saying the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner has not made out a case to prove the remand was illegal.

The dissenting judge ruled that ED is entitled to take him under custody.

“It is in the interest of the detenue that he was admitted to the hospital due to his health condition. He was not under the custody of the ED for even a minute. So, the hospitalisation period can be excluded from the first fifteen days and the ED is entitled to take him under custody,” the dissenting judge ruled.

He ordered, “Therefore, HCP shall stand dismissed. The period from June 14 till such time the accused is fit for custody of the respondent shall be deducted from the initial period of fifteen days. The detenue accused shall continue to take treatment at the Kauvery Hospital until discharge or for a period of ten days from today or whichever is earlier. Thereafter, if he requires further treatment, it can be done only at the prison hospital.”

Since the judges differed on the matter, it will be placed before Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala for further orders.

The HCP was filed by Megala, wife of Senthil Balaji, after he was arrested by the ED in the wee hours of June 14 after a marathon search and grilling at his official residence.

After complaining of chest pain, he was admitted to the Govt Multi-Speciality Hospital where the doctors diagnosed him with blocks in the heart and recommended immediate surgery.

Based on an interim order of the division bench on the HCP, he was shifted to Kauvery Hospital and underwent bypass surgery.

In the meantime, the principal sessions court, which had ordered his judicial custody for fourteen days, granted police custody for the ED to interrogate him subject to his health conditions.

Since the doctors advised against custodial interrogation, the ED gave up the exercise.

Senthil Balaji was booked under PMLA by the ED in 2021 based on the FIR filed by the Central Crime Branch, of Chennai City police, on the cash-for-jobs scam committed when he was the Transport Minster during the AIADMK government.

[ansh-blogs]

Court orders Erode Collector to respond to case seeking ban on construction of Christian church on Nadham outer land

Chennai: The Madras High Court has ordered the Erode District Collector and others to respond in a case seeking a ban on the construction of Christian churches on Nattam Purumpoku land against the Supreme Court order and the Tamil Nadu government’s order. In the Public Interest Petition filed by Jaganathan from Erode in the Madras High Court, “There is a government-owned Natham Puramboku land in…

[apveng]

In that context, the high court’s judgment in Sunitha vs State, delivered by a bench of justices MS Ramesh and N Anand Venkatesh, is a deeply welcome one. Considering two preventive detention cases before it, the court began by noting that, in its experience, the State was involved in the repeated abuse of the preventive detention law, illustrated by the number of cases that came before the court, and where hearings were delayed until the detention period was over, and the case became infructuous. The court did not stop at a simple eyeball test, though: It went through official statistics to find that Tamil Nadu had repeatedly topped the list of states using the preventive detention law (in this case, the Goondas Act), and that none of its detention orders had survived substantive judicial scrutiny (they had either been set aside or become infructuous).

[youthchronical]

Veterinarian moves Madras High Court seeking custody of baby monkey

The bonnet macaque that had suffered stray dog bites at Sholingur Municipality in Ranipet district last year and had been treated by a Coimbatore-based veterinarian for the last 10 months | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement A veterinary surgeon has approached the Madras High Court seeking interim custody of a monkey that he had treated and taken care of since it landed in his hands as an infant,…

[thelawjourney]

Madras HC dismisses convert's Plea for reservation

Madras HC dismisses convert’s Plea for reservation

Madras HC dismisses convert’s Plea for reservation that Even after conversion, a person cannot carry their community of birth. Madurai: Can a Hindu who converted to Islam demand benefits from the reservation system by being recognised as a candidate from a backward community ? The Madras High Court disagreed, stating that even after conversion, a person cannot retain his community of birth. It…

[seemabhatnagar]

"Judiciary Intervenes: Petitioner’s Trust Activities Deemed Harmful to Public Morality"

In a surprising legal twist, the Madras High Court recently dismissed petitions challenging police actions and charges against an individual. The court’s decision was based on compelling evidence that pointed to serious offenses, including the potential exploitation of a minor. Notably, the petitioner had sought protection to run a brothel, a request that raised eyebrows in legal circles.

The court’s reasoning emphasized the need to maintain the reputation of advocates in society. It urged the Bar Council to enroll only graduates from reputable law colleges, highlighting the importance of legal education and ethical conduct.

As part of its ruling, the court demanded that the petitioner provide proof of enrollment and educational qualifications. This case serves as a stark reminder that legal actions can have far-reaching consequences, and the judiciary remains vigilant in upholding justice.

Raja Murrugan v. The SP Nagercoil Kanyakumari District & 2 others

Crl. Pet. 9399/2024 & WP 13963/2024

Before Madras High Court

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Pugalendhi J

The petitioner, Raja Murrugan, filed two petitions: a criminal original petition for quashing the FIR lodged against him alleging false accusations and harassment by the police, and a writ petition seeking protection for his trust, "Friends For Ever Trust," which provides services including consensual sexual activities.

Facts:

The petitioner claims to be the founder of "Friends For Ever Trust," registered under Reg.No.147 of 2022, promoting adult recreation and related activities, including oil baths and consensual sex services.

