“A man is both a creator and destroyer. Therefore, he is his own future. A better future can only be secured through the younger generation, existing and awaiting.”1
Justice M.M. Sundresh
Early life and Education
Justice Sundresh was born on 21-07-1962 in Erode to Mr. V. K. Muthusamy, who was a Senior Advocate at the High Court of Judicature at Madras.2 His early life revolved around Erode, where he completed his school and pre-university education. Later, he pursued his higher studies at Loyola College in Chennai, where he completed his B.A. degree. His thirst for legal knowledge led him to Madras Law College, where he successfully acquired his LL. B degree.3
As an Advocate
In 1985, Justice Sundresh was enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, marking the commencement of his legal practice.4 Throughout his legal career, Justice Sundresh practiced in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, one of the most prestigious and influential high courts in India. He honed his skills in the chambers of eminent advocates such as S. Sivasubramaniam and his father, V. K. Muthusamy, a Senior Advocate, further enriching his legal acumen. His experience and proficiency in handling legal issues across Civil (Appellate), Criminal, and Writ Jurisdiction earned him a reputation as a competent and reliable lawyer.5
His dedication and expertise in the field soon caught the attention of the Government of Tamil Nadu, which appointed him as the Counsel for the State Government. For a significant period, from 1991 to 1996, he served as the Government Advocate, representing the state in various legal matters. He also served as the Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industries Development Corporation.6
As an advocate, Justice Sundresh was actively involved in various community initiatives. He was selected to be a Member of the Monitoring Committee, which oversaw the implementation of the Reverse Osmosis System in Thiruppur District, Karur District, and his hometown Erode.7
As a Judge
In recognition of his exemplary legal career and dedication to the legal profession, Justice Sundresh’s elevation to the High Court of Judicature at Madras took place on 31-03-2009. His remarkable work on the bench led to his confirmation as a Permanent Judge on 29-03-2011.8
After years of hard work, Justice M.M. Sundresh reached the pinnacle of his career when he was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 31-08-2021.9
-
Did You Know? During his 12-year stint as judge of Madras high court, Justice Sundresh had disposed of 1,03,563 cases.10
Notable Judgements at Supreme Court
[National Investigation Agency v. Owais Amin, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 983]
While setting aside the impugned judgment insofar as it confirms the judgment of the Special Judge, NIA, in not taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the RPC, 1989, the division bench of M. M. Sundresh* and S. V. N. Bhatti, JJ. held that while an investigation could continue after its initiation under the CrPC, 1989, by way of the application of the CrPC, 1973, it cannot be stated that even for a case where there was a clear non-compliance of the former, it can be ignored by the application of the latter.
The Court said that while we are holding that the requirement of an authorization or an empowerment is mandatory for conveying a complaint, it being at the conclusion of investigation, would not preclude the investigating agency from complying with it thereafter. Read More…
[State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 548]
In an appeal filed by the State of Telangana against the Telangana High Court judgment which set aside the concurrent judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the then High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh (1994 Judgment)., and held that Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (‘A.P. Forest Act’) which speaks about the bar of a suit can only be applied during the pendency of proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act and not thereafter, the division bench of MM Sundresh* and SVN Bhatti, JJ., has set aside the impugned judgment and restored the judgement rendered in 1994. Further, it imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- each on the State and respondents to be paid to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. Further, the Bench allowed the State to enquire into the lapses committed by the officers in filing collusive affidavits before the competent court and recover the same from those officers who are responsible for facilitating and filing incorrect affidavits in the ongoing proceedings….
“Human beings indulge themselves in selective amnesia when it comes to fathom the significance of forests. It is the forests which give life to the Earth by replacing carbon dioxide with oxygen, thereby providing a hospitable environment for the steady growth of diverse life forms.”
[Harvinder Singh v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1347]
In an appeal challenging the conviction rendered for life imprisonment by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, by setting at naught the order of acquittal rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer), Fast Track Court, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is under challenge in these appeals, a division bench of M.M. Sundresh* and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ., set aside the conviction of a appellant for murder and held that Courts cannot assume that a witness has good reputation only because he is educated and God-fearing.
