Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 to 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501 NOMINAL INDEX P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 Palai Rafi @ Mohamed Rafi v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 T Prabhakar v. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 253 Vanaraj and Others v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 Muniraj v The State...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 to 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501
NOMINAL INDEX
P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
Palai Rafi @ Mohamed Rafi v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
T Prabhakar v. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
Vanaraj and Others v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
Muniraj v The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Commissioner, GCC and Others v. S Jaya and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
CJ Christopher Signi v State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
S. H. Zarina Begum v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
M Pravin v. The Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Harinaa v. The Regional Passport Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
C. Ve Shanmugam v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
SSI Production v. The Director General of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
P Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
S Sunil v. Senthamarai and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Dr. R. Anbumani and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
S Vijay v. Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
GB Pachaiyappan and Another v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam v. The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
Dr. Ranganathan v. Dr. Lakshmanan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
KE Kavin Kumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
Mirthunaj Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
Perumal v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
S Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
Sun TV Network Ltd v. Central Board of Film Certification, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
SN Sathishwaran v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
Rama Ravikumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
Raja Mathan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (292)
S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
Edappadi K Palanisamy v. S Suriyamoorthy and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
Dr Ilaiyaraja v. Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
R Kannan and Others v. T.R Baalu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
Annadhurai Ramasamy v. The Chief Secretary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
Lokeshwaran Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
Adv V Venkata Sivakumar v. The Election Commission of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
R Varadaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
Vignesh D v. The Health and Family Welfare Department and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
ST Sivagnanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
N Anand Bussi Anand v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
D Chandirasegar and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
Sarootham Padmanabhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
T Devanathan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Suo Motu WP v. The Director General of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
P Ayyakannu v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
R Sathish v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
A. Kasthuri v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Ulpath Nisha v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
Mohammed Iqbal v. S Manonmanian, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
VP v. M, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
SGS and another v. NIL, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Secretary to Government Education Department State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs J. Augustin & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
M/s.Sivakumar and Co., Perundurai Road, Erode v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
M/s. Inalfa Gabriel Sunroof Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
K Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong v. Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
M. R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
RAP v. AM, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
Cakes N Bakes v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
S Venkatesan v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
K Balachenniappan v. Jeyakrishnan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
A.G Ponmanickavel v. State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Annalakshmi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Divisional Security Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority and Others v. K Muniyandi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
SENTHILKANNAN v/s THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
N Sathish Kumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
PH Dinesh v/s Home Secretary State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
N ANAND ALIAS BUSSY ANAND VS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
M/s. Ravi Mohan Studios Pvt Ltd. v. M/s Indo Bevs Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
MC Sivakami v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 337
K Prithika Yashini (Transgender) v. Union of India and Others, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 338
Venkateshwaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 339
K v. M, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 340
Krishnan v. The State, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 341
Raja Lakshmi v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam v. A.T.S.V.S.Siddha Medical College & Hospital, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
P. Balasubramaniam v. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 344
Visalakshi v. Secretary to Government, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
A. Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary to the Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
Prakasam v. The District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
S Paramasivam v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
Navanitha v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
Uma Maheshwari v. The Principal Secretary to Government, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
P v. S, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
Palraj v. Inspector Of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
Magudapathi v. The District Magistrate cum District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
A. Shanthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
M v. M, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Manager v. Aron K Thiraviaraj, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
Murugesan @ Murugesh v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
General Manager, Southern India Region v. P Sundarapariporanam, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
TRULIV Properties and Services Private Limited Vs C.Ravishankar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
Sally Thermoplastic India Limited Vs. Learning Leadership Foundation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
M/s.AL TIRVEN STEELS LTD Vs. M/s.IVRCL Assets and Holding Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
T. Gangeswari v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
N Venkatesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
K Heerajohn v. The District Registrar and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
Joe Micheal Praveen v. Apsara Reddy and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
X v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
Ramasamy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
Sureshbabu and Others v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
K. Sadhasivam Vs. The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
M Muventhan v. The District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
The State v. Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
N Anand @ Bussy Anand v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
M/s. ACS Shipping & Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
M/s Vittera B.V. v. M/s SKT Textile Mills, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
A Vignesh v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
National Association of Container Freight Stations v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
M. Maher Dadha v. Mr. S. Mohanchand Dadha and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
Kamaraj v. State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
Gita Power and Infrastructure Private Limited v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
A Kannan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
All India Defence Employees Federation (AIDEF) v. Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
M/s Nilakantan & Brothers Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Chennai & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
M. Gajendran & Anr. v. R. Munirathinam & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
Ganesan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
M/s GAIL (India) Limited v M/s Coromandal Electric Company Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
P. Pushpam v/s The Director, Unique Identification Authority of India and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
G Sampath Kumar v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
K Rajamani v. The Joint Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
Srinivasan v. The Director and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
The State of Tamil Nadu v. R Ramanathan Chettiar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
M/s. Cethar Hospital v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
I v. DM, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
G Sampathkumar IPS v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
Light Roofings Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
M/s. Stellar Developer v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
Manikandan Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
Sivestar Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
Abdul Kadar and Others v. Commissioner of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
D. Mohammed Nadeem v. The National Testing Agency and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
Thillai Lokanathan v. The Deputy Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
Selvaraj v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
M/s. Lucky Footwear Components v. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
M Divya vs The Senior Revenue Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
R Gurusamy v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
S.Chandraprakash Jain v. M/s. GOD Pictures and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
S v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
Saravanan C v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
P Kulanthaisamy v. K Murugan and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 416
Marico Limited v. Prahalad Rai Kedia, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
Shilpa Suresh v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
Minor v. P, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 419
The State of Tamil Nadu v Shilpa Suresh, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
Sahirsha @ MS Sha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 422
S Prasanna and another v. Jothika, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 423
Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited. Versus ICMC Corporation Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 424
AK, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
RK Sarathkumaran v. The Chairman and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 426
Rahul Surana v. The Assistant Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 427
Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
RS Infotainment v. Mini Studio LLP, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
Zubaitha Begum v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 430
State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Vijarani, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 431
Dr Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe Ashok Kumar, and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
Aadhav Arjuna v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
Sreedevi Video Corporation v. SaReGaMa India Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
M/s. Parry Enterprises India Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
Balveer Singh v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 436
Vishal Krishna Reddy v. Lyca Productions, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 437
Suriya and Another v. Gandhi and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
S. Senthil v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 439
People for Cattle in India v. The Commissioner, GCC and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
Muthu Subramaniam v. The State Government of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 441
Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
Vallikannu v The District Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
Gokuleswaran v. The Regional Passport Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 444
Softgel Healthcare Private Limited v. Pfizer Inc., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
XX v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
S Palanivel Rajan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
The Sessions Judge v. Sathish, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
Chellathai v. The Joint Director and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
H.Sunil Kumar vs M Deepak Kumar Samdariya and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
M/S.Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S.E.C.Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Roopa Industries, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
Rama Ravikumar v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir Mukkaram Ali, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
M/s MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. v. M/s Vishnu Associates & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
A v. M and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
Suo Motu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
Nannir Water Sources LLP v. Syed Imran and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s. Sangeetham House of Veg, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
The Official Assignee v. S Arjunlal Sunderdas and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others v. Rama Ravikumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
M/s. Devaraj & Others v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
MRF Limited vs. Additional Director, DGGI, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
R Thirumurugan v. R Thennarasu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
C Kayalvizhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
A Affice Khan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
PVR Inox Ltd and Another v. Airports Authority of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
C Somasundaram v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
M/s China Datang Technologies and Engineering Company Limited v M/s NLC Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
Eros International Media Limited v. 14 Reels Entertainment Private Limited and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
Tamil Nadu Housing Board v M/s NCC Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
Kalanithimaran and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
Milan Textile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Initiating Officer and Anr., 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 485
Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v The Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. Director General of Police and Others (connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
Shri. Harigovind v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Non-corporate, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493
Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 494
The Government of India v. S Somasundaram and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 496
The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
K.M. Mammen v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 498
S Vijayakumar v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 499
A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501
REPORTS
Case Title: ML Ravi v. Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (July 1) dismissed a plea seeking to interrogate BJP leader Annamalai in connection with the evidence allegedly in his possession with respect to the Anna University sexual assault case.
In a recent interview, Annamalai had claimed that he had materials connecting higher officials with the Anna University Case. He said that he knew who the accused had referred to as “Sir” at the time of the offence.
Dismissing the petition filed by Advocate ML Ravi, Justice P Velmurugan said that politicians would keep on making such comments on a mic and the Courts should not waste its time on such matters.
Case Title: P Kishore v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has held that an individual's phone cannot be tapped in a secret operation to detect the commission of a crime, and the same would violate the individual's fundamental right to privacy.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that phone tapping would be justified only on two conditions: the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety. The court also highlighted that these situations/ contingencies should be apparent to a reasonable man.
The court also added that orders allowing phone tapping should specify the necessity of the same in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign nations, public order, and for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.
Case Title: M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
The Madras High Court stated that customs department bound by DGFT's classification of capital goods under EPCG scheme (export promotion capital goods scheme).
The Division Bench consists of Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar observed that “there is no justification in the Department having made the assessee litigate the issue needlessly despite the CBEC having categorically confirmed as early as in 2002 that the Customs Department must align with the stand of the DGFT and DG (Tourism) in matters of imports by hotels. The licence where the imports have been classified as 'capital goods' has not been revoked or withdrawn and it is nobody's case that the licence has been obtained on a wrongful or fraudulent basis.”
Madras High Court Upholds Global Prior Use In MediaMonks Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court has allowed a rectification petition for removal of trademark filed with the name "MEDIA MONK LABEL" and "MEDIA MONK" registered and being used by the respondent. The petition was filed by an international digital advertising company of the same name. The single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, allowing the petition, held that the party that uses the mark on a global scale, even if not used in India, shall be identified as the prior user.
Case Title: S. Sai Priya and Others v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court has rejected the appeal preferred against a single bench decision refusing to order re-examination of NEET UG 2025, over issue of power outage at some exam centres in Chennai.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman dismissed the appeal filed by a group of students, claiming that their performance was hindered due to the heavy rainfall and poor management by the center.
The court perused the order of the National Testing Agency, which was passed after conducting a field verification of the exam centres. The court said it has to uphold the integrity of the educational assessments in conducting examinations and it could not sit in appeal over the decision of the NTA, unless it was manifestly arbitrary, especially since a re-examination would affect more than 2 million other students.
Thus, the court observed that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the single judge and, dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Commissioner of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party to hold a protest over the custodial death of one Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga District. The court asked the party to submit a fresh representation to the state police seeking permission for the protest. The party had initially planned to conduct the protest on July 6th (Sunday).
Justice P Velmurugan said that the party should give adequate time to the State to consider its representation. The court made the comment, noting that the representation for permission was made by the party on July 1, and the party had approached the court on July 4th. The court orally remarked that the police have a lot of other work and could not be expected to deal only with the party's representation.
"Why are you in so much hurry? The police have a lot of other work. They can't be expected to only deal with your work. You should at least give them 15 days to decide on the representation," the judge orally remarked.
The judge then asked the party to submit a fresh representation with a new date for conducting the protest and asked the police to decide on the new representation.
Case Title: Abimani v. Government of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed seeking a direction to the Ministry of External Affairs to consider the issue of demanding a definite reformation of the United Nations Organisation (UNO).
A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete termed the petition and the relief sought therein as 'misconceived' which fell "beyond the realm of the jurisdiction of the high court".
Essentially, the plea filed by one Abimani sought issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Ministry of External Affairs to consider the issue of demanding a 'definite reformation' of the United Nations Organisation (UNO) to get the 'respective due place' for India and 'stable world peace'.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Aro Granite Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court has stated that the assessing authority is not bound by the appellate tribunal's observations in a De Novo assessment.
Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar opined that while concluding the assessment de novo, the assessing authority is not bound by the observations made by the first appellate authority.
Case Title: M/s.Axeon Marketing India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group 2) and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the laws relating to the import of drugs would also apply to ayurvedic drugs. Highlighting the absence of proper application forms for the import license of ayurvedic drugs, the court suggested that the existing rules should be modified to prescribe standards.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that there was a strong public element involved in the import of drugs, and it was necessary to regulate non-allopathic medicines also, which could have heavy metal content. Thus, the court stressed the need to modify the existing statutes. It added that the Parliament could, in the alternative, prohibit the import of ayurvedic or other classes of drugs if necessary.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Actors Krishna & Srikanth Booked For Consuming Drugs
Case Title: Krishna @ Krishnakumar v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The Madras High Court has granted bail to actors Krishna and Srikanth, who have been arrested in connection with offences under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar noted that the actors had purchased cocaine only for their personal use, which would attract Section 27 (Punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance) of NDPS Act. Since the offence under Section 27 was a bailable one, the court was inclined to grant bail.
Case Title: M/s.Madurai - Kanyakumari Tollway Private Limited and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has restrained the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation from passing its buses through four toll plazas on the National Highway in Tamil Nadu over unpaid toll arrears.
While taking the extreme step, Justice Anand Venkatesh added that the court was aware of the consequences of such an order but it was necessary to “jolt” the officials, who would otherwise not take any effort to settle the dispute. The court added that the if the payments are kept on being delayed, it would escalate to astronomical proportions.
