**Justice for Education: The Madras High Court’s Bold Ruling in Deepak and Others v.

Narayanan, J. ## The Case of Deepak and Others v. The Chief Educational Officer and Others: A Detailed Analysis

This case, Deepak and Others v. The Chief Educational Officer and Others, decided by the Madras High Court in 2024, presents a compelling legal argument regarding the right to education and the role of the government in ensuring its provision.

Suo Motu RC v Additional Superintendent of Police and Suo Motu RC v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 303 Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The Directorate of Enforcement and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 304 G Pandi v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 305 A Kamala v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306 The Official Assignee v S Arjunlal Sunderdas (Died) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 Kannan Swaminathan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 308 T Balaji v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 D Kumaresh v The Chief Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 310 C. Ve Shanmugam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 311

A Krishna Prasath v The Director General of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 312 C Ve Shanmugam v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 313 M/s.Jindal Pipes Limited Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer (Int), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 314 V Senthil v The Secretary, Bar Council of TN & Puducherry, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 315 K Amrithalal v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 316 M Selva Kumar v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 317 Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 Mr G Venkateshan v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319

Sathiyamurthy v Arputha Mary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 320 Maharaja v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 321 S.Doctor Viswanathan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 322 Viterra India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 323 Siva Vijayan v Home Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 324 Dharani v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 325 Preetha v Inspector of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 326 Manohar Thangaraj v Rt.Rev.ARGST Barnabas and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 M/s. Ohm Sakthi Blue Metals Versus The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 328 Tvl.Deepa Traders Versus The Deputy Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329

The Supreme Court of India has recently issued two landmark judgments in the context of the right to privacy. These judgments, R. Rakkiyappan v.

The Act emphasizes the importance of providing quality education to all children, irrespective of their background. **Please expand on the following points:**

* **The historical context of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act:** What led to the enactment of this Act? What were the existing conditions?

Jerald, a resident of Chennai, had filed a petition seeking to prevent the Madras High Court from issuing any orders that could affect his right to privacy. Justice Thamilselvi, in her order, stated that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and that the right to privacy is not absolute. The right to privacy is not absolute because it can be limited in certain circumstances.

Justice G Jayachandran was inclined to quash the proceedings after Natraj expressed regret for his conduct and informed the court that he was willing to circulate the affidavit filed by him, expressing regret, in the WhatsApp group in which the offensive message was forwarded. It was alleged that Natraj had forwarded a message in a WhatsApp group consisting of 73 members about a statement purported to have been made by MK Stalin. It was further alleged that the message was forwarded to create enmity and ill-will between the two groups. 1997 Melavalavu Massacre | Madras High Court Asks State To Revoke Remission Of Accused After He Was Accused Of Attacking Man

Case Title: A Manikandan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 298 The Madras High Court has asked the state authorities to revoke the remission order and restore the conviction and sentence imposed on Sekar, one of the accused in the 1997 Melavalavu Massacre after he was accused of attacking a man. The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that though as per Clause 4 and 5 of the Bond Form No. 130 under Rule 341(8) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 puts a probation period of three years, it could not be assumed that after such period the life convict could indulge in any crime and that the authorities need not bother about the same.

Madras High Court Strikes Down Section 77A Of Registration (Tamil NaduSecond Amendment) Act As Unconstitutional Case Title: M Kathirvel v The Inspector General of Registration Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 299 The Madras has held that the 2022 Amendment which introduced Section 77A to the Registration Act with respect to Tamil Nadu and gave powers to the District Registrar to cancel an instrument if it was found to be fraudulent or bogus was unconstitutional. The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar held that through the amendment, the registering authority was given an unfettered, unguided, and unlimited power which may end up causing irretrievable damage to the real owners of the properties and affect their rights.

Detention Order Can’t Be Issued If Driver In Possession Of Valid E-Way Bill In Physical/Electronic Form: Madras High Court Case Title: Kompress India Private Limited Versus Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 300 The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court while quashing the detention order held that if an invoice, bill of supply, delivery challan, or bill of entry and a valid e-way bill in physical or electronic form for verification are available, then action may not be initiated. The bench of Justice S.Srimathy has observed that the respondent department issued the notice, carried out the inspection on the same day, and also passed the order on the same day. As per the provisions prescribed, the respondents department ought to grant time for seven days to reply. Since the inspection, notice, and orders were passed on the same day, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

Person Inviting Threat By His Criminal Or Anti-Social Activities Not Entitled To Police Protection: Madras High Court Case Title: NT Stalin Barathi v The District Collector Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 301 While rejecting a man’s application for police protection, the Madras High Court recently observed that police protection should be granted only in appropriate cases, and granting police protection to a person who had invited a situation of threat due to his criminal or anti-social activities will be against public morality. The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar added that in our country, several journalists had lost their lives for publishing news against corruption and social evils, government officials were murdered while preventing illegal sand mining and theft and people fighting for public cause were targeted. The court added that the state could consider granting police protection to such protection but not to persons who, due to their own conduct, were faced with threat perception.

