“Publish at your own peril” appears to be the philosophy adopted by our country in the last few decades after Independence. But it appears that a number of countries, both developed and developing, have repealed Laws making defamation a Criminal Offence.”
– Justice V. Ramasubramanian
M. Nedunchezhian v. Bar Council of T.N., 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 5573
♦Did you know?Justice Ramasubramanian has immense contribution to Tamil language. He has authored a book in Tamil on the principles of law and justice in Kamba Ramayana (Kambanil Sattamum Neethiyum). He also wrote a series of articles under the caption “Beyond science” (Ariviyalukku Appaal) in a Tamil newspaper for 27 weeks.[1]
Justice V. Ramasubramanian was born on 30-06-1958 in Mannargudi. He did his schooling in Hindu High School at Triplicane. He passed B.Sc from Vivekananda College in Chennai and completed his LL.B. from Madras Law College.
♦Did you know? Justice Ramasubramanian added new vocabulary to the language of Tamil by running a column in a Tamil newspaper under the caption “Sol Vettai” for 50 weeks on the same lines as Barbara Walraff ran a column for Atlantic Times under the caption “Word Court and Word Fugitives.” Many readers of the newspaper got involved in this exercise and one of them was actually serving a life sentence in Puzhal Prison. As a mark of recognition of the involvement of a life convict in this exercise, the judge got the life convict out on parole for the Book release function and made the life convict sit on the dais with him and receive the first copy of the book.[2]
From an Advocate to a Supreme Court Judge
Justice V. Ramasubramanian enrolled as a Member of the Bar on February 16, 1983. He practised in High Court of Madras, City and Small Causes Court, State Consumer Commission and District Consumer Forum, Central and State Administrative Tribunals, Chennai. His mainly practised in Civil and Constitutional matters and was specialized in service matters.
Justice Ramasubramanian had marked his presence in many remarkable cases as an advocate. Some of the significant cases represented by him are:
- Rani Mohanraj v. P. Rajarathinam, 1998 SCC OnLine Mad 115
- Punithavalli v. LIC of India, 1998 SCC OnLine Mad 710
- Cholan Roadway Corpn. Ltd., v. Kasthurai Ammal, 2002 SCC OnLine Mad 693
- Ramamoorthy v. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 2002 SCC OnLine Mad 741
- B.M. College v. State Human Rights Commission, 2003 SCC OnLine Mad 642
- Shanmugam v. T.N. Housing Board, 2005 SCC OnLine Mad 53
- Arulmozhi v. Govt. of India, 2005 SCC OnLine Mad 587
- Viswanathan v. SBI, 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 650
- Damodaran v. Registrar, T.N. Administrative Tribunal, 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 40
He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court on 31-07-2006 and became permanent Judge on 9-11-2009. He continued to serve in the Madras High Court until 2016, when he was transferred to the common High Court for Andhra Pradesh & Telangana.
♦Did you know? He was transferred on his own request to the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh with effect from April 27, 2016.[3]
♦Did you know? After the bifurcation and the creation of a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, he was retained as a Judge of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad w.e.f. January 1, 2019.[4]
Justice Ramasubramanian was elevated as the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court on 22-06-2019. He relinquished the charge on 23-09-2019 (forenoon) on being elevated as a Judge of Honourable Supreme Court of India.[5]
♦Did you know? At the time of his appointment as a judge of Supreme Court, Justice Ramasubramanian was at 42nd number in the nationwide seniority list. The Supreme Court collegium while recommending Justice Ramasubramanian said it “is conscious of the fact that in the seniority of judges hailing from the Madras High Court” he is in second position and after his appointment, “there will be two judges on the bench of the Supreme Court from the Madras high court.” [6]
Notable Judgments at Supreme Court
♦Did you know? Justice Ramasubramanian recused himself from hearing a plea of Kerala’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP) leader Abdul Nazir Maudany, who is an accused in the 2008 Bengaluru serial blasts case, seeking to allow him to go to Kerala and stay there till the trial is concluded.[7]
Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 515
While dealing with a case under the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that once a single instrument has been charged under a correct charging provision of the Statute, namely Article 20(a), the Revenue cannot split the instrument into two, because of the reduction in the stamp duty facilitated by a notification of the Government issued under Section 9(a).