Apprehending the law and order problem that would arise as a result of the direction, the court also directed the Director General of Police to issue necessary instruction to the concerned jurisdictional police to prove sufficient police protection at the toll plazas. The court asked the police to ensure that no undue pressure is exerted on the Toll Plazas to permit the buses to ply through.
Case Title: P Vikash Kumar v. A Mohandass
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court has sentenced an advocate to 4 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 for disobeying and violating its orders.
Justice N Satish Kumar noted that a fine alone would not meet the ends of justice and thus decided to sentence the lawyer to 4 months' imprisonment. The court thus directed the Registry to issue a necessary warrant and directed the lawyer to be detained in civil prison. Noting that the lawyer had also failed to appear before the court in the previous hearing, the court was not inclined to suspend the sentence.
The court passed the order on a contempt petition filed by one Vikash Kumar, highlighting that the lawyer, Advocate A Mohandass, had breached an undertaking given by him before the court to vacate the premises that he had been encroaching upon.
NCLT Is Bound To Appoint IRP Proposed By Corporate Debtor: Madras High Court
Case Title: K.J. Vinod (Insolvency Professional) v. Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
The Madras High Court on Monday held that the suggestions of the financial creditor, operational creditor, or corporate debtor with regard to the appointment of the IRP are liable to be accepted.
While hearing a writ petition challenging the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, the Madras High Court interpreted Sections 10 and 16 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petition was filed challenging the appointment of the IRP, which deviated from the name proposed by the corporate debtor.
The bench noted that the combined reading of Sections 10(3)(b) and 16(2) of the Code lays down that the IBBI board is bound to accept the name suggested by the financial creditor or corporate debtor.
Case Title: Kayar Nisha and Another v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court has reduced the sentence imposed on two women who had admonished a teen girl for having a relationship with their nephew, eventually leading to the girl's suicide.
While the court upheld the conviction, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was inclined to reduce the sentence imposed on the women, noting the mitigating factors. The court noted the background of the women, and opined that their behaviour stemmed from an internalised misogyny which was a product of the male-dominated society. The court added that it was the society's mindset that had prompted the women to question the girl for having a relationship, instead of admonishing their nephew.
Case Title: J Eswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently observed that protests should not be conducted at the whims and fancies of political parties.
Justice B. Pugalendhi highlighted that political parties have a responsibility towards the general public who would be affected by the protests. The court added that the right to protest should not affect the right of the general public who are not associated with the protests.
The court also highlighted that the right to protest did not give a right to cause inconvenience to the public, and such right should not be used to cause irritation and disharmony. The court added that though protests could be carried out public places, its purpose should not be forgotten.
Case Title: ICICI Securities Limited versus Kariabettan Sugumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once the petitioner chooses to file the appeal instead of directly approaching the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the two-tier arbitration, by stating that they were not given an opportunity by the Appellate Tribunal to prosecute the appeal on grounds of limitation.
Two-tier arbitration refers to a process where a dissatisfied party can file an appeal in the Appellate Tribunal.
Additionally, the court held that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the petitioner cannot claim that they were not put on notice by the Appellate Tribunal about the fact that their appeal is barred by limitation.
Case Title: Malar Selvi v. The Director DVAC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption should not brush aside complaints merely because of the absence of documents. The court added that the DVAC was a specialised investigative agency and must gather evidence across all departments.
Justice B Pugalendhi added that as per the Vigilance Manual, the department had the power to discreetly verify facts, access roads, and conduct discreet searches. The court added that the strength of the department was crucial for preventing corruption. Noting that the department, at present was understaffed, the court asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate steps to strengthen the department and enhance the sanctioned strength and infrastructure within 6 months.
Case Title: Dr.A.K.Boominathan v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court has held that a aided college cannot compel its students to take part in any religious, communal or other activities which are not approved by the Department of Education.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete also observed that if it was found that an aided college was compelling students either directly or indirectly, the Director of Collegiate Education could initiate appropriate action to cancel the aid. The court added that aid should be granted only to colleges that follow the law and the Constitution.
The court also made it clear that no posters or banners indicating communal name or a group's name should be affixed in the college premises and in case such posters are found, the police and the Department of Education could take all necessary action.
Case Title: Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently expressed shock over members of the Scheduled Caste community being made to wait for their turn till members from other community fetch water from the common tap.
Justice RN Manjula said that it was “surprising and pathetic” to note that even in this scientific age, some communities had to stand second in order to get their share of common resources. The court added that even though specific legislations had been brought in for protecting the vulnerable sections of the society, the situation still remained same at the grass root level.
The court added that while it may not be easy to remove the caste and class mentality from the minds of the people, the people in power could not remain mute spectators. The court emphasized that what was needed what not some make-believe stunt but some practical solution and noiseless action. Thus, being aware of the realities and doing things that can be best done with the power vested was the need of the hour, the court added.
Temple Entry Cannot Be Denied To Persons Based On Caste: Madras High Court
Case Title: Venkatesan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
The Madras High Court has emphasized that no person can be denied temple entry due to their caste, and action should be taken against any such person discriminating against persons who prevent individuals from participating in temple function.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that preventing people from entering temples and offering prayers on the basis of their caste was an affront to their dignity. The court added that such discrimination cannot be permitted in a country which was governed by the rule of law. The court also remarked that caste and community were human creations and the God was always considered neutral.
The court also highlighted that as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act 1947, every Hindu, irrespective of his caste or sect, shall be entitled to enter a Hindu temple and offer worship. In case a person was restricted from entry, action could be taken against the concerned persons.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) earlier this month granted anticipatory bail to four men accused of provoking religious unrest by allegedly liking social media posts labelling RSS and Bajrang Dal as terrorist organisations.
A bench of Justice P Vadamalai observed that a mere 'shared like' on a social media post cannot be construed as an intention to hurt religious sentiments.
Case Title: Prakash Ramachandran v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court recently observed that Nama Sankeerthanam, devotees chanting the names of god in a religious gathering, cannot be permitted at a residential premises without the approval of the District Collector.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus restrained an individual from converting his residential house into a prayer hall and conducting nama sankeerthanam without the permission of the District Collector. The court added that if at all any prayer was to be conducted, it should be inside the house, without causing nuisance to anyone.
Though the individual claimed that the religious rights were protected under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution and that the prayer was being conducted for peace of mind, the court noted that what was divine to him was causing nuisance to the neighbours.
Case Title: R.K.M Powergen Private Limited v. The Assistant Director and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the Enforcement Directorate can initiate action only upon the existence of a predicate offence and cannot conduct investigations on its own.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that ED was not a super cop to investigate anything and everything that came to its notice. The court stressed that there must be criminal activity coming within the schedule of the Act, and there should be proceeds of crime based on which the ED will have jurisdiction to commence an investigation.
The court stressed that if an act was to be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way and no other way. The court added that if the ED was allowed to conduct an investigation merely on coming to know about any activity, the ED would be conducting roving enquiry.
Case Title: High Court of Madras v. Siva Das Meena IAS and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
The Madras High Court on Monday (July 21) criticised the former Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary Siva Das Meena over delay in implementing its order to set up a committee to look into the issues with respect to compassionate appointments.
Justice Battu Devanand orally remarked that if the Chief Secretary himself doesn't comply with court order and implement it on time, how could the court expect other officers, who were working under him, to comply with the orders.
Though the counsel for the IAS officer told the court that he had "high regard" for the court, the judge orally remarked that it did not seem so, since the orders were not complied with on time.
Case Title: M/s. Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court stated that the GST authority can dismiss the rectification application without a personal hearing.
The issue before the bench was whether the third proviso to Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, requires complying with the principles of natural justice even for dismissing a rectification petition.
The Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that “When the rectification application is dismissed as such without there being anything more, the original order stands as such. In that event, there is no rectification at all. When there is no rectification, there is no question of invoking the principles of natural justice.”
Case Name : P. Sakkarai vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that a stale claim for retrospective promotion cannot be revived by a delayed representation after retirement. Further, no parity in promotion can be claimed across divisions following bifurcation into separate administrative divisions with distinct seniority lists.
It was held that after separate zones were created, each division maintained its own seniority list and promotion panel. Therefore, claim of parity across divisions could not be sustained. Further the petitioner's reliance on the 1986 circular regarding unified seniority was held to be misplaced. Hence, no merit in the petition was found.
Case Title: R Ramkumar and Others v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to remove the teaser of “Bad Girl” movie from YouTube after noting that the content disclosed exploitation of children and depicted them in a sexual manner.
Justice P Dhanabal on going through the content, opined that it could affect the minds of teenage children who will be able to access the content easily as it had been posted on the internet.
The court also highlighted that the State had a duty to protect the children, whose minds may be spoiled on coming across the content. Thus, the court observed that the content could not be allowed to continue and had to be removed.
Case Title: Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
The Madras High Court recently criticized the police authorities for closing down a public temple and denying entry to everyone in an effort to maintain public peace amidst communal tension. The court said that denying entry to everyone was not the way to keep peace, and the police had to make an effort to protect the rights of devotees.
Justice B Pugalendhi also criticized the District Collector for keeping a public temple closed, citing law and order problems without taking efforts to solve the problem. The court noted that if there was any real threat, the collector, as top officer of the District, should have used the State Machinery and handle the threat.
The court took note that the dispute was with regard to the entry of Scheduled Caste devotees in the temple. The court remarked that even after 75 years of independence, it was shocking that people were denied temple entry based on their caste. The court stressed that God did not belong to any caste and did not discriminate.
Case Name: P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that excess pension paid due to a clerical or mechanical mistake in pay fixation to the factually ineligible employee can be recovered post-retirement. Further the protection against recovery laid down in Rafiq Masih case does not apply when eligibility itself is lacking.
It was observed by the Court that the mistake in pay fixation was purely mechanical. The Court held that the petitioner had served only 2 years and 7 months in the Selection Grade and thus was factually ineligible for the pension. The error was not interpretational but an objectively verifiable shortfall in qualifying service, therefore, there was no need for subjective assessment. It was further observed that the absence of prior notice amounted to procedural irregularity but it did not cause any real prejudice to the petitioner. It was observed by the court that since the pension was erroneously fixed based on inapplicable criteria, the petitioner was not entitled to the higher benefits granted to him.
Case Title: Palai Rafi @ Mohamed Rafi v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court has granted bail to a 60-year old man who had participated in a protest objecting to the hijab judgment and had allegedly made hate speech against all political parties, and even the judiciary.
Justice P Vadamalai was inclined to grant bail on noting that the FIR was registered in March 2022 and probe might have been completed by this time. The court thus opined that no further interrogation was necessary. The court also noted that the man was 60-year-old and had been in custody since June 20, 2025. Thus, considering all the facts and the incarceration period, the court was inclined to grant conditional bail.
Madras High Court Appreciates TN Govt's Move To Include 'Economic Offender' Under TN Goondas Act
Case Title: T Prabhakar v. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court has appreciated the Tamil Nadu government for bringing in a GO, including “economic offender” as one of the categories under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The court said that the policy shift would strengthen the government's power to combat economic offences.
Justice B Pugalendhi also noted that the state issued a Standard Operating Procedure, bringing in various departments to ensure that offences under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 is dealt with in a time-bound manner.
The court also appreciated the state for taking criticism in a positive manner and for taking steps to effectively implement the TNPID Act and ensure that the interest of the investors are protected. The court added that such responsiveness reinforces rule of law and helps restore the faith of common public in the efficacy of the system.
Case Title: Vanaraj and Others v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court has criticised the 'snail pace' investigation being carried out in a kidnapping case, allegedly involving MLA 'Poovai' Jaganmoorthy and ADGP HM Jayaram.
Justice G Jayachandran remarked that it was not a regular case which could be closed on a compromise between the parties, but was a classic case of abuse of Government machinery to commit a crime.
The court noted that the incident and the subsequent follow-up events would raise serious concerns about the life and liberty of common men and would raise reasonable apprehension on people's mind that the grate nation was "drifting towards a police raj".
Case Title: Muniraj v The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Madras High Court has highlighted that under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, no preliminary enquiry should be conducted before registration of an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence under the Act.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that the intention of the legislature while inserting Section 18A(1)(a) of the SC/ST Act was to ensure immediate registration of complaints without procedural obstructions or administrative delays.
Madras High Court Refuses Permission To Exhume COVID Victim's Body For Reburial In Family Grave
Case Title: The Commissioner, GCC and Others v. S Jaya and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court has refused the exhumation of the body of a person who died due to Covid-19, noting that there was nothing to show that the deceased was not given a decent burial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman observed that once a body is buried, it should not be disturbed as removing it might cause the "spread of harmful diseases". The court also noted that if such exhumation was allowed, it would set a precedent for all families, who have lost their closed ones and would endanger the larger public. It also noted that there was no specific provision of law in India relating to the exhumation of the body except Section 176(3) CrPCC.
Case Title: CJ Christopher Signi v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
The Madras High Court recently noted that an apprehension that some contents may be altered was not a ground for refusing forensic examination. The court added that such apprehension only reinforces the need for an expert analysis.