“A court of law cannot declare the reputation of a person based upon its own opinion merely because a person is educated and said to be God-fearing, that by itself will not create a positive reputation.”
[Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 5 SCC 403]
In an appeal challenging order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 24-04-2023 upholding the rejection of application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for a matter involving offences under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Sections 17, 18, 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) and Sections 25 and 54 of Arms Act, 1959, the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ. refused to grant bail while explaining the rule against bail delineating provisions under UAPA as against general rule under CrPC. Read More…
[Sunder Lal v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 112]
While dealing with the question of whether a witness who had been shown on the prosecution list but not examined on behalf of the prosecution could be permitted for examination as a defense witness, Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ., clarified that there was no bar in law restricting such examination as defense witness and permitted the appellant to examine the prosecution witness as defense witness and kept it open for the prosecution to cross-examine the said witness.
“Mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail“.
[Debendra Paikar v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 98]
In an appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of appeal against Trial Court’s order of conviction for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. highlighted the discrepancy in prosecution case and set aside the conviction. The Court held that both the Courts below “completely misread the material available on record”. Read More…
[Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1475]
In an application seeking issuance of appropriate directions for the State of Rajasthan and particularly the District Administration of Udaipur to take immediate steps to prevent air pollution in Udaipur city, the Division Bench of A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ., clarified that the previous orders for mitigating air and noise pollution were applicable to all the States including the State of Rajasthan, not only restricted to the festive season but thereafter as well. Read More…
[Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1127]
In a civil appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment, affirming the Trial Court’s order, whereby a decree of divorce was declined to be granted to the appellant-wife, the Division Bench of Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh,* JJ., allowed the appeal and granted a decree of divorce and explained the scope of grant of divorce on grounds of ‘cruelty’ under Hindu Marriage Act.
“What is cruelty for a woman, may not be cruelty for a man, and hence, a more elastic and broad approach is required when a wife seeks divorce.”
[State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 898]
In batch of appeals filed to overturn the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court declaring Rule 4(10) and Rule 7(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (‘the Rules’) as unconstitutional, the division bench of A.S. Bopanna and MM Sundresh,* JJ., said that the impugned Rules have been introduced in exercise of the power conferred under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘1957 Act’). There is neither a right nor does it get vested through an application made over a Government land. Further, it viewed that the High Court has totally misconstrued the issues ignoring the fact that there is a delegation of power to the State which was rightly exercised as conferred under Section 15 of the 1957 Act. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgments. Read More…
[V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51]
In a petition filed Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji and his wife, challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment, wherein the Court held that the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) was entitled to take Senthil Balaji into police custody, the division bench of AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh,* JJ. has dismissed the said plea challenging ED custody in the money laundering case and allowed ED to have his custody till 12-08-2023 in connection with the cash-for-jobs scam. The Court held that the words “such custody” occurring in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 would include not only police custody but also that of other investigating agencies. Read More…
[Nuruddin v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 52]
The division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh J.J., exercising its power under the criminal appellate jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the respondent who had inflicted gunshot injuries on the appellant and subsequently also killed the elder brother of the appellant in broad day light.
The Court stated that the Allahabad High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, the relationship between the parties and the prima facie evidence on record with reference to common intention as well as antecedents of the respondent. Read More…
[Sanjay v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 840]
In a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking interim relief against the order passed by Rajasthan High Court on 20-03-2023 refusing to grant interim bail for offences under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 after recovery of illegal Ganja of 173.05 Kg, the Division Bench of A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. allowed interim bail of 6 weeks on medical grounds since the petitioner needed specialized treatment to treat spinal disorder. Read More…
[Lotus Valley International School v. State of U.P.,11]
In a special leave petition against the judgment and order of Allahabad High Court, wherein the Court has directed the Schools in Uttar Pradesh to refund or adjust 15 percent of excess fees charged during the academic session 2020-2021 amidst Covid-19 pandemic, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. has stayed the impugned judgment to the extent it directs refund of the fee paid to ex-students, till the next date of hearing in August. Read More…
[Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 586]
In a special leave petition against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. while dismissing the petition, reiterated that it is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding as a legal precedent is the principle upon which the case is decided and, for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the obiter dicta. Read More…
[Texco Marketing (P) Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023) 1 SCC 428]
In an appeal against the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), wherein the commission having found a deficiency in service; placed reliance upon the exclusion clause in setting aside the decision of the State Commission while granting a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs to the appellant, division bench of M.M. Sundresh* and Surya Kant, JJ. held that non-compliance of Clauses (3) and (4) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interests, Regulation 2002) Act (‘IRDA Regulation, 2002’) preceded by unilateral inclusion, and thereafter followed by the execution of the contract, receiving benefits, and repudiation after knowing that it was entered into for the basement, would certainly be an act of unfair trade practice. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by NCDRC, except to the extent of declining a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs towards harassment and mental agony. Read More…
[Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51]
The division bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has asked the Government of India to consider the introduction of an Act specifically meant for granting of bail, as done in various other countries like the United Kingdom.