Dinesh Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 353
The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ., reversed the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court holding that where no particular qualification, particularly Master’s Degree in ‘Karm Kand’ was prescribed for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ either by the University Statute or in the advertisement, candidature of the appellant could not be rejected for not holding a Master’s degree in ‘Karm Kand’.
Opining that the appellant’s rejection was a result of stale relationship of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, the Bench commented,
“…perhaps the entire selection process undertaken in 2006 by the University, became victims of the crossfire between the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor.”
Sanjay Gupta v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 443
In the 2006 Meerut fire case, the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has held the Organizers responsible for the incident and not the Contractor as the Contractor was only responsible for executing work as assigned to him by the Organizers. It observed,
“The contractor has worked for the Organizers and not for the victims. Hence, the Organizers alone are responsible to protect the life and liberty of the victims.”
The court was dealing with the writ petition preferred by the victims of the fire tragedy which occurred on 10.4.2006, the last day of the India Brand Consumer Show organized at Victoria Park, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh by Mrinal Events and Expositions. The incident claimed the lives of 65 persons and left 161 or more with burn injuries.
Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Rajesh Chandra Srivastava, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 417
The bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that an ad hoc payment made to the workers pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in a previous round of litigation does not form part of “wages” within the meaning of the expression under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for the purpose of calculating gratuity.
Shripati Lakhu Mane v. Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 383
Explaining the law on abandonment on contractual obligation, the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that the refusal of a contractor to continue to execute the work, unless the reciprocal promises are performed by the other party, cannot be termed as abandonment of contract. A refusal by one party to a contract, may entitle the other party either to sue for breach or to rescind the contract and sue on a quantum meruit for the work already done.
DEVAS Multimedia (P) Ltd.v. Antrix Corporation Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 46
In the case where the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ upheld NCLAT’s order of winding up of Devas Multimedia Private Limited, the requirement of advertising the winding up petition was looked into and the Court observed that the failure to publish an advertisement would not lead to the automatic dismissal of the petition for winding up.
Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1283
In a case where it was alleged that more than one consumer cannot institute a complaint unless they come within the definition of the word “complainant” of Section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and also satisfy the requirements of Section 38(11) read with Order I Rule 8 CPC, the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that it is wrong to contend that wherever there are more consumers than one, they must only take recourse to Order I Rule 8 CPC, even if the complaint is not on behalf of or for the benefit of, all the consumers interested in the matter.
Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) v. Bheemesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1264
Clearing the air over the applicability of a new or modified Compassionate Appointment Scheme that comes into force after the death of the employee, the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor such as the date of consideration of the application of the dependant.
Internet and Mobile Assn. of India v. Reserve Bank of India, (2020) 10 SCC 274
The 3-judge bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ set aside the RBI circular that had prevented financial services from trading in crypto-currencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.
According to Justice Ramasubramanian RBI’s circular had failed to demonstrate as how the virtual currency trading was causing harm to banks and other types of financial institutions.
Kapico Kerala Resorts (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2020) 3 SCC 18
The 3-judge bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ upheld a Kerala High Court order that had directed Kapico Kerala Resorts to cease encroaching land on Vaamika Island.
The Court held that the decision in Vaamika Island, (2013) 8 SCC 760 was rendered at the stage of special leave petitions and though the Court refused leave, it went on to affirm the findings of High Court, recording detailed reasons therefore. Further, the appellants cannot escape the findings recorded in the said case and once it is found that the main issues arose in common for both the islands and dealt with in common by High Court, had received a seal of approval from Supreme Court by a reasoned order. Further, there is no scope for revisiting the same on the basis of certain minor ancillary issues not specifically dealt with, in the judgment.