Madras HC Quashes Loan Condition Seeking Apology From Applicant For Sticking Posters Against Bank, Says It’s A Legitimate Mode Of Protest Case Title: P.Sibiga Dharshini v The District Collector and Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 302 The Madras High Court recently quashed a pre-release condition imposed by the Indian Overseas Bank asking a student to give an apology letter for circulating posters against the Bank while sanctioning her education loan. Justice Murali Shankar noted that the Nationalised Banks could not treat a loan applicant, especially a student as their servant or a person obeying their orders. The court added that even if it was accepted that the student’s father was the office bearer of the NGO which had protested against the Bank, it was not a ground for the Bank to seek an apology from the student who had nothing to do with the protest.

Madras High Court Sets Aside Discharge Of Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran & Thangam Thenarasu In Disproportionate Assets Case Case Title: Suo Motu RC v Additional Superintendent of Police and Suo Motu RC v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 303 The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside the discharge of Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran and Thangam Thenarasu in disproportionate assets case. Justice Anand Venkatesh reversed the discharge of the ministers and directed them to appear before the Special Court. Finding that there was prima facie material to proceed with the trial, the court directed the special court to frame charges and proceed with the trial expeditiously on a day-to-day basis.

This statement highlights a serious allegation of corruption and abuse of power within the Tamil Nadu government. It suggests that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) was not acting independently and was instead being used as a tool to protect politicians from accountability. The court’s observation underscores the importance of a fair and impartial judiciary in upholding the rule of law.

The Supreme Court bench, while dismissing Radhakrishnan’s plea, emphasized the importance of cooperating with the investigating agency and the need for a fair and impartial investigation. The court also highlighted the importance of allowing the final report to be filed before the special court. This decision underscores the seriousness of the money laundering charges against Radhakrishnan and the need for a thorough investigation.

Madras High Court Forbids Deity’s “Imprisonment”, Says Temple Can’t Be Sealed Citing Law & Order Without Allowing Customary Puja Case Title: G Pandi v The District Collector and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 305 The Madras High Court recently expanded the scope of treating a deity as a juristic personality in law and held that when an idol in a temple is treated as a living person, closing the temple without allowing the customary pujas would amount to the deity’s imprisonment. The court observed that no temple could be locked and sealed on the grounds of law and order. Justice GR Swaminathan observed that just like how a devotee has the right to offer worship, the deity also has a right to observance of the customary rituals. The court highlighted that it had to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction whenever the interests of minors, the mentally ill, and idols were at stake and thus, it was the duty of the court to uphold the right of the parties to perform rituals. The court thus made it clear that as long as there was no practice of untouchability or other practices offending the rights of others, a temple could not be closed or shut down indefinitely.

Madras High Court Sets Aside Detention Of Youtuber Savukku Shankar, Says There Was An Element Of Malice In Entire State Action Case Title: A Kamala v State and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306 The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the detention of Youtuber Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam ordered Shankar to be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case. The court observed that the detention order passed by the State was not compliant with the essential requirements for invoking the Preventive Detention Act.

A. Justice Served: The State’s Case Falls Short
B.

This prejudice was evident in the proceedings and the State’s arguments. The court also found that the State had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the State had to prove its case with evidence and not with mere allegations.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice CV Karthikeyan made the orders on an execution petition filed by an Official Assignee appointed by the High Court to deal with the estate of realtor and financier Arjunlal Sunderdas after he was declared insolvent. In 2019, the division bench had allowed a petition filed by the Official Assignee directing Studio Green to pay a sum of Rs. 10,35,00,000/- with an interest of 18% p.a. Madras High Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Litigant For “Disruptive Attitude” During PIL Hearing Case Title: Kannan Swaminathan v Union of India and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 308

The court’s decision has sparked debate about the misuse of PILs and the need for stricter regulations. The court’s reasoning behind the cost was that the PIL was filed without any genuine public interest and was merely a personal grievance. The court emphasized that PILs are meant to address issues affecting a large number of people and not just individual grievances. The Madras High Court’s decision has been lauded by legal experts and advocates for its emphasis on the true purpose of PILs.