The Court took note of the statistics that show that jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners with more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constituting undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offense, being charged with offenses punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Statistics also show that more than 1000 children are living in prisons along with their mothers. Granting bail in such cases is not only in the interest of the accused, but also the children who are not expected to get exposed to the prisons.
“Criminal courts in general with the trial court in particular are the guardian angels of liberty. Liberty, as embedded in the Code, has to be preserved, protected, and enforced by the Criminal Courts. Any conscious failure by the Criminal Courts would constitute an affront to liberty. It is the pious duty of the Criminal Court to zealously guard and keep a consistent vision in safeguarding the constitutional values and ethos.”
[CCI v. State of Mizoram, (2022) 7 SCC 73]
While adjudicating the dispute with regard to jurisdiction of CCI to inquire into allegations of bid rigging, collusive bidding, and cartelisation in the tender process for appointment of selling agents and distributors for lotteries organised in the State of Mizoram the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and M.M. Sundresh, JJ., concluded that,
“Lotteries may be a regulated commodity and may even be res extra commercium; that would not take away the aspect of something which is anti-competition in the context of the business related to lotteries.” Read More…
[State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, (2022) 13 SCC 256]
The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has held that when there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one. Read More…
[Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, (2022) 6 SCC 105]
The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has observed that a right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules.
“…a right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules.”
[Bank of Baroda v. MBL Infrastructures Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 661]
In a case were the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh*, JJ., was sought to provide judicial interpretation of Section 29A(h) of the IBC, as amended by the Act, 2018, the Bench held that ineligibility has to be seen from the point of view of the resolution process. It can never be said that there can be ineligibility qua one creditor as against others. Rather, the ineligibility is to the participation in the resolution process of the corporate debtor.
The Bench remarked, “…what is required to earn a disqualification under the said provision is a mere existence of a personal guarantee that stands invoked by a single creditor, notwithstanding the application being filed by any other creditor seeking initiation of insolvency resolution process subject to further compliance of invocation of the said personal guarantee by any other creditor.” Read More…
[U.N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Assn., (2022) 1 SCC 101]
In the case dealing with willful disobedience of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2008 with respect to the levy made while upholding Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*,JJ has held that vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt and that the appellants cannot be implicated for alleged action of their subordinates.
The Court noticed that in the present case, it was the specific case of the appellants that they did not violate the directives of the court. Also, there was no material to either establish their knowledge on the action of their subordinates, or that they acted in collusion with each other.
“Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge.”
[Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 274]
In a half a century old case relating to a Will, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and MM Sundresh, JJ has held that the objective of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is to create an absolute interest in case of a limited interest of the wife. The objective cannot be that a Hindu male who owned self-acquired property is unable to execute a Will giving a limited estate to a wife if all other aspects including maintenance are taken care of.
“If we were to hold so it would imply that if the wife is disinherited under the Will it would be sustainable but if a limited estate is given it would mature into an absolute interest irrespective of the intent of the testator.”
[Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545]
Drawing an interesting analogy to explain the scope of Section 34 of IPC, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has said that it is a team effort akin to a game of football involving several positions manned by many, such as defender, mid-fielder, striker, and a keeper.
“A striker may hit the target, while a keeper may stop an attack. The consequence of the match, either a win or a loss, is borne by all the players, though they may have their distinct roles. A goal scored or saved may be the final act, but the result is what matters. As against the specific individuals who had impacted more, the result is shared between the players. The same logic is the foundation of Section 34 IPC which creates shared liability on those who shared the common intention to commit the crime.”