Embassy Property Developments (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 13 SCC 308
In an important judgment with regards to the jurisdiction of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to look into fraud in an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) proceeding, the 3-judge bench of R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ held that the NCLT and NCLAT enjoyed the jurisdiction to look into fraud under Section 65 of the IBC.
The Court while deciding the second issue i.e. whether a High Court could interfere under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a NCLT order in a IBC proceeding and thereby ignore the statutory remedy of appeal to the NCLAT, held that a High Court could interfere in instances where the NCLT had lacked the jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding in the first place.
“NCLT and NCLAT would have jurisdiction to enquire into questions of fraud, they would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes such as those arising under MMDR Act, 1957 and the rules issued there under, especially when he disputes revolve around decisions of statutory or quasi judicial authorities, which can be corrected only by way of judicial review of administrative action.”
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1
While interpreting Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 that deals with admissibility of electronic records, the 3-judge bench of R.F. Nariman*, S. Ravindra Bhat and V. Ramasubramanian**, JJ held that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record. The Court further clarified that the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced.
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 296
“National Courts can draw inspiration from International Conventions/Treaties, so long as they are not in conflict with the municipal law.”
While deciding not to grant the interim relief prayed by the petitioners, the 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ directed that the Rohingyas in Jammu, on whose behalf the present application is filed, shall not be deported unless the procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed.
“…right not to be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of the territory of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e).”
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments Private Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 272
“The relief of reinstatement granted by the Tribunal, was too big a pill even for the complainant companies, and perhaps Cyrus Mistry, to swallow.”
Concluding the corporate sage in the Tata-Mistry Row, the 3-judge bench comprising of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has answered all questions in favour of Tata Sons and upheld the removal of Cyrus Mistry as Chairman by the Tata Sons.
The Court observed that
“NCLAT appears to have granted the relief of reinstatement gratis without any foundation in pleadings, without any prayer and without any basis in law, thereby forcing upon the appellant an Executive Chairman, who now is unable to support his own reinstatement.”
Also Read: Tata v. Mistry: A Case for Greater Protection of Minority Shareholders’ Rights
Satyama Dubey v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 874
In a case pertaining to the brutal gang-rape and assault of a 19-year old girl, also known as Hathras Gang Rape Case, the 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ, while observing that the perception and pessimism are not without justification and directed the CRPF to provide security to the victim’s family and witnesses within a week “in order to allay all apprehensions and only as a confidence building measure”.
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 266
“All that is required is a little more effort to cull out such information from both sides (purchaser of bond and political party) and do some “match the following”.”
While refusing to interfere with the Scheme of sale of electoral bonds by the Political Parties, the 3-judge bench comprising of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V, Ramasubramanian, JJ has held that the operations under the Electoral Bonds Scheme are not behind iron curtains incapable of being pierced.
The Court also observed that even though the Scheme provides anonymity, it is intended to ensure that everything happens only through banking channels.
Attorney General for India v. Satish, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 42
In a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the controversial Bombay High Court judgment, the 3-judge bench comprising of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ stayed the release of accused whose sentence was cut to 1 year by the High Court on the ground that there was no skin to skin contact with victim.
Rakesh Vaishanv v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 18
“Court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment”
While staying the implementation of all the three farms laws until further orders, the 3-Judge Bench comprising of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., opined that a stay on implementation of the farm laws may alleviate the hurt feelings of the farmers and invigorate them to come to the negotiating table with confidence and good faith.
“While we may not stifle a peaceful protest, we think that this extraordinary order of stay of implementation of the farm laws will be perceived as an achievement of the purpose of such protest at least for the present and will encourage the farmers bodies to convince their members to get back to their livelihood, both in order to protect their own lives and health and in order to protect the lives and properties of others.”
Rakesh Vaishnav v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1032
“Indeed the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised subject to public order.”