“The apprehension that the contents may have been altered is not a justification for refusing forensic examination. On the contrary, such concerns reinforce the need for expert analysis. A determination as to whether the files were edited or manipulated can only be reached by a competent forensic authority, not through assumptions or oral statements by lay witnesses,” the court said.
Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the issue of whether compelling voice samples would be violative of the fundamental right to privacy was no longer res integra and the right to privacy can be curtailed when there is a larger public interest involved.
Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar alleging that the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, had been interfering with the functioning of his company “Savukku Media”.
The court said that there was no material to show that the commissioner was interfering with the working of the company.
“Since there are several complaints against the Petitioner (Shankar) which are under investigation, prima facie there is no material to show that the 3rd respondent (Commissioner) is interfering with the functioning of the petitioner organisation,” the court said.
Justice Velmurugan was hearing a petition filed by Shankar alleging that the Commissioner was subjecting him and his employees to various unlawful actions since he had been exposing police atrocities and misconduct through his YouTube channel. He had alleged that the police had been tracking his movements and subjecting him to harassment.
Case Title: S. H. Zarina Begum v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
The Madras High Court has directed the Director General of Police to place a Deputy Superintendent of Police under suspension for failing to submit a closure report and for failing to comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 173 of the CrPC.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that it was not an isolated case and on several instances, the court was coming across cases in which complaints were closed without filing any final report before the competent court. In the present case, the court noted that though the decision to close the case was taken in 2022, the final report was not filed before the concerned court till a notice was issued on the present plea.
The court added that if the present case had not been filed, the inaction would have continued indefinitely, and the closure report might never have been filed. The court remarked that the approach of the police reflected a serious lapse in adherence to legal procedure and a denial of justice to the affected parties.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Regulate Media Reporting Of Aviation Accidents
Case Title: M Pravin v. The Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea calling upon the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Director General of Civil Aviation, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary guidelines/advisories for media reporting in the aftermath of aviation accidents.
The bench of Chief Justice MM Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed the plea filed by Advocate M Pravin.
Pointing to the recent media reporting in the aftermath of the Ahmedabad Plane Crash, Pravin said that often, after aviation incidents, news agencies and social media platforms publish unverified content prejudicing and attributing the blame to the pilots. It was also submitted that such prejudicial reporting damages the reputation of pilots and their career prospects and affects their personal dignity and well-being.
Case Title: Harinaa v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court has directed the passport authorities to consider an application filed by a “Stateless woman”, born to Sri Lankan parents, seeking an Indian passport.
Justice C Saravanan of the Madurai bench noted that there were overwhelming records available to indicate that the woman was born in India and was issued a Birth Certificate. The court also noted that documents had been produced to show that the woman had completed her schooling in India and had also pursued her undergraduate degree in India. The court thus noted that there was nothing to show that the woman had travelled from Sri Lanka or that she had entered the country illegally.
Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court has made it clear that while launching and operating a government welfare scheme, the advertisements should not contain the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leader or party insignia, emblem, or flag of the party.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Common Cause and others, had clarified that publication of a photograph of the incumbent Chief Minister was permissible but use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Ministers was prima facie against the directives of the Supreme Court.
The bench also noted that it was impermissible to mention the name of political personalities in the nomenclature of a government scheme. The court also noted that using the name of any ruling political party was also against the directives of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India.
Case Title: Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
The Madras High Court has restrained YouTuber Savukku Shankar from making allegations against IPS officer Davidson Devasirvatham, implicating him in the recent custodial death of Ajith in Sivaganga.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the statements made by Shankar were prima facie derogatory and defamatory, which would affect the reputation of the officer. Thus, considering the restrictions on the right to freedom of speech, the court was inclined to restrain Shankar temporarily from making the allegations.
Case Title: MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
The Madras High Court has permitted the Tamil Nadu Congress SC Wing to conduct a hunger strike demanding special laws against caste based honor killings.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of the State's submission that it was willing to permit the hunger strike if the same was to be conducted in a designated area. Since the party agreed to conduct the hunger strike in the earmarked place, the court directed it to make a fresh submission, which was to be permitted by the State with conditions that the Commissioner may deem fit.
The court noted that, as far as Chennai was concerned, some areas had been earmarked for conducting protests. Since the state also expressed willingness to permit the hunger strike if conducted at these places, the court directed accordingly.
Case Title: Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
The Madras High Court held that digital marketing is a business and not a profession; and an audit report is not required for turnovers below Rs. 5 crores.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. In the event anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which is below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee is not required to file an audit report and they are exempted.”
Case Title: Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the recent appointment of 4 IAS officers as Government Press Spokesperson.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan said that the IAS officers were appointed as the State Government's spokesperson and not as the ruling party's spokesperson. The court also noted that no laws had been violated at the time of making the appointments and thus, was not inclined to entertain the plea. The court thus dismissed the plea with Rs. 1 Lakh costs.
Case Title: Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
The Madras High Court has set aside the detention order passed against 14 persons who have been accused to be involved in the murder of BSP Leader Armstrong in July 2024.
While setting aside the detention order, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Laksminarayanan noted that the detaining authority, while passing the detention orders, appeared to have scrutinised 14,000 pages in a day, which was an impossible task for any human being. The court thus observed that the detaining authority did not apply its mind, while passing the detention order.
Case Title: SSI Production v. The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Police to provide protection to movie-theatres screening the Vijay Devarakonda starrer “Kingdom”.
The direction assumes significance amid backlash from Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) party chief Seeman, who took offence to the manner in which the Tamil Ellam issue is allegedly portrayed in the movie.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that in a democracy, the movie-makers have a right to express their views and a third party cannot threaten the theatre owners or prevent the screening of the movie if they disagree with the views expressed in the movie.
The court reiterated that screening of a movie, which had been duly certified by the censor board, could not be halted merely because there was difference of opinion.
Case Title: P Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court has recently remarked that the depiction of Hindu gods in a disrespectful manner could not be justified. The court added that depicting Gods in such a manner had the potential to spark enmity, religious outrage, and affect the communal harmony.
Justice K Murali Shankar added that, considering the respect that was given to the religious symbols and deities, such actions of depicting the Gods should be dealt with sensitively. The court added that the Government should ensure that freedom of expression does not hurt the religious feelings of the people. In doing so, the court set aside the trial court order closing the case.
Case Title: S Sunil v. Senthamarai and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
A Madras High Court division bench has stayed the operation of a single judge order asking the Director General of Police to suspend a Deputy Superintendent of Police for failing to file final report in a case.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan ordered interim stay in a Letter Patent Appeal filed by the DySP challenging the order passed by Justice P Velmurugan, directing the DGP to take action.
When a question was raised as to the maintainability of a Letter Patent Appeal against an order by a judge exercising criminal jurisdiction, the court noted that the LPA would be maintainable against that part of the order, wherein the judge was not exercising criminal jurisdiction.
Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Dr. R. Anbumani and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi party, through its General Secretary against the public meeting convened by former Party president Anbumani Ramadoss.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the entire issue was an unfortunate ego clash between Dr. S. Ramadoss, the party's founder and his son Anbumani Ramadoss. Noting that a writ petition was not maintainable in case of private dispute, the court was not inclined to order the relief.
The court added that the argument of whether the party's bye-laws had been violated by calling the meeting could not be gone into by the High Court in writ proceedings, and at best, it could only be a subject of civil proceedings.
Case Title: Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
The Madras High Court recently observed that though pulling the hands of a woman by a man would shock her sense of decency, it would not amount to outraging the modesty of the woman if there was no criminal intention.
Justice RN Manjula added that without any clear evidence about the intention of the man, vague or generalised statements would only earn a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused with respect to his criminal intention.
The court thus set aside the conviction of a man, sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 354 of the IPC.
Case Title: Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking to forbear retired judges from issuing public letters, appeals, or statements allegedly intended to influence pending judicial proceedings, particularly in matters involving allegations against sitting Judges.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan called the plea a “publicity interest litigation” and remarked that judges are not affected by such statements made against them. The court thus dismissed the plea and imposed cost.
The plea was filed in light of the recent letter written by retired judges of the Madras High Court to sitting judge Justice GR Swaminathan, after the latter called for an explanation from a lawyer for raising caste bias allegation against the judge.
Case Title: D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, directed the State to take action to remove the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers who have been protesting at the Rippon Building for almost 12 days demanding a reversal of the Corporation's decision to privatise solid waste management in some zones.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the workers could protest only at authorised places. Since the rippon building was not an authorised place for protest, and since no permission had been taken to conduct the protest, the court ordered them to be removed from the place.
The court also added that it would be open for the protesting workers to make applications to the concerned authorities seeking permission for conducting the protest, which could be considered appropriately.
Case Title: M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court has delivered a split verdict on whether the community status of a government employee can be verified/scrutinised after their retirement.
While Justice Nisha Banu opined that reopening the verification of a community certificate would amount to re-litigation, Justice M Jothiraman opined that once a verification starts, it should continue till its conclusion.
Since contradictory views have been taken by the judges, the Registry has been directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further action.
The court was hearing two writ petitions filed by M Gunasekaran and G Thangavel seeking to restrain the SC/ST Vigilance Cell from conducting verification of their respective caste status. In both cases, the persons were issued notices calling upon them to appear for an enquiry in connection with the verification of their community certificate, years after their retirement.
Case Title: S Vijay v. Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 14) directed the release of four lawyers and two law students who were detained by the police at midnight in connection with the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers protest.
A division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan passed the interim orders in a habeas corpus petition against the detention of lawyers and law students who joined the protest yesterday.
Incidentally, on Wednesday a coordinate bench had directed the State to take action to remove the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers who have been protesting at the Rippon Building for almost 12 days demanding a reversal of the Corporation's decision to privatise solid waste management in some zones.
Case Title: GB Pachaiyappan and Another v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed an application seeking interim injunction to restrain actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vetrri Kazhagam party from using the party flag, over alleged infringement of a Trust's trademark.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy rejected the plaintiff's claim that the usage of the flag by Vijay's party amounted to copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and passing off. The court, however, added that these were tentative observations and the matter would be dealt with in September.
The interim orders were passed in a petition filed by G.B. Pachaiyappan, trustee of the Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to consider granting sanction for prosecuting a Resolution Professional for allegedly mismanaging funds of a company during a resolution process.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the resolution professional performed duties in connection with the administration of justice, was a person from whom a report was called for by the court of justice, and was performing a public duty. Thus, the court noted that the Resolution Professional would come within the definition of public servant as provided under Section 2(c)(v), 2(c)(vi), and 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
The Madras High Court has rejected a plea by the Greater Chennai Corporation's sanitation worker challenging the Corporation's resolution to outsource the sanitation work in two of its zones to private companies.
Justice K Surender noted that privatizing the sanitation work is a policy decision of the government and when the decision did not violate any provisions of law, it could not be quashed.
The court also noted that the change brought in by the government was to improve the quality of the sanitation and Solid Waste Management. The court also added that such economic policies were not amenable to judicial review unless it was contrary to the statutory policies or the Constitution.
The court made the observations in the plea made by Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam which was a General Workers Union organizing the unorganized workers throughout the State. The organization had challenged the resolutions made by the Greater Chennai Corporation through which a decision was taken to outsource the sanitation work in Zone 5 and 6 of Chennai to Hyderabad based company M/s. Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd.
Case Title: Dr. Ranganathan v. Dr. Lakshmanan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court recently refused to transfer a trial in connection with a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court said that merely because the respondent was an MLA, it could not be said that the trial would be unjust and that by itself would not be a reason to transfer the trial.
Justice P Velmurugan held that the power to transfer a trial must be exercised carefully and only when there is a genuine and reasonable fear that justice would not be done. The court noted that no materials had been produced to show that the Magistrate had made adverse orders or had acted in a biased manner. Thus, noting that the apprehension was vague and not based on any concrete materials, the court was not inclined to entertain the same.
Rithanya Dowry Death Case | Madras High Court Grants Bail To Husband & In-Laws
Case Title: KE Kavin Kumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court has granted bail to Kavin Kumar, Annadhurai, and Chitra Devi, the husband and in-laws of 27 year old 27-year-old Rithanya, who committed suicide earlier in July this year in Tiruppur, over alleged dowry harassment.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that since the investigation was almost completed, including the examination of the witnesses, it was not necessary to keep the accused under custody. The judge thus granted bail on the condition that the accused appear before the jurisdictional police every day in the morning and evening, till further orders.
Case Title: Mirthunaj Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
The Madras High Court has held that a second habeas corpus petition is maintainable against the same detention order if new grounds, that were not raised in the earlier habeas corpus petition, are available.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel, had held that the concept of public police was entirely inapplicable in illegal detention and does not bar a subsequent writ of habeas corpus on fresh grounds. The court added that detenues should not take undue advantage of this finding and file habeas corpus petitions on the same ground.
Case Title: Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a circular urging assessees to engage only qualified consultants for GST compliance.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that, "This Court comes across similar instances in several cases, extending ill advice to the clients by the consultants, who are all not qualified persons. Such kind of ill-advice leads to the fact that the clients are not in a position to appear before the Officers concerned with suitable reply supported by documents, which is purely on the negligence on the part of the consultant."