[Dalbir v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1037]
Opining that the advancement of medical field over a period of time has been enormous, the Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ., directed the Railways to constitute a committee to revisit its decision disqualifying persons with history of lasik surgery for the post of constables (RPF). Read More…
[Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 852]
In a big development, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and MM Sundresh, JJ has directed that the infamous gangster/terrorist Abu Salem be released after the completion of 25 years of his sentence in terms of the national commitment as well as the principle based on comity of courts. Salem was convicted on 12.10.2005. Read More…
[Mohan v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 12 SCC 619]
Reminding the Courts of the importance of hierarchy of Courts, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has held that the Appellate Court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case. Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity.
“Every case has its own journey towards the truth and it is the Court’s role undertake. Truth has to be found on the basis of evidence available before it. There is no room for subjectivity nor the nature of offence affects its performance.”
[State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706]
Ina case where, the State of Uttar Pradesh (‘the State’) assailed the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which stated that the literal interpretation of Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978 (‘1978 Rules’) would facilitate consideration of those candidates who were not part of the list which was forwarded by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (‘the Commission’), to be considered for vacancies for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Single Cadre, Group (C), pursuant to the selected candidates which were approved by the appointing authority not taking up on the offer, the division bench of M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh,* JJ., held that the Allahabad High Court did not take note of the grounds raised in the review petition, thus, set aside both the aforesaid orders and restored the order passed by the Single Judge. Read More…
[State of U.P. v. Principal Abhay Nadan Inter College, (2021) 15 SCC 600]
A Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh*, JJ., had set aside Allahabad High Court’s decision whereby the High Court had declared the Regulation 101 framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as unconstitutional. The Bench expressed, “we have already noted the fact that “Outsourcing” as a matter of policy is being introduced throughout the State. It is one thing to say that it has to be given effect to with caution as recommended by the Seventh Central Pay Commission, and another to strike it down as unconstitutional.” Read More…
[Taijuddin v. State of Assam, (2022) 1 SCC 395]
In a case where an accused merely pointed to the house where the victim was hiding, thereby helping a fully armed “murderous mob” locate the victim, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and MM Sundresh, JJ has held that the mere fact that the accused was not brave enough to conceal where the victim was hiding did not make him a part of the unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the IPC. Read More…
[Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasiya, (2022) 2 SCC 355]
In a case relating to dishonour of cheques where it was alleged that the complaint was filed by the managing director in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the Company, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and MM Sundresh, JJ has held that there could be a format where the Company’s name is described first, suing through the Managing Director but there cannot be a fundamental defect merely because the name of the Managing Director is stated first followed by the post held in the Company. It was further held that it would be too technical a view to take to defeat the complaint merely because the body of the complaint does not elaborate upon the authorisation. Read More…
[U.N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Assn., (2022) 1 SCC 101]
In the case dealing with willful disobedience of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2008 with respect to the levy made while upholding Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has held that vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt and that the appellants cannot be implicated for alleged action of their subordinates. Read More…
[V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K., (2022) 1 SCC 115]
Holding that a testamentary court is not a court of suspicion but that of conscience, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has set aside the High Court’s order in a suit for execution of Will wherein the Court had “unnecessarily created a suspicion when there is none”, merely because it thought that was no logic in the exclusion of the sister of the beneficiary of the Will. Neither the beneficiary nor his siblings had raised any issues regarding the validity of the Will.
Asking the appellate Courts to consider the relevant materials instead of adopting an ethical reasoning, the Court explained,
“A mere exclusion of either brother or sister per se would not create a suspicion unless it is surrounded by other circumstances creating an inference. In a case where a testatrix is accompanied by the sister of the beneficiary of the Will and the said document is attested by the brother, there is no room for any suspicion when both of them have not raised any issue.”
[Suraz India Trust v. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 718]
Coming down heavily upon a contemnor, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and MM Sundresh, JJ has held that the power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in this Court which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment.
“Such litigants cannot be permitted to have their way only because they can plead and write anything they feel like and keep on approbating by sometimes apologising and then again bringing forth those allegations.”