While refusing to interfere with the ongoing Farmers’ protest, the 3-judge bench consisting of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ opined that the farmers’ protest should be allowed to continue without impediment and without any breach of peace either by the protesters or the police.
M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 326
In a PIL addressing the issue of protection of two species of birds namely the Great Indian Bustard (‘GIB’) and the Lesser Florican, which is on the verge of extinction, the 3-Judge Bench of S. A. Bobde, CJ., A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., has emphasized on need to adopt eco-centric approach and issued directions to be followed by the Government as the State as well as the Central Government have a duty to preserve the endangered species.
Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia v. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1039
In an important and far-reaching verdict deciding the question as to “whether the vote cast by a Member of the Legislative Assembly in an election to the Rajya Sabha, in the forenoon on the date of election, would become invalid, consequent upon his disqualification, arising out of a conviction and sentence imposed by a Criminal Court, in the afternoon on the very same day?”, the 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde*, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has held that such vote would remain valid and if held otherwise, such a situation will create endless confusion and needless chaos.
“…to hold that a Member of the Legislative Assembly stood disqualified even before he was convicted would grossly violate his substantive right to be treated as innocent until proved guilty.”
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 910
Recognising the need of adherence to the regulatory principles of transparency, non-discrimination and non-predation sought by TRAI, the 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has directed telecom giants Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea to disclose information/details regarding segmented offers to TRAI and also asked TRAI to ensure that such information is kept confidential and is not made available to the competitors or to any other person.
Sudha Singh v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 342
Setting aside the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to a gangster arrested under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., held that there is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a person charged with crime but it is important for the courts to recognise the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accused is released on bail.
R. Poornima v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 714
Dismissing the writ petition, the 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde*, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has dismissed the claim of certain District Judges to club their services rendered as advocates with the service rendered by them as Judicial Officers, for determining their eligibility for elevation as High Court judges.
CCEv. Cera Boards and Doors, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 657
The 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ while explaining the scheme of provisions under the Central Excise Act, 1944, laid down elaborate principles that the Adjudicating Authorities has to keep in mind while determining the value of excisable goods.
Envitech Marine Consultants (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 312
The 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has refused to interfere with the dismantling of INS Viraat, the oldest serving warship in the World.
“…while appreciating the sentiments of the petitioners, we are afraid that we cannot do anything at this stage and in these circumstances.”
Amruta Ben Himanshu Kumar Shah v. Himanshu Kumar Parvinchandra Shah, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 46
While rejecting the transfer petition, V. Ramasubramanian*, J held that the dismissal of a petition for transfer, may not operate as res judicata, when a fresh petition is filed on change of circumstances. However, when a case is at its final stage, the Court will be extremely reluctant to order the transfer, as it may derail the entire process.
Ankita Meena v. University of Delhi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 36
Setting aside the judgment of Delhi High Court where the Court refused to interfere with the decision of the University denying permission to the applicant to appear in 4th Semester LL.B Examination, the 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has directed the University to declare Supplementary exam result & issue provisional degree to woman who fell short of attendance due to birth of her child & subsequent Teacher’s strike.
Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 24
Setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ held that the seniority will not be decided on the basis of the date of promotion but on the basis of the date of acquiring the qualification while occupying the promoted posts.
“It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the non graduates have had opportunities to qualify themselves, which they have also done. Therefore, the prescription of graduation as a qualification for promotion to the post of Head Assistant cannot be held as violative of Articles 14 and 16.”
Saritha S. Nair v. Hibi Eden, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1006
The 3-judge bench comprising of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that the suspension of sentence not enough to save one from disqualification from contesting elections; a person is disqualified to contest polls if conviction not stayed.
On the issue of rejection of the of the election petition by the Kerala High Court, the Court held that though the High Court was right in not taking up the election petition but the ground on which it rejected the petition i.e. incurable defects, was wrong.