Case Title: T Balaji v The State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 The Madras High Court has issued a set of guidelines to all stakeholders for dealing with cases and counter cases. A full bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice M Nirmal Kumar, and Justice N Anand Venkatesh were answering a reference made to it relating to case and counter case and how the courts and investigation agencies were required to handle them. The question that was referred to the full bench was whether the police were required to mandatorily follow the procedure prescribed in the Police Standing Order 566 while investigating a case and counter case and what was the effect of its non-compliance.

The court observed that there was no legal bar in registering two FIRs in a case and a counter-case arising out of rival versions of the same incident. In such cases, the court added that the investigation officer was required to thoroughly investigate both rival versions keeping in mind the PSO. Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy | Financial Relief Not ‘Reward’ For Victims But To Help Dependents: Madras HC Dismisses Plea Challenging ₹10 Lakh Compensation Case Title: D Kumaresh v The Chief Secretary Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 310 The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the payment of Rs 10 Lakh as ex gratia payment to the families of Kallakurichi Hooch tragedy victims.

Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar dismissed the plea after noting that the ex gratia payments were made on humanitarian grounds. The court noted that the relief was to reward the victims but to help the dependents of the victims who had lost their breadwinners and were struggling economically. The court further held that the petition was filed without collecting much information challenging a relief package that was paid to ensure the survival of the victim’s family with dignity. The court was thus not inclined to entertain the plea, which was challenging the policy decision of the government. Madras High Court Quashes Case Against AIADMK Leader C Ve Shanmugam For Comments Against MK Stalin, Other DMK Ministers

Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 311 The Madras High Court has quashed a case registered against AIADMK MP C.Ve Shanmugam for his comments against CM MK Stalin and other leaders while participating in a hunger strike. Justice G Jayachandran noted that the alleged comments made by Shanmugam did not cause any disturbance to the harmony nor affected the public tranquillity. The court also noted that the complaints were filed 40 days after the alleged speeches were made which itself would show that no untoward incident was reported due to the alleged speech. The court observed that though the utterances were unparliamentary, it would not attract the offences alleged against Shanmugam.

Madras High Court Allows BJP’s Bike Rally For Independence Day, Asks DGP To Not Prohibit Rallies Carrying National Flags With Dignity Case Title: A Krishna Prasath v The Director General of Police and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 312 The Madras High Court on Wednesday allowed the Bharatiya Janata Party to conduct a bike rally in Coimbatore carrying the National Flag, as part of the Independence Day Celebrations. Justice G Jayachandran allowed the petition filed by A Krishna Prasath, District Secretary of the BJP- Yuva Morcha, Coimbatore District. The court did not find “merit” in the apprehensions raised by the State while denying permission for the rally. It also directed the Director General of Police not to prohibit rallies where the participants carried national flags with dignity and were not causing any hindrance to the traffic.

Making Remarks About CM, Pointing Failure To Fulfil Poll Promises Not Obscene Or Causing Enmity: Madras High Court Case Title: C Ve Shanmugam v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 313 While quashing cases registered against AIADMK MP C VE Shanmugam for his remarks against Chief Minister MK Stalin during a hunger strike condemning the arrest of former Minister Jayakumar, the Madras High Court observed that making remarks about the government and pointing out the failure to fulfil poll promises would not amount to causing enmity between groups. Justice G Jayachandran held that per the records, it was clear that the state machinery had been misused as a tool by the ruling party to crush the voice of the opposition and thus the cases deserved to be quashed.

Taxpayer Can’t Be Mulcted With Unjust Penalty Due To Minor Discrepancy Of PIN Code In GST Registration: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.Jindal Pipes Limited Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer (Int) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 314 The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has held that the taxpayer cannot be mulcted with an unjust penalty due to a minor discrepancy in the PIN code in the GST registration, and the tax invoices are to be construed as a minor violation of the provisions of the respective GST enactments. The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the imposition of a penalty for technical venial breach of the provisions or the minor discrepancy in the variance in the address in the tax invoices and the e-way bill would not justify the penalty under Section 129(5) of the GST enactments.

Right To Practise Law Is A Fundamental Right, Bar Associations Not Empowered To Restrain Lawyers From Appearing Before Any Court: Madras HC Case Title: V Senthil v The Secretary, Bar Council of TN & Puducherry Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 315 The Madras High Court recently observed that a bar association was not empowered to restrict a lawyer from appearing in court. The court observed that the right to practice law was a fundamental right and such a right could not be taken away by the Bar Association by suspending lawyers. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan further added that an advocate was expected to maintain a cordial relationship with the members of the Bar Association to ensure that the court proceedings are not obstructed.