[B. Sailesh Saxena v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3332]
A Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. dismissed a writ petition filed by an advocate seeking to stall elevation of a judicial officer as a Judge of the Telangana High Court. The Supreme Court said that the petition was a gross abuse of the process of law and imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner. Read More…
Notable Judgements at Madras High Court
[M. Padmanabhan v. District Collector, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 698]
The Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and S. Ananthi, JJ., held that temple shall not be a place for perpetuating communal separation leading to discrimination, on the other hand, it should facilitate all those persons having common faith to come and worship.
“The classification among men has got no place in the aboard of God.”
[Bharaneeswaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 2301]
The Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh* and R. Hemalatha, JJ., disposed of the petitions with regard to concerns arising due to online classes, stating that it hopes the above-laid guidelines are complied with and makes it clear that all the directions are applicable to the Schools functioning in the Tamil Nadu.
“A great nation is built on a character of its own citizens. It transforms into the character of the nation leading to its progress achieved through a value system.”
[Bader Sayeed v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 74]
While examining the validity of certificates issued by the Kazis in the country in general and in Tamil Nadu in particular in respect of Talaq, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J., and M.M. Sundresh, J., held that for purposes of the courts and legal proceedings, the certificate in respect of Talaq issued by Chief Kazi is only an opinion and has no legal sanctity in view Section 4 of the Kazis Act, 1880 according to which the office of Kazi does not confer on the person any judicial or administrative power. Read More…
[N. Selvathirumal v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 1624]
Taking a landmark step, the Division Bench of the Court comprising of S.K. Kaul*, C.J. and M.M. Sundresh, J., directed the schools affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the private schools in the state of Tamil Nadu to make the singing of the National Anthem as an integral part of their curriculum. Read More…
[V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 300]
While dismissing a petition with regard to the setting up of National Court of Appeal as suggested by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, (1986) 4 SCC 767 , the Division Bench of S.K. Kaul, C.J. and M.M. Sundresh, J., stated that setting up of a National Court of Appeal is a matter of legislation and constitutional amendment, therefore, repeated agitations by the petitioner for reconsideration on the same by filing petitions is needless and thus not maintainable. Read More…
[C. Udayachandrika v. Secy., T.N. Legislative Assembly, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 194]
In the instant case where the petitioner appearing in person praying to the Court to declare the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Gazette, Extraordinary No.223 dated 8.11.2014 stating that former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Selvi J. The Court observed that such frivolous petitions are to be penalized by imposing exemplary costs but, since the petitioner committed this misadventure for the first time therefore, she was let off only with a caution so as to dissuade her to pursue any such frivolous petitions under the garb of a Public Interest Litigation. Read More…
[Solaimalai v. Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corp. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 3883
“Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature, unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshiping.”
– Hubert Reeves
A Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh* and N. Sathish Kumar had ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into a series of elephant poaching incidents reported in the State. They also observed the network involved was cutting across boundaries.
“Wisdom requires that it should be left in the hands of man of knowledge in that field with the coordination of all the stake holders and this Court as well. Therefore, we are inclined to appoint a Committee consisting of Experts in various fields to address the larger issues such as banning the plastic in the forest zone, prohibiting the polluted vehicles to ply, employing the local population, increasing the strength of the staff, creating a strong seed bank, evolving measures to be adopted in removal and rehabilitation, priority of the area which requires immediate attention, areas requiring specific action, mapping of the entire area, possibility of using any other fund towards achievement of the task, utilising the removed plants and trees towards the object, creating a specific cell to be decided by the Government, disposal of the removed species and strengthening the indigenous species.”
* Judge who has penned the judgment.
1. Bharaneeswaran v. Govt. of T.N., 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 2301.
2. Hon’ble Thiru. Justice M. M. Sundresh, Madras High Court.
3. Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh, Supreme Court of India.
4. Supra.
5. Hon’ble Thiru. Justice M. M. Sundresh, Madras High Court.
6. Supra.
7. Supra.
8. Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh, Supreme Court of India.
9. Supra
10. Never a verdict against my conscience: Justice M M Sundresh, The Times of India.
11. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 17014/2023