“If only the High Court had given an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defects in the verification and if, despite such an opportunity, the petitioner had failed to come up with a proper verification, the High Court could have then held the petitioner guilty of playing hide and seek. The failure of the High Court to give an opportunity to cure the defects is improper.”
Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 587 and 2020 SCC OnLine SC 658
After Vikas Dubey, a history-sheeter and gangster-turned-politician, was killed in a police encounter on July 10, 2020, the Supreme Court gave a go ahead to Inquiry Committee headed by Former SC judge Justice B S Chauhan.
SC gives a go ahead to Inquiry Committee headed by Former SC judge Justice B S Chauhan | Read more…
Later, a 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ refused to scrap the Judicial Committee constituted to look into the killing of Vikas Dubey and said that the allegations of bias made against the members of the Commission merely on the basis of newspaper reports and nothing more, are liable to be rejected outright.
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1015
The 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has upheld the power of Universities to fix enhanced norms and standards for the grant of affiliation other than those prescribed by AICTE.
“No State run university can afford to have a laidback attitude today, when their own performance is being measured by international standards. Therefore, the power of the universities to prescribe enhanced norms and standards, cannot be doubted.”
Somasundaram v. State, (2020) 7 SCC 722
Agreeing with Justice Mishra’s opinion that under section 109 IPC, the abettor is liable to the same punishment which may be inflicted on the principal offender if the act of the latter is committed in consequence of the abetment., the 3-judge bench of R.F. Nariman, K.M. Joseph* and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ upheld the conviction of the accused .
The Court opined that “Abduction followed by murder in appropriate cases can enable court to presume that abductor is the murderer. Principle in this regard is that after abduction, the abductor would be in a position to explain what happened to his victim and if he failed to do so, it is only natural and logical that an irresistible inference may be drawn that he has done away with the hapless victim.” and held that the said principle would also apply to those persons who illegally confine the person who stands abducted even if there is no evidence that they have themselves carried out the abduction.
Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 793
In a case seeking to transfer of three criminal cases, all pending on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, Haryana, to any competent Court in New Delhi, V. Ramasubramanian*, J., held that the transfer of criminal cases cannot be ordered under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction even before evidence is marshalled.
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 958
Rejecting the plea of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India (P) Ltd. to quash an FIR against it alleging the use of “cheat devices” which manipulate emission figures in Audi cars sold by them, the 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ., reiterated that the Courts should not thwart any investigation unless no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
Kaledonia Jute and Fibres (P) Ltd. v. Axis Nirman and Industries Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 943
Deciding the issue as to what are the circumstances under which a winding up proceeding pending on the file of a High court could be transferred to the NCLT and on whose instance such a transfer could be ordered, the 3-judge bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ., held that not just the petitioning creditor but ‘any’ creditor aggrieved by any decision of the official liquidator can initiate transfer of winding up proceedings from a Company Court to NCLT.
Notable Judgments at High Court
♦Did you know? The computerization of the Madras high court and the Subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu gained momentum under his leadership. The selection of judges to the subordinate judiciary in Tamil Nadu was entrusted to him three times from the year 2012. [8]
Consim Info (P) Ltd. v. Google India (P) Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 4967
In a case dealing with the issue as to whether such a use of appellant’s trademark by Google’s Ad program amounted to trademark infringement, Justice Ramasubramanian* denied an interim injunction against Google for its ‘Keywords Suggestion Tool’.
♦Did you know? The decision rendered by Justice Subramanian in Consim Info (P) Ltd. v. Google India (P) Ltd. was hailed as the first decision in India on the question of infringement of trademark by an internet search engine through its adword policy. This decision was hailed by IPR experts as an encyclopedia on the legal issues involved.[9]
Sanjeev Kumar v. State of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 972
“…all appointments made otherwise than in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, strike at the very root of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.”
In a civil writ petition were the petitioners engaged on a contractual basis as Trainer in various Industrial training institute challenged the cut-off date fixed under notification of the Department of Technical Education by the Government, the Division Bench of V. Ramasubramanian*, C.J. and Anoop Chitkara, J., held that there was no arbitrariness on the part of the Government in choosing the cut-off date i.e. 31.07.2015 as there was a scientific reason for the same.