**Lawyer’s Rights vs.

This statement highlights the importance of striking a balance between the rights of lawyers and the rights of litigants. It also emphasizes the need for lawyers to be mindful of the potential consequences of their actions, particularly when it comes to boycotts. Boycotts, as a form of protest, can be a powerful tool for achieving desired outcomes. However, they can also be disruptive and harmful to the legal system.

Justice Murali Shankar, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India, has been vocal about the issue of fake doctors. He believes that fake doctors pose a serious threat to public health and safety. **Here’s a breakdown of his concerns and proposed solutions:**

* **The Prevalence of Fake Doctors:** Justice Shankar has highlighted the alarming rise in the number of fake doctors operating in India.

The Thirukural is a collection of 1336 couplets, each with a moral lesson or a practical advice.

ESOP Employee Without Any Contractual Obligation is , Perquisite’,Taxable As Salary U/s 17(2) : Madras High Court Case Title: Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 While pointing out that the payment by FPS was not made towards the ESOPs as the Assessee continues to hold the ESOP (Employee Stock Option Purchase) even after the receipt of the compensation, the Madras High Court held the receipt in hands of Assessee qualifies as perquisite and taxable under the head ‘Salaries’. Hence, the High Court refuses to allow ‘Nil’ certificate of tax deduction u/s 192 in reference to such compensation, which is to be treated as perquisite in lieu of ‘salary’.

The Income Tax Act of Canada provides for the valuation of perquisites for tax purposes. Section 17(2) of the Act states that the valuation of perquisites is equal to the cost incurred by the employer for the employee. This means that the value of a perquisite is determined by the actual cost incurred by the employer to provide it to the employee.

The court also suggested that the accused should be informed about the right to seek legal counsel and the right to remain silent. These rights are enshrined in the Indian Constitution, and the court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the accused are aware of these fundamental rights. The court further suggested that the trial courts should ensure that the accused is not subjected to undue influence or coercion during the investigation.

* Justice G Ilangovan heard a plea by a husband to recall an earlier order of the High Court. * The husband sought a modification of the maintenance order. * The court observed that the husband should have followed proper procedures to challenge the maintenance order.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that the app was illegal not because it dealt with homosexual persons, but it served only a prurient purpose and the sexual interest of the parties. Commercial Tax Officer Not Obligated To Physically Verify E-Way Bills: Madras High Court Case Title: S.Doctor Viswanathan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 322 The Madras High Court has quashed the suspension order of a commercial tax officer who issued refunds to fake exporters without verification. The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has observed that, as a quasi-judicial authority, if the petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements that are provided under the relevant Act and the circular, that by itself is sufficient compliance before passing the order of refund of the tax. If, for any reason, it ultimately turns out to be a fake export by a fraudster, the order passed by the petitioner by itself cannot result in the suspension of the petitioner. When the petitioner was exercising his quasi-judicial function, unless there was strong prima facie material against the petitioner involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct, etc., suspension must be the last resort.

No IGST Is Payable On Ocean Freight Under Reverse Charge Mechanism; Madras High Court Directs Refund Case Title: Viterra India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 323 The Madras High Court has directed the department to refund the GST paid by the assessee on the ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism. The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals Private Limited, in which it was held that no IGST is payable on ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism for cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) imports.

Madras High Court Permits Hindu Munnani To Hold Peaceful Demonstrations In Solidarity With Hindus In Bangladesh Case Title: Siva Vijayan v Home Secretary and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 324 The Madras High Court has allowed Hindu Munnani to conduct demonstrations in the state demanding the Central Government to take action against the genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh. Allowing a petition filed by the organization, Justice G Jayachandran said that when demonstrations could be held in the state to show solidarity with the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the same could be done for the Hindus in Bangladesh. The court also emphasized that the people had a democratic right to hold peaceful demonstrations.

Madras HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Woman Who Alleged Mother & Sister Illegaly Retained Her Daughter’s Custody, Orders Child To Be Returned Case Title: Dharani v State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 325 In an unusual order, the Madras High Court has invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction in a habeas corpus case, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against a woman under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan were hearing an HCP filed by a woman for producing her 5-and-a-half-year-old daughter. The woman had alleged that her elder sister and mother were refusing to hand over the daughter’s custody to her.