Case Title: M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
The Madras High Court stated that the Income Tax commissioner cannot revise an assessment merely because detailed reasoning was not given in the order.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan stated that, "an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If the Income Tax Officer, acting in accordance with law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, simply because, according to the Commissioner, the order should have been written more elaborately."
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of a Family Court asking a husband to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife till the pendency of a divorce petition filed by him.
Justice PB Balaji noted that the object of awarding interim maintenance, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was to ensure that the wife had sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is not merely survival but also allows her to lead a comfortable lifestyle that she would have otherwise had at the matrimonial home.
In the present case, the court noted that the wife had immovable properties in her name, and had substantial income through dividends. Thus, the court opined that the wife did not require any further interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle.
Case Title: Perumal v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Noting that several recreational clubs were only engaged in selling alcohol, the Madras High Court has issued directions to ensure that the licenses are issued only after verification and to take appropriate action.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that these clubs were becoming a nuisance for the people living near them. The bench also noted that the government was not taking any action against the clubs since in many instances, the clubs were owned by influential persons.
The bench has directed the Inspector General of Registration Department to ensure that the clubs selling liquor have a specific clause in their byelaws for selling of liquor by obtaining FL2 licence, which must be approved by due verification and in accordance with the law. The bench said that if a specific clause was not available in the byelaws, the registration of the club could be cancelled.
Case Title: S Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
Disposing of a batch of pleas seeking permission to install idols of Lord Ganesh in connection with Vinayaka Chaturthi celebration, the Madras High Court remarked that most of the requests were driven by ego clashes and a desire to show dominance.
Justice B Pugalendhi deprecated the practice of using divinity to settle personal scores and remarked that God was a symbol of unity, not a tool for rivalry.
The court also observed that most of the temples at street corners were neglected throughout the year but during the time of Vinayaka Chaturthi, elaborate efforts were made to install giant idols. Calling this a paradox, the court said that the devotees must introspect and understand that true devotion was not about grandeur but consistent reverence and upkeep of places of worship.
Case Title: Sun TV Network Ltd v. Central Board of Film Certification
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 28) dismissed a plea challenging the 'A' certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification for the movie “Coolie” starring Rajnikanth, Nagarjuna, and Amir Khan, among others.
Justice TV Thamilselvi while pronouncing the order said that the "petition does not have any merits".
The high court passed the order on a petition moved by production company Sun TV Network.
Case Title: SN Sathishwaran v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
The Madras High Court has set up a five-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct investigation into the allegations of human organ transplantation racket in the State, including kidney transplants.
Noting that the State's response was "disappointing", the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan has said that the SIT will be monitored by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court. The court has directed the SIT to submit reports before the Registrar (Additional Registrar General) or the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madurai bench periodically.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court has recently quashed a Government Order by which the State had granted permission for the construction of marriage halls by utilising the temple funds belonging to five different temples situated at different places.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the State's decision was violative of provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 and the Rules and did not fall within the definition of “religious purpose”.
The court noted that as per Section 66 of the HR & CE Act, surplus funds could not be diverted for commercial or profit making ventures but must be confined to religious or charitable purpose. The court also noted that Hindu marriages, though considered sacrament, was a union bound by contractual terms and hence could not be considered a religious purpose.
Case Title: Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
The Madras High Court on Friday (August 29) directed acclaimed Director and Producer Vetri Maaran to carry out certain cuts and modifications in his upcoming Tamil movie 'Manushi'.
Justice Anand Venkatesh, who had earlier decided to watch the movie, said that the exercise had to be done keeping in mind the principles of proportionality and to ensure that freedom of speech and expression is not unduly curtailed on surmises and conjectures.
The court, however, asked the members of the Central Board of Film Certification to deal with matters of artistic freedom broadly.
Case Title: Raja Mathan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (292)
The Madras High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to Hindu Munnani workers in an alleged hate speech case.
Interestingly, the bail has been granted on the condition that the accused write the preamble of the Constitution, along with Article 19 (Freedom of Speech), Part IV-A, Article 51A which pertain to fundamental duties 10 times either in Tamil or Hindi and submit it before the Magistrate court.
Justice M. Jothiraman imposed the condition to make the accused understand the object and constitutional valued enumerated in the Constitution.
Case Title: S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (September 2) constituted a 'one-man commission' headed by retired high court judge Justice V Parthiban to probe into allegations of police violence during the detention of lawyers and law students who took part in the protest organised by the sanitation workers of Greater Chennai Corporation.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan asked the Legal Services Authority to provide assistance to the commission. The commission has been directed to probe into the allegations levelled by both parties and submit a report by the next date of hearing.
The lawyers and law students had alleged that the police had used excessive force while detaining them. The state, on the other hand, had argued that the protestors had caused damage to public and private property.
Case Title; Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court recently remarked that there should be a change in the mindset of the people so that there is no discrimination between communities in sharing public resources.
'In addition to the directions already given, it is suggested to all the stakeholders that there should be a change of mindset in the people in order to ensure that there is no discrimination arises between different communities of people in the sharing of public resources and in the use of public facilities,' the court said.
Justice RN Manjula appreciated the government's efforts to address the issues of discrimination in using public resources. Previously, the court had expressed shock over members of the Scheduled Caste community being made to wait for their turn till members from the other community fetch water from the common tap.
Case Title: Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to reconsider an application filed by the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris for recognition.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that the Bar Council's view, that only one association could be recognised in a district, was misconceived and contrary to the Welfare Fund Rules, which specifically provided that the Bar Council could recognise more than one Bar Association. The court also added that the rules did not prohibit recognising more than one bar association.
The court thus opined that the Bar Council's decision was not based on any intelligible differentia and was violative of Rule 3(4) of the Welfare Fund Rules.
The Women Lawyers Association had approached the court after the Bar Council rejected their application under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act 1987 seeking recognition and registration of the association.
Case Name: K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Division Bench of Madras High Court, comprising Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar, has held that in the absence of disciplinary proceedings pending against the professional, NCLT is bound to appoint the IRP proposed by the applicant under sections 7 and 10 of the IBC, 2016.
Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v. S Suriyamoorthy and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
The Madras High Court has recently allowed a civil revision petition filed by AIADMK head Edappadi Palanisamy against the dismissal of an application filed by him to reject a plaint filed by one Suriyamoorthy against the AIADMK leadership.
Justice PB Balaji noted that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, there was no embargo on the courts taking note of subsequent events to reject a plaint. In the present case, the court noted that the plaintiff had contested against the AIADMK candidate in the assembly elections which showed that he no longer treated himself as a member of the AIADMK party.
Case Title: Dr Ilaiyaraja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the makers of Ajith starrer Good Bad Ugly movie from using three songs of musician Ilaiyaraja.
Justice N Senthilkumar granted the temporary injunction in a plea moved by the musician seeking to restrain Mythri Movie Makers, producers of the movie, from exhibiting, screening, selling, distributing, publishing, broadcasting the movie, along with the three songs of Ilaiyaraja.
Ilaiyaraja had argued that the songs "Otha Rubayum Tharen" from the movie "Nattupura Pattu", the song "Ilamai Idho Ido" from the movie "Sakalakala Vallavan", and the song "En Jodi Manja Kuruvi" from the movie "Vikram" had been used in the Ajith movie without obtaining express consent or permission from him and without paying royalties to which he is statutorily entitled.
Case Title: R Kannan and Others v. T.R Baalu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
The Madras High Court has stayed an order of the single judge directing the Editor, Publisher, and the Printer of the Tamil weekly “Junior Vikatan” to pay Rs. 25,00,000 as damages to DMK's TR Balu for publishing malicious and defamatory content against him.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Saravanan passed the interim order in an appeal preferred by the magazine and adjourned the hearing for 2 weeks.
Case Title: Annadhurai Ramasamy v. The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
The Madras High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, to monitor the investigation in connection with the death of 27-year-old Rithanya, who committed suicide earlier in July this year, over alleged dowry harassment.
Justice Satish Kumar disposed of the petition filed by Annadhurai, Rithanya's father, seeking to transfer the investigation to an independent investigating officer from the State Crime Investigation Department (CB-CID) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired judge.
Noting that a substantial progress had already been made in the investigation, the court was not inclined to order an independent probe in the case. However, since allegations had been raised regarding lapses in the investigation, the court directed the Superintendent to monitor the probe.
Case Title: Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
The Madras High Court recently directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the office of Medical Counselling Committee, the National Medical Commission, and the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to permit a physically disabled candidate to attend the counselling for NEET PG 2025-26 based on the rank secured by him in NEET PG 2024.
Justice C Kumarappan relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kabir Paharia vs National Medical Commission and others, in which the court had observed that the constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that person with disabilities and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities.
Case Title: Lokeshwaran Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
The Madras High Court has set aside an unusual order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, remanding a Deputy Superintendent of Police and externing other accused persons.
Calling the trial court judge's order "unwarranted", Justice N Satish Kumar directed the high court's Registrar (Vigilance) to conduct an enquiry into allegations of bias and misuse of power by the trial court judge. The high court opined that such a probe was necessary to uncover the truth.
The court noted that before passing the order of externment under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act there must be either a complaint or a Police report. In the present case, the court noted that except for the FIR, there were no other police reports.
The court observed that the order of externment is to be passed when there is a real atrocity committed on the members belonging to the SC/ST communities. In the present case, the court noted that the case was based on mere altercations and it might not have been possible for the persons to know the caste of the opposite party.
Case Title: Adv V Venkata Sivakumar v. The Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation asking the Election Commission of India to clarify its position regarding the allegations raised by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, regarding large-scale voter list manipulation in the 2024 General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the plea lacked materials and only referred to the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties. The court also noted that the plea was in the nature of asking the court to conduct a roving enquiry into the issue.
Case Title: R Varadaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer challenging the appointment of IPS officer R Venkataraman as the ad-hoc Director General of Police/Head of Police Force in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan orally remarked that some arrangements had to be made when the DGP demitted office following his superannuation in August 31st 2025. The court also noted that the Supreme Court, on September 8, had directed the UPSC to expeditiously consider sending recommendations for the appointment of the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu. The court thus opined that the present petition was baseless.
Case Title: Vignesh D v. The Health and Family Welfare Department and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Dr MGR Medical University to constitute a university-level committee as per Rule 10(8) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules 2020. As per this rule, all educational institutions shall have a committee which shall be accessible for transgender persons in case of any harassment or discrimination, with powers to ensure that transgender students do not affected by the presence of the persons bullying them, including teachers.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan issued the direction in a transgender student's plea claiming that the medical college where they were pursuing their medical degree had withheld their original documents and made an arbitrary fee demand.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Violation Of Pollution Norms At Isha Foundation
Case Title: ST Sivagnanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking direction to the authorities to take appropriate action against discharge of sewage and effluents by the Isha Foundation into the neighbouring lands.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of a subsequent petition filed by the same petitioner raising the same concerns, in which the pollution control board had conducted an inspection and had submitted a satisfactory report. The bench thus opined that nothing survived in the petition and dismissed the same.
Case Title: N Anand Bussi Anand v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court has stayed the criminal proceedings initiated against the general secretary of actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party for allegedly causing an unlawful assembly and obstructing the police from doing their duty.
Justice Sunder Mohan ordered an interim stay in a petition filed by N Anand alias Bussy Anand, seeking to quash the FIR registered against him by the Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Trichy.
Case Title: D Chandirasegar and Others v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation restricting the exempted establishments from amending their Trust Rules with retrospective effect so as to bring it in consonance with the Supreme Court's orders. The court also set aside an order of the EPFO rejecting an application for joint option request by employees to avail the benefits of higher pension.
Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the organisation was exempted under the Provident Fund Scheme and was governed by its Trust Rules. The court also noted that the establishment was governed under the Statutory Pension Scheme and the benefits under the scheme could not be denied to the employees citing the Trust Rules.
Case Title: Sarootham Padmanabhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Madras High Court has upheld the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed committee, declaring as null and void the land bought by the resort owners in the Segur plateau, in the Western Ghats area that had been declared as an Elephant corridor.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy agreed with most of the findings of the committee except that the land that was purchased subsequent to the declaration of the elephant corridor be handed over to the Government.
Case Title: T Devanathan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
The Madras High Court has granted interim bail to financier Devanathan Yadav till October 30 in the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund case wherein he had been accused of swindling funds to the tune of Rs. 619 crores.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that keeping the accused in jail for long would not yield any benefits
The court thus directed Yadav to be released on interim bail till 30th October and asked him to mobilise a sum of Rs. 100 Crore, to be deposited before the court dealing with cases under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act.
Case Title: Suo Motu WP v. The Director General of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, closed the suo motu case initiated against former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi for his remarks against Vaishnavism, Saivism, and women. The court noted that the complainants were at liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional magistrates against the closure of complaints.
While closing the suo motu case, Justice N Satish Kumar orally remarked that Ponmudi, while holding the public office, should not have made such comments which would hurt the sentiments of persons.