“…the appointments on contract basis may not strictly follow the rule of reservation, which is the bedrock of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, this Court cannot be a party to the conversion of an ‘One time Measure’ issued by the Government, that too, at the instance of this Court, in to a permanent measure.”
Jinendra Jewellers v. B. Venkateswara Rao, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 442
In a case dealing with the issue a to whether a counter-claim can be rejected in terms of Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Justice Ramasubramanian* has held that while dealing with an application for rejection of counter-claim the court must take precaution and examine whether rejection would have the effect of striking off the defence
T. Rajkumar v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 2001
In a writ petition dealing with the constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Division bench comprising of V. Ramasubramanian* and T. Mathivanan, JJ., upheld the constitutionality of Section 94-A(1) of the Income Tax Act stating that in the present times when scams like Panama Leaks are being revealed, the provisions related to tax avoidance are the need of the hour.
The Court held that the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and other such rules of International Law did not influence the legislative powers of Parliament.
B. Dilipkumar v. Secretary to the Govt., 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 2122
Raising concerns over the rising cases of honour killing, V. Ramasubramanian*, J., issued directions to the Tamil Nadu Government to tackle the growing menace of honour killings in the State.
State v. Rasu, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 1807
Dismissing and disapproving the order laid down by the Single Judge Bench wherein it was directed that the devotees should follow a ‘dress code’ while visiting temples, the Division Bench of V. Ramasubramanian and K. Ravichandrabaabu, JJ., has held that the directions issued by the Single Judge Bench prescribing the dress code for the devotees is beyond the scope of the lis that was before him and therefore cannot be approved.
“Courts are not expected to adjudicate any matter academically in the absence of any real lis between parties. Courts are not entitled to create a controversy and adjudicate upon the same.”
A. Santhos Yadav v. Bar Council of T.N.,2015 SCC OnLine Mad 3362
“…the burning of effigies has its roots in history, culture as well as the religion of several countries throughout the world.”
The Division Bench of V. Ramasubramanian* and K. Ravichandrabaabu JJ., held that section 285 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not criminalize burning of effigies in a political agitation.
The Court ordered the enrolment of an eligible person as an advocate as he can not be denied enrolment merely because he had a criminal case of burning effigy of a political leader pending against him.
V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N., 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 2100
Dismissing the writ petition seeking appointment to judicial services with 70% blindness, the Division Bench of V. Ramasubramanian* and T. Mathivanan, JJ., held that held that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission’s decision is lawful as it is in line with the State’s policy.
Also Read: Supreme Court | 40-50% disability limit for the post of Civil Judge is logical considering the nature of the job
LYCA Production (P) Ltd v. Govt. of T.N., 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 8448
“The action of any group or organisation demanding the removal of any dialogue or scene or sub-title or title from a film which is already certified for release by the Central Board of Film Certification, would tantamount to a blackmail.”
While allowing the petition and directing the respondent to provide protection to enable the petitioner to have their name exhibited as the Producer of the film “Kathi” in the prints as well as the publicity material of the film, V. Ramasubramanian* J., opined that once a film is certified for screening by the Central Board of Film Certification, no group, organisation or association can demand further censoring, on the ground that something in the film hurts the religious, communal, racial or linguistic sentiments of someone or the other.
Dorothy Thomas v. Rex Arul, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 925
Reffused to be oscillated by the emotional appeal of the Plaintiff-mother against the order of an American Court granting custody of her child to her antagonized husband, Justice V. Ramasubramanian* held that a person who had failed to avail opportunity of hearing provided in the proceedings of the foreign Court cannot contend violation of principles of natural justice and any attack to such foreign judgment under Section 13(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not sustainable.