On 17.02.2024, the police searched the trust premises, arrested the petitioner, and registered a case under various sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. He alleges that the case was orchestrated by his ex-wife using a minor girl to frame him.

Legal Issue: Whether the activities conducted by the petitioner's trust constitute legal consensual services or illegal activities under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and POCSO Act.

Points of Arguments

Petitioner's arguments- The petitioner vigorously defended actions as consensual and well within the bounds of privacy. The petitioner submitted that the activities of the "Friends For Ever Trust" were lawful and did not constitute a criminal offense.

Consensual and Legal: The petitioner maintained that the activities involved consenting adults and were conducted within a framework of trust. He argued that these private interactions should not be subject to state interference or criminalization.

Privacy Rights: Citing the Indian Constitution’s recognition of the Right to Privacy, the petitioner contended that their personal liberty included the freedom to make choices—specifically, engaging in consensual activities with other adults. He argued that the state’s actions is an infringement on his fundamental right.

False Complaint Allegations: The petitioner further claimed that the police action stemmed from a false complaint orchestrated by his ex-wife. He challenged the legitimacy of the charges and emphasized the need for a fair investigation.

Consensual Nature of Activities: The petitioner asserted that the trust provided a platform for consenting adults to engage in relationships and activities of their choice. He argued that since all activities were consensual and among adults, they fell within the realm of personal freedom and should not be criminalized.

Absence of Illegal Actions: The petitioner maintained that there was no evidence of illegal actions, exploitation, or coercion in the trust's activities. He emphasized that the trust was not involved in any activities that could be classified as criminal under Indian law, such as trafficking, forced labor, or any other form of exploitation.

Argument of the State

Legitimate Investigation: The State justified initiating the investigation based on credible information pointing to potential illegal activities within the “Friends For Ever Trust.”

Concerns of Illegality: Despite the trust’s claims of operating within legal bounds, serious concerns arose. Allegations hinted at activities that might breach Indian laws, including immoral trafficking or exploitation.

Public Interest and Protection: The State underscored its duty to safeguard the public interest and prevent harm to societal morals. The investigation aimed to shield vulnerable individuals and maintain order.

Criminal Proceedings Justified: Filing the FIR and pursuing criminal proceedings were grounded in prima facie evidence gathered during the investigation. Authorities acted to uphold the law.

No Fundamental Rights Violation: The State refuted any infringement on the petitioner’s fundamental rights. Privacy and personal liberty, they argued, don’t shield illegal activities or actions contrary to public welfare.

Court's Observation

The court expressed shock at the petitioner's claim of running a brothel under the guise of a trust and his purported status as an advocate. The allegations involved immoral trafficking and potential exploitation of women under the guise of running a charitable trust, which is a serious offense. The nature of the allegations, if proven true, could indicate severe misconduct and abuse of trust, as well as violations of legal and moral standards.

The court noted the discrepancies in the petitioner's statements and the seriousness of the allegations involving a minor.

The court emphasized the need for maintaining moral sanctity and preventing exploitation under the guise of consensual activities.

The court was concerned about the actual activities carried out by the "Friends For Ever Trust." Although the trust was purported to be involved in charitable activities, there were serious allegations suggesting that the trust's operations may have included illegal activities. The court likely found it disturbing that such activities could be taking place under the cover of a charitable organization, which generally enjoys a certain level of public trust and immunity.

The court was shocked by the implications of the case for public morality and the enforcement of laws protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation. The potential involvement of a trust in illegal activities, especially one that may exploit vulnerable women, raises significant concerns about the protection of societal values and the effectiveness of law enforcement.

[rightnewshindi]

मद्रास हाई कोर्ट के जज ने रिटायर होने के बाद दिए 9 फैसले, सुप्रीम कोर्ट हुआ हैरान; रिपोर्ट की तलब

Delhi News: मद्रास हाई कोर्ट के एक जज ने रिटायर होने के बाद फैसले दे दिए, जिस पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने रिपोर्ट तलब कर ली है। हाई कोर्ट के जस्टिस टी. माथीवनन के विस्तृत फैसले उनके रिटायरमेंट के बाद हाई कोर्ट की वेबसाइट पर जारी हुए हैं। इसे लेकर शीर्ष अदालत ने सवाल उठाया है और रिपोर्ट मांग ली है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट की जस्टिस अभय एस. ओका और जस्टिस ऑगस्टीन जॉर्ज मसीह की बेंच ने उच्च न्यायालय के रजिस्ट्रार से…

[lawtoppers]

Madras High Court Denies Bail to YouTuber G Felix Gerald Over Savukku Shankar Interview

Madras High Court's decision highlights the balance between free speech and legal accountability in the digital age. Read more about the implications for digital media and content creators.

Madras High Court’s Decision on YouTuber G Felix Gerald Madras High Court’s Decision on YouTuber G Felix Gerald Published on June 25, 2024 Background and Allegations The Madras High Court recently refused bail to YouTuber G Felix Gerald, who was booked for his interview with Savukku Shankar. The case has garnered significant attention due to its implications for freedom of expression and the…