"If an ordinary person had uttered this, we could've avoided it. But a person in responsibility should not have uttered this. He should've asked for some advice before making such statements...It's not good for persons at the helm of affairs to speak like this. Everybody has rights under the Constitution. Sentiments should not be hurt like this," the court orally remarked.
The court also expressed displeasure in the manner in which the police had closed the complaints and filed their report before the Magistrate's court. The court orally remarked that instead of following their political bosses, the investigating officers should have conducted a proper inquiry.
Case Title: P Ayyakannu v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court recently held that the railway authorities cannot de-board a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because his travel was for conducting a protest.
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that, as per the Railways Act 1989, a person could be de-boarded only in limited circumstances like travelling without a ticket, having an infectious disease, or travelling in unauthorised parts. The court added that if a person with a valid ticket was de-boarded for other reasons, it would amount to an offence for which action could be taken against the officials.
Case Title: Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police in Karur District of Tamil Nadu for failing to prevent caste discrimination in two temples there.
Justice B. Pugalendhi emphasised that equality for all in temple worship is non-negotiable and that the officers in charge are expected to ensure that the temple is remained open for all devotees, including persons belonging to the scheduled caste community.
The bench observed that the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police of Karur had not shown neutrality but had in fact displayed an utter abdication of their constitutional responsibility. The court said that instead of defending rights, the officers had defended violations and had shown that they were unfit to discharge their official duties.
Case Title: R Sathish v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by a man against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti, refusing to register a complaint against a woman, who had allegedly blackmailed the man and fraudulently taken money from him.
Finding no merit in the plea, Justice Shamim Ahmed said that the plea was only a calculated attempt to defame a woman. The court added that entertaining such petitions could cause irreparable harm to the reputation of the woman. The court said that it would not allow such misuse of legal process and wanted to protect the dignity and reputation of the woman.
Case Title: A. Kasthuri v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court has directed the authorities of Stanley Medical College to give appropriate treatment for renal transplantation to a minor boy without insisting on the consent of his father, who had abandoned the family.
Justice M Dhandapani took note of the submissions of the hospital's counsel, who informed the court that it would conduct a meeting and take an appropriate decision in this regard.
Case Title: Ulpath Nisha v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court has observed that the jurisdictional Jamath is obliged to issue a No-Objection Certificate to an applicant for conducting Nikha, if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that the non-issuance of an NOC to an eligible applicant would violate the applicant's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that, as per the Islamic tradition, an NOC had to be obtained by the jurisdictional Jamath for the solemnisation of the Nikkah. Thus, the court said that when the custom stood thus, the Jamath had a duty to issue NOC unless the applicant was otherwise disqualified.
Case Title: Mohammed Iqbal v. S Manonmanian
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
The Madras High Court recently observed that a Xerox copy of a cheque can be accepted as secondary evidence in cheque bounce cases, and such a request cannot be refused merely because there is no evidence to prove that the original cheque was lost.
Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that when the trial judge had recorded the sworn statement in which he had made an endorsement with respect to the original cheque before giving it back to the complainant, he should have accepted the xerox copy of the original cheque as secondary evidence.
Case Title: VP v. M
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Family Court at Dindigul, which had directed a man to pay monthly maintenance to his wife, after noting that there was no evidence to prove the marriage between the parties.
The Madurai bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the trial judge had only relied on the evidence of the witness on the plaintiff's side without considering the evidence of the defendant's witness, which gave an undue advantage to the plaintiff. The court noted that in the absence of any evidence, the court should not have placed complete reliance on the unreliable witness, and thus opined that the trial court's order was unsustainable.
Case Title: SGS and another v. NIL
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court recently observed that when parties to a mutual divorce have affirmed their decision to go their separate ways, the court should not insist on them waiting for the mandatory cooling-off period, as the same would only increase their agony.
Justice PB Balaji, after considering the decision of the Supreme Court and other High Courts regarding the issue, held as under,
“Independently, I also find that both the petitioners have filed separate affidavits even in this revision, affirming their decision to go separate ways. The interest of any children is also not involved in the present case, since the parties were not blessed with any issues and both the petitioners have categorically asserted that the relationship has become irreconcilable and distressing. In such circumstances, compelling the petitioners to wait for the mandatory period to expire would only further increase their agony. The petitioners have also stated that their decision is voluntary and only based on their free will and there is no fraud, collusion or undue influence brought upon them to file the mutual consent divorce petition,” the court said.
Case Name : Secretary to Government Education Department State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs J. Augustin & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V.Karthikeya and Justice R.Vijayakumar held that an appointment cannot be made to a post abolished by a Government Order, and a stay order in a different matter does not confer any right to appointment or its approval.
It was noted by the court that an order of stay granted in W.A.(M.D).No.816 of 2023 was restricted to Sweepers and Scavengers. It was held by the court that the stay order granted by the Court was only to protect the interest of the parties to the proceedings pending disposal of the writ petition. If the respondent had been appointed prior to G.O.Ms.238, then he could have taken advantage of the stay order. It was further held by the court that the right to get an appointment or its approval should be traceable to a statute or a Government Order. It cannot be traced through an interim order passed by the Court.
It was concluded by the court that the Single Judge had erred in directing the approval of the appointment based on an interim stay in a different matter. Hence, the order of the writ court was set aside and the writ appeal filed by the Education Department was allowed by the court.
Case Title: M/s.Sivakumar and Co., Perundurai Road, Erode v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
The Madras High Court has held that if the assessee has purchased goods both within the State and from other States, then to claim exemption for inter-State purchases, the purchases made within the State must be segregated from those made from others.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam stated that when the facts are established in clear terms that the goods were found mingled during the course of physical verification/inspection, the decision of the assessing Authority and the appellate Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled for exemption, is correct and in consonance with the provisions of the exemption Order.
Case Title: M/s. Inalfa Gabriel Sunroof Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High Court has held that the scope of appeal is limited under Section 28KA of the Customs Act and an advance ruling is binding unless it is palpably arbitrary or irrational.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that the scope of appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962, is limited, as the ruling obtained is binding on the persons mentioned in Section 28J of the Customs Act, 1962. Unless the ruling of the Authority is palpably arbitrary or irrational or without any proper reasoning, they cannot be interfered by this Court under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Madras High Court Transfers Probe In BSP Leader Armstrong's Murder Case To CBI
Case Title: K Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong v. Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
The Madras High Court has transferred the investigation into the death of Bahujan Samaj Party leader Armstrong to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Allowing a petition filed by Armstrong's brother, Justice P Velmurugan has directed the CBI to file the chargesheet within 6 months.
The court noted that the investigation carried out by the State police did not inspire much confidence, and to ensure justice and to maintain public confidence, it was to transfer the investigation to the CBI for a free, fair, and impartial inquiry.
Provisions Of Right To Education & RPWD Act Don't Apply To Sainik Schools: Madras High Court
Case Title: M. R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court recently held that the provisions of the Right to Education Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act are not applicable to Sainik Schools since it is administered under the control of the Sainik School Society and the Ministry of Defence.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus found no infirmity or illegality in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling, for the year 2025, which had prescribed eye standards for children seeking admission to the Sainik School.
Husband, Children Have Legal And Moral Duty To Maintain Wife/Mother: Madras High Court
Case Title: RAP v. AM
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of a Family Court in Madurai asking a husband and his sons to pay Rs. 21,000 as monthly maintenance for their wife/mother.
Justice Shamim Ahmed remarked that a man had a legal and moral duty to maintain his mother/wife during her lifetime, and this duty was to ensure that the mother/wife is supported and cared for during their old age.
The court also added that by fulfilling this duty, the individual was demonstrating respect and gratitude towards their mother who had devoted herself to nurture and care for the family. The court called this a fundamental aspect of familial responsibility and remarked that it allowed the mothers to live their later years with dignity and care.
No Tax Exemption On Bakery Products Sold At Snack Bar: Madras High Court
Case Title: Cakes N Bakes v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
The Madras High Court held that there is no tax exemption for bakery products sold in a snack bar.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan were addressing the issue of whether bakery products sold in a snack bar are covered under the notification G.O.P.No.570 dated 10th June 1987 and exempted from tax.
The bench looked into Sl.No.9 to I Schedule and observed that the bakery products are not included and thus would not fall under the exemption notification. In fact, the bakery products are stated in I Schedule of Part B of Sl.No.11.
The said Sl.No.11 of part B of I Schedule has not been exempted under the notification. Therefore, the assessee's case would not fall under the exemption notification, added the bench.
The bench concluded that the Original Authority and the appellate Tribunal have rightly interpreted the exemption notification and the scope of its applications.
Case Title: S Venkatesan v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Madras High Court recently observed that for determining the indigency of a person under Order 33 of Civil Procedure Code, the court has to conduct an independent inquiry by itself or by appointing an officer of the court.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq said that the certificate obtained from the Government Authorities showing that a person is indigent can only be relied on for establishing the indigent circumstances and cannot be conclusive proof for to conclude whether the person is indigent.
Case Title: K Balachenniappan v. Jeyakrishnan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
The Madras High Court recently observed that the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act would override the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita since the former was a special law.
Justice Shamim Ahmed added that the offences under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act were compoundable at any stage, even after the dismissal of the revision/appeal. The court noted that even a convict undergoing imprisonment could compound the offence.
Case Title: A.G Ponmanickavel v. State and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court has quashed a case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation against former IPS officer Ponmanickavel, who was heading the idol theft wing of the CID in the state of Tamil Nadu.
Justice RN Manjula observed that the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet did not disclose any allegations committed by Ponmanickavel and were non est and redundant. The court also noted that the FIR had been registered in excess of authority without getting any permission from the High Court. In an earlier proceeding, while disposing of a petition alleging excess use of force by the officer, the court had ordered that any future case against the officer in connection with the case should be after getting the High Court's approval.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Annalakshmi and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a person who borrows a vehicle from its owner would step into the shoes of the owner and such a person cannot claim compensation similar to a third party.
Justice R Poornima of the Madurai bench took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another, where the court had held that a claim petition under Section 163A was not maintainable by a borrower/permissible user of a vehicle against the owner/insurer of the vehicle.
Case Title: The Divisional Security Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority and Others v. K Muniyandi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently held that members belonging to the Railway Protection Force would not be governed by the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
The Madurai bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that Rule 801 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, had specifically excluded any member of the Railway Protection Forces from the applicability of the rules. The bench thus noted that any disciplinary action or punishment against a member of the force would be under the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act and the Rules prescribed therein.
Case title: SENTHILKANNAN v/s THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE With Related Petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Friday (October 3) rejected a bunch of pleas seeking CBI probe into the Karur stampede which occurred on last Saturday, claiming 39 lives.
Meanwhile, the State government also informed the high court that until SOPs are framed for holding of public meetings by political parties, no permissions will be given to any political party to hold such meetings.
A division bench of Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice M Jothiraman also disposed of PILs seeking framing of SOPs, noting that the principal bench has already asked the State Government to frame SOP. Petitioners have been given liberty to file impleading petition in that plea.
Case Title: N Sathish Kumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Madras High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Namakkal District Secretary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party, N Satish Kumar in connection with a violence that took place on September 27th, allegedly involving party cadres.
Justice N Senthilkumar, while dismissing the plea for anticipatory bail, held that as the District Secretary of the party, Kumar should have kept the cadres of the party under control and prevented them from causing any damage to the public property.
Case title: PH Dinesh v/s Home Secretary State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court on Friday constituted a SIT headed by Inspector General (IG) of Police Asra Garg to investigate into the Karur Stampede which occurred on September 27 claiming the lives of 41 people.
Justice N Senthilkumar also orally condemned the 'attitude' of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, in 'abandoning' the place after the incident. The court said that the party did not express remorse.
The court further said that it cannot close its eyes and shirk responsibilities. "The entire world has witnessed the events," it added.
The court passed the order in a plea moved by a man who had sent a representation to the state authorities for framing guidelines for road shows and conducting proper investigation into the incident.
Karur Stampede: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To TVK Party Functionaries
Case title: N ANAND ALIAS BUSSY ANAND VS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail pleas moved by two functionaries of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party apprehending arrest in connection with the stampede that took place during the party's rally in Karur last Saturday.
Justice M Jothiraman denied anticipatory bail to party's General Secretary N. Anand @ Bussy Anand and Joint Secretary CTR Nirmal Kumar.
The duo were apprehending arrest for offences under Section 105 [Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder], 110 [attempt to commit culpable homicide], 125(b) [act endangering life or personal safety of others], 223 [disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant] of BNS along with Section 3 [punishment for committing mischief in respect of property] of Tamil Nadu Public Property (prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992.
Case Title: M/s. Ravi Mohan Studios Pvt Ltd. v. M/s Indo Bevs Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
The Madras High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of actor Ravi Mohan's production company and has restrained the beverage manufacturing company Indobevs, which manufactures the drink 'Bro Code', from making threats of trademark infringement against the production company, producing a movie with the same title.
Justice V Lakshminarayan, after noting that there was a prima facie case in favour of granting an interim injunction, ordered accordingly. The court has also ordered notice to the beverage company and clarified that, in the event the notice is not served, the interim order will not be extended.