The Court opined that the US court had jurisdiction even though the Plaintiff never personally appeared but appearing through counsel was sufficient to extend personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff for the defendant’s counterclaims.
S. Anand v. Vanitha Vijaya Kumar, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 435
Emphasized the need for developing the concept of shared parenting, Justice V. Ramasubramanian* held that if both parties are not disqualified from having the custody of the child, then it is their duty, under normal circumstances, to draw up a parenting schedule and share the responsibility of co-parenting to bring up the child in a healthy and happy environment.
The Court casted duty on the Courts to draw up a parenting schedule keeping in mind the interest and welfare of the child, if the parents themselves are not matured enough to reach an understanding and draw up a parenting schedule.
Discussing the Court’s mindset and need for change towards its duty towards the interest and welfare of the child, Justice Ramasubramanian held that
“It is quite unfortunate that the Courts still dabble with the age old concepts of custody and visitation rights. These terms emanate from a rights regime rather than a responsibilities regime. Today the emphasis has shifted from the regime where we were concerned with the rights of the parents over the child, to a regime where we should be concerned about the responsibilities of the parents towards the child.”
Lalgudi G. Jayaraman v. Cleveland Cultural Alliance, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 148
Justice V. Ramasubramanian* held that where a right over an artistic/musical/literary work is claimed by an entity, apart from the author, such entity is under a very heavy burden to show that the work was commissioned by him, was created in the course of employment by the author and that there was no agreement to the contrary.
Rajshree Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. AXIS Bank, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 746
“Derivatives are time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction, which can push companies on to a spiral that can lead to a corporate melt down”.
– Warren Buffett
Ruling in favour of AXIS Bank, Justice V. Ramasubramanian* held that derivative contract is not a wager, because the purpose it serves is akin to insurance by hedging the plaintiff’s risk, therefore it is not illegal.
“Every business venture provides a roller-coaster ride at some point of time or the other and the validity of contracts cannot be judged on the basis of the success or failure of the venture.”
Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care (P) Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 627
“…on the one hand, advertisements being free commercial speech, enjoy a degree of protection. On the other hand, the right of the consumers to know and to receive information is also protected. Therefore, both rights have to be matched and balanced.”
Recognising the rights of the consumers to be protected against misleading claims made by manufacturers, V. Ramasubramanian*, J., held that the question of the legality of puffing needed to be decided by balancing the right to freedom under Article 19 along with reasonable restrictions on that right in the form of consumer laws.
“…the recognition of this right (to puff) of the producers, would be to de-recognise the rights of the consumers guaranteed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
†Editorial Assistant, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
* Judge who has penned the judgment.
** Judge who has penned the concurring judgment.
[1] https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/210919/v-ramasubramanian-to-be-sworn-in-supreme-court-judge-on-monday.html
[2] https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/210919/v-ramasubramanian-to-be-sworn-in-supreme-court-judge-on-monday.html
[3] https://tshc.gov.in/hcapp/fcjjudprofile.action;HCAPP_ID=E419F69C53EF3A2592C3A3A5AC049D86?judcode=2&cjornot=N
[4] https://tshc.gov.in/hcapp/fcjjudprofile.action;HCAPP_ID=E419F69C53EF3A2592C3A3A5AC049D86?judcode=2&cjornot=N
[5] https://tshc.gov.in/hcapp/fcjjudprofile.action;HCAPP_ID=E419F69C53EF3A2592C3A3A5AC049D86?judcode=2&cjornot=N
[6] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/another-judge-now-objects-to-sc-collegium-overlooking-seniority/articleshow/70983735.cms?from=mdr
[7] https://www.deccanherald.com/national/sc-judge-v-ramasubramanian-recuses-himself-from-hearing-2008-bengaluru-blasts-accuseds-plea-973634.html
[8] https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/210919/v-ramasubramanian-to-be-sworn-in-supreme-court-judge-on-monday.html
[9] https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/210919/v-ramasubramanian-to-be-sworn-in-supreme-court-judge-on-monday.html