The court found that the POCSO proceedings were not substantiated and dismissed them. This decision was based on the court’s assessment of the evidence presented and its understanding of the legal framework surrounding POCSO. The court recognized that the allegations against the woman were not credible and lacked sufficient evidence to support them.

The Madrasa High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a woman for allegedly killing her husband who tried to sexually assault their 21-year-old daughter in a drunken state. Justice G Jayachandran noted that on perusing the materials, it was clear that the act was committed under private defence and it was obvious that the woman had committed the alleged offence to save the honour of her daughter. The court referred to the statement of the daughter along with the photographs and the post-mortem report to conclude that the prosecution under Section 302 of the IPC was erroneous. The court observed that the act was a clear case of private defence which attracted Section 97 of the IPC.

Appointments To Aided Minority Institutions Can’t Be Restricted To Any Particular Caste Or Religion: Madras High Court Case Title: Manohar Thangaraj v Rt.Rev.ARGST Barnabas and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 The Madras High Court recently held that while minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions, the appointment in these institutions if aided by the government, could not be limited to a particular religious denomination. Justice GR Swaminathan observed that when the institution was receiving funds from the state exchequer, the principles of secularism demanded that the appointment process be open to all. The court observed that the right of the institutions to receive grant from the government is coupled with the obligation to appoint competent teachers and this obligation could be discharged only if there is a wide choice of candidates. The court thus held that the appointment of candidates from the diocese list would not be good for the administration.

The Madras High Court has recently issued a judgment in the case of M/s. Sriram Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs.

The court, while allowing the petition, held that the department refused to condone the delay and also proposed to reverse the ITC under Section 73(1) of the GST Act, which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and is hence liable to be set aside. Delay In Filing Appeal, Notices Uploaded On GST Portal , Copy Not Served: Madras High Court Condones Delay Case Title: Tvl.Deepa Traders Versus The Deputy Commissioner (ST) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 The Madras High Court has condoned the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal on the grounds that the notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no hard copy was served on the assessee.

The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the delay was not wilful but due to bona fide reasons, and a reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay. “Atrocious Game By State”: Madras High Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On State For Filing Frivolous Appeals Over Salary Dispute Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. SG Pushpalatha Gracelin and others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs.5 lakh on the State of Tamil Nadu for filing appeals against orders directing it to pay salaries to Assistant Professors.

While ordering the exemplary costs, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice L Victoria Gowri said it hoped the order would serve as an example and prevent the State from filing such appeals. The court also called the petitions an “atrocious game” played by the State on its citizens. The State had appealed against a 2023 order of a single judge directing it to pay the pending salary of Assistant Professors. The court observed that it did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the single judge. The court thus dismissed the appeals with exemplary costs. Out of the costs, the court ordered half the amount to be paid to the CANCARE Foundation.

Leave From Employment For Research Abroad Should Not Be Treated As Break In Service, Must Be Counted For Pension Purposes: Madras High Court Case Title: R Rakkiyappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 331 The Madras High Court recently observed that as per the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules 1933, the period of absence from work for employment abroad shall not be treated as a break in service and must be counted for pension and other purposes. Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that even as per a Government Order issued in this regard, the period of absence during employment abroad should be treated as an extraordinary leave and should not be considered a break in service but one without allowance.

The legal framework governing employee benefits, including pensions, terminal benefits, annual benefits, and CAS, is complex and multifaceted. It varies across jurisdictions, making it challenging to provide a definitive answer. However, generally speaking, these benefits are typically governed by:

Justice B Pugalendhi, while delivering his judgment in the case of *Sri Venkateswara Temple v. State of Tamil Nadu*, emphasized the importance of the quality of Prasadam provided to devotees. He highlighted that the temple administration has a responsibility to ensure the quality of the food served to the devotees.

Madras High Court Declines To Stall Formula 4 Street Race To Be Held In Chennai From August 31st To September 1st Case Title: ANS Prasad v The Secretary and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 333 The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to stall the Formula 4 Street Race that is scheduled to be held in Chennai on August 31st and September 1st, 2024. The division bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji allowed the race to be conducted subject to obtaining a license from the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) which was to be obtained on or before noon on 31st August. The court also made it clear that if the license was not obtained within the stipulated time, the event could not be conducted.

The bench passed the interim orders after considering the affidavit filed by the Chennai City Traffic Police assuring that the free flow of traffic would not be affected and that there wouldn’t be any hindrance in accessing the Government Hospital. The court had previously dismissed a batch of pleas challenging the conduct of the Formula 4 race in 2023. The event was however postponed following Cyclone Michaung which hit Tamil Nadu in December 2023.