Ravi Mohan had approached the court seeking to declare that the usage of the title “BROCODE” for his production company's upcoming movie did not infringe the trademark of the defendant company. He had also sought for permanent injunction to restrain the company from issuing or making groundless threats of infringement, or otherwise interfering with the movie's production, publicity, marketing, etc.
Case Title: MC Sivakami v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 337
The Madras High Court has directed the State Highways Department to consider a representation seeking an enquiry into the disbursal of Rs. 1,00,87,183 to film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Kushi Kapoor as compensation for land acquisition.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has directed the authority to consider the representation and dispose of the same within 4 weeks.
The petition was filed by Sivakami, a resident of Chennai, claiming that the State Highways Department had illegally disbursed the compensation amount to the trio, even though they did not own any property in the area.
Madras High Court Asks Transgender Woman To Approach Union Govt Against Denial Of Adoption
Case Title: K Prithika Yashini (Transgender) v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 338
The Madras High Court has closed the plea filed by Transgender Sub Inspector Priyanka Yashini against an order of the Central Adoption Resource Authority, rejecting her prospective adoptive parent application.
While disposing of the plea, Justice M Dhandapani noted that unless amendments were made to the Adoption Regulations, a direction could not be issued to CARA to consider the petitioner's application. The court thus directed the petitioner to make an application to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, asking them to amend Regulation 5, thus enabling a transgender person to adopt from the CARA agency.
Case Title: Venkateshwaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 339
The Madras High Court recently observed that in offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, it was not necessary to involve the victims of their parents. The court, however, added that impleading the victim, their family or the de facto complainant was essential in case of regular bail applications and for suspension of sentence.
Justice K Murali Shankar clarified that the victims in POCSO cases should not be directly involved in the proceedings, and any notice that should be served to them must be through the address provided by the State Counsel.
Case Title: K v. M
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 340
The Madras High Court recently refused a man's application seeking a DNA test of his child, alleging that the child born to the couple during their marriage was not his.
While doing so, Justice Shamim Ahmed made it clear that DNA tests could not be used as shortcuts to prove alleged infidelity that may have taken place decades ago. The court added that the necessity of DNA tests should be determined through the prism of the child and not that of the parents.
The court further held that the child should not be used as a pawn to show that the child's mother was living in adultery. The court also observed that the husband can always bring in other evidence to establish the adultery of the wife, and the child's identity should not be sacrificed for such claims.
Case Title: Krishnan v. The State
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 341
The Madras High Court recently observed that in most cases under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the police seizure usually ends up being barely above the commercial quantity of contraband specified under the Act.
Justice S Srimathy added that when the commercial quantity was given as 1 kg, the police seizure would usually be 1.1kg, being just above the commercial quantity.
The Court made the observations while granting bail to a man accused under the Act. The court noted that there was no material other than the confession against the man. Noting that there were no previous cases against him, the court relied on the second limb of Section 37 and concluded that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Case Title: Raja Lakshmi v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
The Madras High Court recently criticised filing of habeas corpus petitions in cases of missing persons, without establishing a prima facie case of illegal detention.
The Madurai bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice R Poornima noted that though the police department had sufficient infrastructure to deal with missing cases, they were not using it properly and often ignoring the guidelines which resulted in filing of the HCPs invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the courts.
The court added that constitutional courts across the country have condemned invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the courts in man-missing cases without prima facie case. The court added that habeas corpus plea was a speedy remedy available only in case of an illegal detention.
Case Title: Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam v. A.T.S.V.S.Siddha Medical College & Hospital
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court recently held that courts cannot run the administration of a Society or any Institution infinitely, by appointing an interim administrator.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that the appointment of interim administrator must always be a temporary corrective measure because of the factual exigencies. The bench also remarked that after appointing interim administrators, the courts should ensure that elections are conducted swiftly.
The court remarked that it was not primarily intended to run administrations and the court's jurisdiction must be only to resolve dispute and ensure lawful governance. The court added that appointment of interim administrators should be resorted to only in situations where democratic governance is rendered impossible due to factual exigencies.
Case Title: P. Balasubramaniam v. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 344
The Madras High Court stated that the FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) penalty under Section 50 is not applicable for export shortfall below 10%; the exporter can write off unrealised bills.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that even otherwise, since Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is to be read along with Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, penalty under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as admittedly the Appellants/Exporters had failed to realize approximately 5.45% of the export proceeds.
Case Title: Visalakshi v. Secretary to Government
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Madras High Court, on Friday, has ordered a postmortem of Nagendran, the prime accused in the murder of Bahujan Samaj Party leader Armstrong. Nagendran had died on 9th October, 2025, while under police custody.
Since Nagendran's family had raised allegations of poisoning by the police, Justice Satish Kumar has also ordered five visceral samples to be collected and sent to the Forensic Department. The court has also ordered that the postmortem be conducted by two government surgeons and overseen by Dr.B.Santhakumar, Dean (Retd.), Government Thoothukudi Medical College, Thoothukudi.. The court has also asked the entire procedure to be video recorded.
Case Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary to the Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to constitute a Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission, as per the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, within four weeks.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar remarked that even though one and half years had passed since the passing of the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, no action had been initiated by the State to constitute the commission, which was necessary to give advice with respect to development, restoration, preservation, etc of huge buildings, including temples and temple related structures.
Case Title: Prakasam v. The District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to issue directions/circulars stating that appropriate disciplinary action against any officer who grants sanction for constructing public buildings/institutions on water bodies. The court said that action should be taken to recover the monetary loss that is caused to the State exchequer through such sanctions.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a public interest litigation in connection with the construction of new Primary Health Centre and Panchayat office buildings on land which had been reserved as waterbody/canals.
Case Title: S Paramasivam v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
The third judge of the Madras High Court, appointed to resolve the split verdict in connection with pleas against animal sacrifice at the Thiruparakundram Hills, on Friday, ruled against allowing such practice at the hills.
While Justice Nisha Banu had refused to interfere with the practice of animal sacrifice, Justice S Srimathy had taken a different view and said that the Dargah should approach the civil court to establish their right to practice the Kandoori animal sacrifice and prayers during Ramzan, Bakrid and other Islamic festivals.
Justice R Vijayakumar, who was appointed after the split verdict by a bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice S Srimathy, concurred with the views taken by Justice S Srimathy and noted that the practice of animal sacrifice was not being performed in all dargahs/mosques and was thus, not an essential religious practice to claim protection under Article 25 of the Constitution
Case Title: Navanitha v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that women, especially in rural areas, are often the worst victims of moral policing and such moral policing infringes their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice L. Victorial Gowri added that the courts could not be oblivious to the dangers of moral policing, as these practices often lead to social ostracisation of women and sometimes even drives them to commit suicide.
The court highlighted that the dignity of women is protected by way of Article 21 of the Constitution, and any act of moral policing, particularly targeting women, would be a direct assault on this constitutional guarantee.
Case Title: Uma Maheshwari v. The Principal Secretary to Government
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to conduct a special training session for judges presiding over the special courts dealing with offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar made the request after noting that many special courts were not complying with the mandate under Section 35 of the Act, which required the courts to examine the victim child within 30 days from the date of taking cognisance of the chargesheet.
The court told the Judicial Academy that the training session should sensitise the officers about the statutory requirement and the importance of promptly taking cognisance of chargesheets.
Visitation Right Of Parents Should Not Affect Development Child: Madras High Court
Case Title: P v. S
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
The Madras High Court has stressed that while deciding the visitation rights of the parents, it should be noted that the child's schooling and the child's physical, moral and emotional development should not be affected.
Justice M Jothiraman reiterated that while dealing with cases pertaining to visitation rights, the court's paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child. The court added that though the parents had a visitation right, it should not disrupt the child's development.
Case Title: Palraj v. Inspector Of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
The Madras High Court has asked a Judicial Officer to be sent to the State Judicial Academy to attend training programs to understand the fundamentals of criminal law.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice R Poornima gave directions to the registry after noting that the judge, who was presiding over the Special Court for POCSO cases, had found a man guilty based on the victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC.
Case Title: Magudapathi v. The District Magistrate cum District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
The Madras High Court recently observed that getting a license to bear arms is a privilege however, once the license is granted, the privilege becomes a right and an application for renewal of gun license would stand on a better footing.
The court added that an application for renewal of license cannot be denied unless the authority establishes the grounds for rejection.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that while the onus is on the applicant to make out a case for the grant of a license, onus will shift to the authorities at the time of renewal. The court added that the reason assigned by the authority for refusing to grant a license will be subjected to greater scrutiny, and it will be tested whether the authority has discharged the burden cast on it.
Case Title: M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, disposed of a petition filed by the Indian Oil Corporation against the strike conducted by the LPG transport owners' association.
Justice M Dhandapani disposed of the plea after taking note of the submissions made by Assistant Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, informing the court that the existing tenders will be allowed to continue the work till 31st March 2026. Since the Southern regional Bulk LPG Transport Owners Association, who were also the respondents in the case, accepted the proposal, the court disposed of the plea.
Case Name : A. Shanthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C. V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar held that dismissal for abusive and threatening conduct against a superior is not disproportionate when the employee has a history of similar past misconduct.
It was observed that previous misconduct of similar nature on two occasions necessarily had to be taken into account while determining the appropriate punishment for the repeated offences involving abusive and threatening conduct against the Branch Manager. It was held by the court that the Labour Court duly considered the issue of proportionality of the punishment and held that the punishment was not disproportionate under the circumstances.
Case Title: M v. M
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Madras High Court recently refused to order maintenance to a woman noting that her husband, who was a senior citizen could not be burdened with the additional responsibility of paying maintenance.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the husband had been neglected by his family despite his medical needs. The court noted that the husband also had a right to be protected under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court held that it had to strike a balance between the rights of both parties to be maintained.
Case Title: The Manager v. Aron K Thiraviaraj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
The Madras High Court recently upheld an order of a single judge setting aside the departmental proceeding against a man for pasting the information related to the party on the notice board.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the information, that was disclosed under the Right to Information Act would not be an “official document” of the company, or that relating to the company's internal operations. The court added that the information was already available in the public and was lawfully disclosed and pasting such information in the company's notice board would not be violative of the standing orders.
Madras High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Man Who Sexually Abused, Impregnated Daughter's Friend
Case Title: Murugesan @ Murugesh v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on a man for sexually assaulting and impregnating his daughter's friend, who was a minor and belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the case was yet another example of how children from the vulnerable sections of society were placed in unfortunate positions.
Case Title: General Manager, Southern India Region v. P Sundarapariporanam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
The Madras High Court has directed Air India Limited to pay a compensation of Rs. 35,000 to a man, who had found a hair in the food packet served to him on flights.
Justice PB Balaji noted that the airlines were negligent and had mischievously attempted to shift the liability to the caterer. Though the court interfered with the order of trial court imposing a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000, the court directed the airline to pay the cost of the suit and the court fee expenses.
The court noted that while, on the one hand, the company claimed that the passenger had not made any complaints on board, on the other hand, the company had also said that the oral complaint of the passenger was radioed to the senior catering manager who also talked to the passenger after arrival.
Case Title: TRULIV Properties and Services Private Limited Vs C.Ravishankar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
The Madras High Court held that declaring earlier proceedings non est, even when no objections were raised regarding the recording of the undertaking in those proceedings, constituted a perverse finding. The Court observed that such proceedings, which merely recorded an undertaking, could not fall within the ambit of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) as they did not amount to an order. Raising this issue suo motu was held to be a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court further noted that the arbitrator's final award contradicted his earlier findings under Section 17 of the Act, thereby rendering the award patently illegal.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “the finding that was rendered at the time of passing the interim order and the finding that was rendered at the time of passing the final award are mutually contradictory. The above perverse finding is also irrational, since the same Arbitrator could not have rendered one finding at the time of passing the interim order and a completely conflicting finding at the time of passing the final award.”
Case Title: SALLY THERMOPLASTIC INDIA LIMITED Vs. LEARNING LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
The Madras High Court held that section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be invoked only when the proceedings are pending. It cannot be invoked when the arbitral tribunal has become functus officio.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “in the case in hand, the proceedings were abandoned and consequently stood terminated as was explained supra. Thereafter, there is no question of filing an application seeking for extension of time for a non-existent Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the present application is not maintainable”.
Case Title: M/s.AL TIRVEN STEELS LTD Vs. M/s.IVRCL Assets and Holding Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that arbitration proceedings cannot continue after commencement of liquidation, any order passed thereafter is not legally sustainable. However, considering that continuation of arbitration proceedings would be futile and that the petitioner had not been informed of the commencement of the liquidation, the court allowed the petitioner to file its claim before the liquidator.
The court observed that since moratorium under section 14 of the IBC had come into operation even before the termination of arbitration proceedings, the continuation of arbitration proceedings would be futile. It held that “even if this Court permits the arbitration proceedings to continue and an award is also passed in favour of the petitioner, it is not certain what subsequent remedy can the petitioner seek even after obtaining the award".
Case Title: T. Gangeswari v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
The Madras High Court recently observed that State, as an employer, should conduct itself in a fair and transparent manner and give an opportunity to all candidates to fulfil their aspirations of securing a government job.
