Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36 NOMINAL INDEX Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27 Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28 Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29 Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
NOMINAL INDEX
Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
P Murugan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
SASTRA Deemed University v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamilnadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
K Kandasamy v. P Natarajan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
REPORT
Case Title: Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court on Monday (January 12) passed a John Doe order protecting personality rights of renowned actor and Rajya Sabha MP Kamal Haasan from illegal use of his image and likeness as well as commercial merchandising.
The court however did not restrain permissible forms of creative expression such as satire and caricature.
The court said that since a john doe has been added as second respondent to the plaint, the plaintiff was directed to give public notice regarding the court order in English and Tamil newspapers.
Case Title: Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
The Madras High Court has restrained India Research Watch from publishing articles in connection with the functioning of Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences without prior intimation to the Institute.
Justice P Dhanabal directed Research Watch to issue notice to the institute regarding queries or gist of articles to the email Id of the institute and await a response for 72 hours. The court added that if any response is received within 72 hours, the organisation could publish the statement along with the response. However, if no such response was received, the organisation could publish the article.
The court, however, added that the organisation was at liberty to make statements based on public records available, including court records.
Madras High Court Restrains Internet Service Providers From Illegally Streaming “Happy Patel” Movie
Case Title: Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court has restrained more than 30 internet service providers from illegally streaming the upcoming Hindi movie “Happy Patel Khatarnak Jasoos” produced by Aamir Khan Productions Private Limited.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy issued the interim direction in a plea moved by the production company. Noting that the irreparable injury would be caused unless interim relief is granted, the court ordered accordingly.
At the same time, the court noted that due to the expansive nature of the relief claimed, it was possible that legitimate business interests might also get affected. In such cases, the court directed the production house to indemnify the parties concerned.
Case Title: Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
The Madras High Court recently observed that the police does not have power to summon or question a person without a registered case.
Justice Sunder Mohan thus set aside a notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police calling upon a journalist seeking explanation for an article published by him allegedly containing defamatory statement against the police. The judge noted that the Section only gave powers to the police to arrest a person without warrant and did not give powers to question a person without even registering a case.
Case Title: S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
The Madras High Court has referred to its larger bench the question whether a person who has criminal cases pending against him, can be enrolled as an Advocate with the State Bar Council.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi decided to refer the issue to a larger bench after noting that Advocates Act did not empower the High Courts to impose conditions for enrolment.
The court also noted that though full bench of the High Court had agreed with a single judge on not allowing persons with pending criminal cases to enrol, the Supreme Court had held that the High Court cannot usurp the functions of a legislator and impose restrictions that did not exist in the Act.
The bench thus thought it would be appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench and directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice.
Case Title: P Murugan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a request made by an organisation for conducting the Jallikattu festival at Avaniyapuram after noting that the State was already conducting it.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that, considering the international importance of the Jallikattu festival, the state itself was organising it and thus Court could not entertain any independent request seeking permission to conduct the festival.
Case Title: SASTRA Deemed University v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA), a deemed university, challenging a government order that refused an alternate land offered by the University for setting up a prison and a subsequent eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that the government had decided to develop a prison in the government land where the university was encroaching.
The court also noted that the issues involved in the plea had already been litigated and the court could not interfere with the policy decision of the government by paving way for encroachers to re-litigate the issue.
Case Title: Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamilnadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
"Caste passions and bigotry must be uprooted to realise the constitutional vision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar," the Madras High Court recently remarked while dealing with a case relating to honour killing of a Scheduled Caste man— Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.
Stressing on the rights of victims and witnesses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that the investigating agency and the judiciary should work seamlessly to ensure that the life and liberty of even a single citizen should not be sacrificed at the altar of caste.
It also frowned upon the investigating agency for "selectively" not arresting the mother of Kavin's partner, both sub-inspector of police and accused in thethe third accused in the crime.
Case Title: K Kandasamy v. P Natarajan and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
The Madras High Court recently observed that a single appeal is maintainable against a common order involving a claim and counter claim.
Justice AD Maria Clete added that though a counterclaim is treated as a cross-suit under Order VII Rule A of CPC, a single judgment in the suit would not require multiplicity of appeal.
The court, however, added that though a single appeal can be preferred, there was a statutory obligation to value the appeal and pay court fee in respect of all adverse reliefs granted in the degree.
Case Title: Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madras High Court has reiterated that it cannot use inherent powers to mould the relief sought and grant a money decree when the same has not been sought or pleaded by the party.
Justice AD Maria Clete added that the inherent power of the court should be exercised within the framework of the CPC and the relief should be granted in accordance with the law, complying with the procedural and fiscal requirements.
The court also remarked that granting a relief which was not sought either by way of counterclaim or through independent proceedings amounts to travelling beyond the pleadings and violates the settled principle that no party can be granted a relief which has not been prayed or proved.