Justice T Vinod Kumar highlighted that the State should not show favouritism and bias in favour of any candidate by altering the records. Noting that the State had altered the records of the employment exchange to give employment to a candidate, the court opined that such employment could not be given the stamp of approval.
Case Title: N Venkatesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
The Madras High Court has granted bail to N Venkatesan, Salem District Secretary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Party for allegedly assaulting an ambulance driver in the aftermath of the Karur Stampede last month.
Justice S Srimathy ordered Vebkatesan to be released on bail by executing a surety for Rs. 10,000 on the condition that he report before the Karur Town Police Station daily at 10:30 a.m. for one week and thereafter when required.
Venkatesan was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on October 9, 2025, for offences under Sections 191(2) [Rioting], 296(b) [obscene acts and songs], 115(2) [voluntarily causing hurt], 127(2) [wrongful confinement], 351(2) [criminal intimidation] of the BNS read with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992.
Case Title: K Heerajohn v. The District Registrar and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
The Madras High Court recently said that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act would prevail over the muslim personal laws, and an adopted child will have the same status as that of a biological child.
Justice GR Swaminathan also highlighted administrative delays in adoption procedures and said that such delays deprive the child of the formative experiences and opportunities that could alter their life's trajectory. The court thus highlighted that the authorities under the Juvenile Justice Act are obliged to speed up the adoption process.
Case Title: Joe Micheal Praveen v. Apsara Reddy and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court recently emphasised that the interest of the litigant should not be affected due to the errors or mistakes committed by the lawyers.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq added that the courts should normally take a lenient view while setting aside ex parte decrees. The court added that ex parte decrees must be awarded only in exceptional cases where the conduct of the party is totally indifferent.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a YouTuber, Joe Micheal Praveen, against the order of a judge refusing to set aside an order directing him to pay Rs. 50 Lakh as compensation to Apsara Reddy, AIADMK sportsperson, for making derogatory statements against the latter.
Case Title: X v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, closed a plea filed by a young woman lawyer to take down her intimate photos and videos that her former partner had posted without her consent.
Justice M Dhandapani took note of the Standard Operating Procedure that was submitted by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology for curtailing the dissemination of Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery Content. Previously, the court had asked the Ministry to explain the steps to be taken by a victim girl when her intimate photos/videos are posted online without consent.
The court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities under the SOP for removing any further images/videos of the lawyer that may be uploaded, and closed the plea.
Case Title: Ramasamy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court was recently surprised to note that the summons in a criminal case was served 12 years after the case was taken on file.
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that the delay was attributable to both the police and the court registry. The court said that while the police failed to cause service of summons in time, the Judicial Magistrate also failed to verify whether the summons was issued, and did not call for an explanation for non-service.
The court also took note of the proceedings of the Director General of Police who had instructed all police personnel to utilise the e-summon mobile application. The court directed the Chief Secretary, the Secretary to the Government (Home Dept), the DGP, the Registrar General and the Registrar General (IT) to work in tandem and ensure strict compliance of e-summons.
Case Title: Sureshbabu and Others v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated in 2024, against a group of men for alleged unlawful assembly, noting that the men had gathered to watch the live telecast of the Ayodhya Ram temple ceremony.
Justice N Satish Kumar noted that whenever some religious functions are conducted, there would be some grievances by other groups. The court added that merely because the people had gathered to watch the function, it could not be said to be an unlawful assembly to attract the offences under the IPC.
The court remarked that the mere launching of the FIR was not sufficient to conclude that the offences had been made out. The court also observed that continuing the prosecution on shaky grounds or without materials would amount to abuse of process of law.
Case Name : K. Sadhasivam Vs. The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice R. Poornima held that the departmental proceedings against a retired government servant cannot be instituted for an event that took place more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge memo.
It was observed by the court that a departmental proceeding is deemed to be instituted only on the date the statement of charges is formally issued to the government servant or pensioner, as defined under Rule 9(6)(b).
It was further observed that Rule 9(2)(b) imposes a limitation that proceedings not instituted while in service shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.
Case Title: M Muventhan v. The District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
The Madras High Court recently observed that there was no legal right to conduct a cock fight as the Statute expressly prohibits an animal fight organised by humans.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Section 11(1)(m)(ii) and Section 11(1)(n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act penalise any person who entices any animal to fight any other animal or who organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of any place for animal fighting. Thus, noting that there was a statutory bar, the court was not inclined to grant the relief.
The court added that though cock fights were prevalent and well known, it could not be given a cultural status. The court added that the petitioner may have a legal right if the State decides to bring an amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, similar to one brought in 2017 following the Jallikattu issue.
Case Title: The State v. Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
The Madras High Court has set aside the order acquitting Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa for planning a bomb attack on former Home Minister LK Advani during his Rath Yatra in Madurai in 2011.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice L Victoria Gowri noted that though the trial court had pointed out certain contradictions for acquitting the accused, the contradictions were not material to go to the root of the prosecution case. The court noted that the contradictions were only minor.
The court was hearing an appeal by the Special Investigation Division, CB-CID wing, against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, acquitting the accused. The prosecution's case was that while the case against the accused was pending for attempting to attack former Home Minister LK Advani through a planted bomb, the accused absconded at the preliminary stage. Following this, a non-bailable warrant was issued.
Madras High Court Recognises Cryptocurrency as Property, Says It Can Be“Held in Trust”
Case Title: Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
The Madras High Court on Saturday recognized cryptocurrency as a form of property that can be owned, enjoyed and held in trust, while granting protection to an investor whose digital assets were frozen on the WazirX exchange after a massive cyberattack.
In an order passed by Justice N Anand Venkatesh in an arbitration plea seeking interim relief, the court relied on two Supreme Court rulings, Ahmed G.H. Ariff v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, which broadly define the concept of “property,” and observed that these principles apply equally to cryptocurrencies
It held “Judging from the above two decisions, there can be no doubt that “crypto currency” is a property. It is not a tangible property nor is it a currency. However, it is a property, which is capable of being enjoyed and possessed (in a beneficial form). It is capable of being held in trust.”
Case Title: N Anand @ Bussy Anand v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party's general secretary N Anand @ Bussy Anand, on Monday (October 27) withdrew an anticipatory bail petition filed by him in the Madras High Court in connection with the Karur Stampede.
Anand's counsel informed a bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan that he intended to withdraw the plea, since the investigation had been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following the orders of the Supreme Court. Taking note of the same, the court allowed his request and dismissed the plea as withdrawn.
Case Title: M/s. ACS Shipping & Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
The Madras High Court stated that the offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Also, it stated that the 90-day limitation period begins only upon receipt of the offence report.
The bench stated that, "the offence report must be received by the office of the licensing authority, and the limitation period will start running only from the date of its receipt. Even if the licensing authority can be attributed with knowledge in this regard, that would not count for the purpose of limitation. It is the date of receipt of the offence report that is material. Such an interpretation alone would be in consonance with the text of Regulation 17."
Justice G.R. Swaminathan stated that an offence report need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Any official communication or proceeding or order, or notice setting out the misconduct committed by the customs broker in any customs station would qualify to be an offence report. The offence report need not be in any particular format. The only requirement is that the offence report has to emanate from an official source.
Case Title: M/s Vittera B.V. v. M/s SKT Textile Mills
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that when a party purposely fails to avail an opportunity duly accorded by the Arbitral Tribunal to present its case, it cannot later use its own default as a ground to resist enforcement of the resultant award.
The Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Limited wherein it was observed that where the party fails to take advantage of an opportunity duly accorded to, it cannot later invoke that ground. The Court observed that the ground under Section 48(1)(b) of the Act will not be available to a party, which makes a conscious and deliberate decision not to participate in the arbitral proceedings after receiving due notice of their commencement. A written communication made by a party refusing to participate in the proceedings constitutes a waiver of their own right to present their case.
Case Title: A Vignesh v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
The Madras High Court has directed three police officers who entered an "unholy alliance" to secure conviction of a man under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act using false evidence, to pay Rs. 10 Lakh as compensation.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the man was in custody since the date of his arrest, without bail.
The court reiterated that a fair investigation and trial are the fundamental rights of an accused and the officers should always present true facts of the case. The court thus directed the Director General of Police to conduct an independent enquiry against the officers.
Customs Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Issue Directions Under GST Law: Madras High Court
Case Title: National Association of Container Freight Stations v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
The Madras High Court recently held that Customs authorities have no jurisdiction to issue directions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law. The Court struck down a February 2021 public notice issued by the Chennai Customs that sought to regulate the GST treatment on auctioned cargo.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruled that such powers lie exclusively with authorities designated under the GST Act.
The Court further clarified that Customs authorities may issue Public Notices only to explain or implement provisions and procedural changes under the Customs Act, and that such powers do not extend to matters governed by other statutes, including the GST laws.
Case Name: M. Maher Dadha v. Mr. S. Mohanchand Dadha and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
The Madras High Court, while setting aside an arbitral award, has observed that despite the arbitral Tribunal comprising elder family members, who are lay persons and not well-trained legal minds, the principles of natural justice have to be followed. If an award is passed without giving an opportunity to either of the sides to present their case, the same would violate Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, while hearing a challenge under Section 34 of the A&C Act, observed that the arbitral Tribunal did not give an opportunity to Mr Maher Dadha (“the Petitioner”) at a very crucial stage of the arbitral proceedings. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not reply to the Petitioner's letter dated 01.10.2005, wherein an accommodation to reschedule the hearing from 05.10.2005 was sought.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
Justice SM Subramaniam of the Madras High Court recently refused to recuse from a case initiated by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Madras Race Club.
The Club had sought Justice Subramaniam's recusal citing his "adverse findings" in another case involving the Club.
The judge said that if such requests were allowed, it would pave the way for forum shopping or bench hunting and would be initiating a wrong practice.
Sitting in a division bench with Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, the judge observed that it was common for the judges to express opinions during the hearing, but it would not always mean that the case had been prejudiced. The court further said that if every remark of a judge were to be construed as one indicating prejudice, most judges would fail to pass the exacting test.
Case Title: Kamaraj v. State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Madras High Court has quashed a case against a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, for allegedly committing sexual assault on a minor girl.
Justice N Sathish Kumar relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court, where the court had laid down guidelines that must be taken into consideration by the courts while quashing non-compoundable offences. As per the principles, if the crime is purely against society with overriding public interest, it cannot be quashed even if the parties have entered into a settlement.
In the present case, the court noted that the offence was purely personal and involved the future of two young persons in their early twenties. The court added that no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings and it would only cause mental agony to the accused, victim and their parents.
Case Title: Gita Power and Infrastructure Private Limited v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
The Madras High Court recently held that a presenter of a document for registration cannot seek its return without paying the deficit stamp duty decided by the registering authority or the collector.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq noted that, as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the registration Rules, when a document or instrument is presented for registration, it would be scrutinised for the correctness of the stamp duty paid. If it is found that the stamp duty paid is insufficient, the Registering Authority is duty-bound to impound the document and send it to the Collector for the determination of stamp duty.
The court noted that after the stamp duty is determined by the Collector, it is sent back to the registering authority, who then issues a notice to the presenter, who then decides whether to continue with the registration process or seek the return of the document. The court thus pointed out that execution of the document would be sufficient for recovering the deficient stamp duty.
Case Title: A Kannan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court recently held that in case of adoption of an unmarried woman's child, an adoption deed executed by the grandparents would be valid, when it is shown that the mother had concurred to such adoption.
Justice Dhandapani highlighted that the concept of adoption is to facilitate the permanent care and protection of the child. The court added that so long as the interests of the child are met, the authorities should not focus on the intricacies of the process, hampering the welfare of the child.
Case Title: All India Defence Employees Federation (AIDEF) v. Government of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed against the decision of the Union Government's decision to convert production units of Ordnance Factory Board into seven Defence Public Sector Units.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar rejected the argument put forward by the employees' association that the decision was made even before the conciliation failure report was received by the Governemnt. The court held that when such policy decisions were taken by the government for the security of the country, it should not be stalled on hyper-technical objections.
Case Title: M/s Nilakantan & Brothers Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Chennai & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
The Madras High Court set aside an arbitral award passed against M/s Nilakantan & Brothers Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (“the petitioner”) on the ground that since the arbitral tribunal was constituted without obtaining the consent of a Joint Venture Partner, it lacked jurisdiction. The court further held that the appointment cannot be validated merely on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to a party.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “the Tribunal did not go into this issue and the Tribunal straight-away went into the issue of prejudice. The issue of prejudice will not really matter when it touches upon the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to conduct the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Whether the petitioner will be prejudiced or not becomes irrelevant, when the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was not done with the consent of the petitioner.”
Case Title: M. Gajendran & Anr. v. R. Munirathinam & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
The Madras High Court held that filing of a petition with deficit court fee does not amount to proper presentation. If the entire court fee is not deposited within the limitation period under section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), the court is divested of its power to condone the delay.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that "filing of a petition with deficit Court fee cannot be construed as proper presentation of the petition. If such presentation of the petition has to be regularized, the deficit Court fee must be paid within the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of A and C Act. If the same is not done, the Court is divested of its power to condone the delay in the light of mandate prescribed under Section 34(3) of A and C Act.”
Case Title: Ganesan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
The Madras High Court has held that the definition of Ganja does not include the stem and stalk, but only includes the flowering or fruiting top.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan emphasised that when a contraband is accompanied by stems and seeds, the weight of the flowering or fruiting top alone is to be considered for ascertaining the commercial quantity.
It may be noted that as per Section 2(iii)(b) of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act Ganja has been defined as “ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated”.
The court noted that when the Act itself has excluded seeds and leaves, there is a burden on the prosecution to prove that the contraband seized comes under the definition of Ganja, considering the rigidity of the procedure.
Case Title: Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to permit a student with chronic schizophrenia to write Semester Exams
Justice Anand Venkatesh was hearing a plea by the student seeking exemption from paying the tuition fee as a person with disability. While allowing the student to write the exam as an interim measure, the court made it clear that it would not enure any right to the student for seeking the relief claimed for. The court asked the University to keep the answer papers in a sealed cover until further orders are passed in the plea.
Case Title: M/s GAIL (India) Limited v M/s Coromandal Electric Company Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
In an important ruling for the natural gas sector, the Madras High Court Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar denied appeals by GAIL (India) Limited against five natural gas supplier companies in arbitrations aggregating to Rs. 246 crores, observing that natural gas transactions are commercial and GAIL could not invoke the public trust doctrine to escape limitation.
The Court held that pricing policy and clarificatory letters did not provide any consumer subclassification and rejected the allegation of misrepresentation. The plea of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable as the Buyers generated energy and sold at fixed prices. It observed that public trust doctrine would not apply to this transparent commercial transaction and that concluded contracts could not be reopened by importing new terms. Entertaining GAIL's stance would create perpetual uncertainty against public policy.
Case Title: P. Pushpam v/s The Director, Unique Identification Authority of India and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
The Madras High Court has held that Aadhaar card holder has the fundamental right to seek alteration of their details in the Aadhar card.
Justice GR Swaminathan in his order observed that the Central Government had introduced the Aadhaar regime and the statute confers right on the Aadhaar number holder to seek alteration.
Referring to the Aadhaar Act the court said that the law was originally intended to ensure that the targeted constituency of the welfare schemes receive the benefit.
Case Title: G Sampath Kumar v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by retired IPS officer G Sampath Kumar against a single judge order refusing to reject a defamation suit filed by cricketer MS Dhoni against the IPS officer and others.
Dhoni had filed the defamation suit for content made by the respondents in connection with the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman, on Friday, dismissed an appeal filed by the former IPS officer.
Case Title: K Rajamani v. The Joint Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
The Madras High Court recently held that the right to conduct Annadhanam (offering food to people during temple festival) would form part of a person's fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution. The court added that the local administration is duty-bound to uphold this fundamental right and deal with the law and order problem that may arise.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that if a public land, belonging to the State, was available for use by the general public, a particular section should not be prevented from using the same on the sole ground of religion and the same would be violative of the Constitution.
Case Title: Srinivasan v. The Director and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
The Madras High Court has held that recently held that a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not one affecting the future conduct of a person and such a conviction could not be taken as a ground for denying pension.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu held that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises out of a contractual dispute between the parties. The court noted that as per the Pension Rules, a person who failed to have good future conduct would be disentitled from receiving a pension. The court observed that the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act would affect the person's good conduct.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. R Ramanathan Chettiar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
Condoning 32-year delay by Tamil Nadu government in filing an appeal in a land dispute case, the Madras High Court said that public interest is paramount and if it shown that the public interest has suffered due to fraud, the court could use its discretionary power to condone delay.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the court must always march towards safeguarding public interest and avoid miscarriage of justice. The court noted that when the delay was properly explained, and there was bona fide in the explanation for the delay, it could be condoned.
Case Title: D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
The Madras High Court has held that under the new regime, approval from a higher authority, such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General, is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after the expiry of a three-year limitation period.
Justice C. Saravanan stated that …….three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, to issue Section 148 Notice under the new regime had already expired on 31.03.2020, 31.03.2021 and 31.03.2022. However, Section 148 Notices were issued for these Assessment Years only on 29.07.2022 with approval from the Principal Commissioner instead of approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner in terms of amended provisions as in force for the period in dispute were in time…….
Madras High Court Lets Udaipur Salon Keep 'Bounce,' Lifts Earlier Ban
Case Title: Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
The Madras High Court has recently lifted an interim injunction that had previously restrained an Udaipur-based salon from using the name “Bounce,” noting that the term is common in the beauty and haircare industry.
In a ruling delivered on October 25, A Single Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, vacated the injunction that had been granted in favor of Spalon India Pvt. Ltd., the operator of the well-known “Bounce” salon chain in South India.
The Court also referred to Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, explaining that registration of a composite mark grants exclusive rights over the mark as a whole and not over individual generic words within it.
Case Title: M/s. Cethar Hospital v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, cancelling the license of Cethar Hospital in Tiruchirappalli for its alleged involvement in a kidney racket, without following due procedure.
When the Additional Advocate General submitted that the public would not be welcoming of such a development and might view it negatively, Justice GR Swaminathan said that judges should remain insulated to such probabilities. The judge remarked that a judge is on oath to uphold the law and must do that without being bothered about the consequences.
Case Title: I v. DM
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
The Madras High Court recently set aside the acquittal of an octogenarian man for an offence under Section 498A (cruelty towards wife) of the IPC.
While doing so, Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that men must understand that marriage does not give them unquestioned authority over the wife and that the comfort, safety and dignity of their wives is not a secondary duty but an obligation of the marital bond.
The court also observed that the Indian marriage system must evolve from the shadow of male chauvinism into the light of equality and mutual respect. The court added that the endurance of women, especially the elderly, should not be seen as consent or silent acceptance.
Case Title: G Sampathkumar IPS v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed by retired IPS Officer G Sampath Kumar, challenging an order of the court appointing an advocate commissioner for recording the evidence of cricketer MS Dhoni in connection with a defamation suit filed by him against the former.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq remarked that Dhoni is a national-level cricketer and his presence in the court during trial might create security issues and may cause inconvenience to the court proceedings. The court also wondered how appointing an advocate commissioner for ensuring expeditious trial, would prejudice Kumar.
TNGST Act | Purchase Tax Cannot Be Levied on Buyer for Seller's Tax Default: Madras High Court
Case Title: Light Roofings Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
The Madras High Court on Monday held that purchase tax cannot be levied under Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act) on the purchaser merely because the seller failed to pay tax.
The bench, comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq, clarified the scope of Section 7A in transactions where the vendor has defaulted on tax payments
The bench after analysing Section 7A of the TNGST Act noted that for levy of purchase tax to get attracted, purchase must be made “in circumstance which no tax is payable”. The expression no tax is payable would not take with in its fold a transaction of sale on which tax is payable but not paid by the vendor.
Case Title: M/s. Stellar Developer v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
The Madras High Court recently ordered exhumation of bodies buried in a land belonging to the Church of South India Trust Association after noting that the authorities had failed to follow the statutory provisions while granting license for burial ground.
Justice N Mala began the judgment with a quote by Khushwant Singh that said “When the struggle for space over shadows even the breath of life, death too presses its silent claim upon the earth”.
The court noted that the authorities had acted with undue haste and had granted the license without proper application of mind, resulting in arbitrary exercise of power.
Case Title: Manikandan Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on bar associations engaging in collective boycotts and preventing a party from being represented in the court.
Justice B Pugalendhi emphasised that the Bar Associations or any collective of lawyers did not have any moral or legal authority to dictate who may or may not be defended in a court of law. The court stressed that the right to be represented before a court of law was not a privilege but a constitutional guarantee and any action preventing the same would strike at the very root of rule of law.
The court observed that it cannot turn a blind eye when the right to a fair trial is being compromised under the pretext of professional unity. The court reiterated that the bar was not a trade union and any attempt to convert it into a pressure group would be contempt of the rule of law.
Case Title: Sivestar Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
The Madras High Court held that delay in filing Form 10B required under Section 44AB for the purpose of Section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not a ground to deny legitimate exemption tax exemptions.
Justice C. Saravanan observed that the assessee was registered as a “Trust” in the year 2017. Effectively, the assessee would have carried on operation as a “Trust” from 01.04.2017 onwards, which would fall under the Assessment Year 2018-2019.
Case Title: Abdul Kadar and Others v. Commissioner of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
The Madras High Court has criticised the practice of police officers conducting a “current paper enquiry” without any statutory backing.
Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that such informal proceedings have no statutory recognition and the individuals could not be compelled to appear before the police unless a cognisable offence had been disclosed and recorded in accordance with Section 173 of BNSS.
The court reiterated that police could not conduct inquiries into disputes that were civil in nature unless some criminality was shown. The court added that allowing such practices would convert the police station into an informal forum for resolving private civil grievances.
Case Title: D. Mohammed Nadeem v. The National Testing Agency and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
The Madras High Court has directed the jurisdiction police to investigate into a case of alleged fabrication and forgery of the NEET-UG mark list for obtaining admission into the BSMS/BAMS/BUMS/BHMS courses.
Justice Anand Venkatesh held that the issue "cannot be lightly dealt with" and an investigation has to be necessarily conducted. Apart from disqualifying and debarring the candidate, the court also opined that a police investigation was necessary and stringent action had to be taken to prevent its recurrence in the future.
Case Title: Thillai Lokanathan v. The Deputy Secretary and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a divorced daughter, who was in an impoverished circumstance, would also be a dependent to claim the Freedom Fighters Pension.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan adopted the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Khajani Devi, where the Supreme Court had held that the special family pension and the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme were intended to honour the valour of uniformed people who laid down their lives or suffered for the cause of the country. The Supreme Court had held that any demeaning interpretation of the scheme to deprive the unsung heroes of the country of benefits meant to ensure a life of dignity to their dependents.
'Faith Can't Be Fenced By Caste': Madras High Court Allows Temple Car Route Through Dalit Colony
Case Title: Selvaraj v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
The Madras High Court recently paved the way for a temple car to pass through a Dalit colony.
Justice PB Balaji remarked that God never discriminates and no street was unworthy of the chariot or the god it carried.
The court added that through Article 17 of the Constitution, untouchability was abolished not just in physical form but in letter and spirit also. The court added that no one could dictate who could or could not stand before the deity and worship and there was no bar for any person to enter any temple and worship.
Madras High Court Strikes Down 'Original Choice' Trademark, Rules in Favor of 'Officer's Choice'
Case Title: Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court on Friday ruled in favour of Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. (ABD), the maker of Officer's Choice whisky, and ordered the removal of John Distillers Ltd.'s (JDL) 'Original Choice' trademark from the register of trademarks.
A Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar in an order held that Original Choice was deceptively similar to Officer's Choice and that its registration violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court also confirmed that ABD's registration for Officer's Choice remains valid.
The court found that the now-defunct Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had erred in its 2013 order by comparing only the word elements of the rival marks instead of assessing the labels as a whole. Considering the long pendency of the case and the abolition of the IPAB, the Court decided to examine the marks itself instead of sending the matter back.
Case Title: M/s. Lucky Footwear Components v. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
The Madras High Court held that an auction under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) Act, 1957, is valid when the property is valued by a valuer and registered under Section 34AB of the Wealth-Tax Act.
Section 34AB of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957, provides the process for individuals to become officially recognised valuers under the Act.
Chief Justice Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan opined that out of the two valuation reports placed before the Tribunal, if the Tribunal has accepted the valuation made by approved valuer, registered under the provision of Wealth-Tax Act, it cannot be said to be patently illegal or perverse so as to interfere in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
The Madras High Court has held that depreciation on payment to State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) for infrastructure development is not allowed, but the assessee is eligible for 5% annual revenue deduction.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan were addressing the appeal pertaining to the claim of depreciation on the sum paid to the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) for the development of infrastructural facilities.
Case Title: M Divya vs The Senior Revenue Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that hostels providing accommodation to working men and women are residential properties and, therefore, property tax, water tax, and electricity charges cannot be levied at commercial rates.
The ruling came in response to petitions filed by hostel owners in Chennai and Coimbatore challenging Chennai municipal authorities and the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) for reclassifying their hostels from residential to commercial premises and demanding significantly higher taxes.
A single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, in an order passed on November 7, observed that tax should be levied not from the perspective of the service provider but the service recipient.
Case Title: R Gurusamy v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court has referred to a larger bench the question whether the community certificate of an employee can be verified after retirement from service.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan thought it fit to refer the issue to a larger bench after noting the conflicting views taken by the co ordinate benches of the court.
Thus, the court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to place the matter before the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, for constituting a larger bench to address the following issues:
a) Whether verification into the genuineness of community certificate or caste status of an employee is permissible after retirement from service?
b) Whether verification into the genuineness of community certificate or caste status of an employee is permissible in cases where the employee was issued community certificate or granted employment prior to 1995?
c) Whether verification into the genuineness of community certificate or caste status, which was initiated prior to retirement, could be continued after retirement of the employee?
Madras High Court Stays Release Of “Kumki 2” Movie Amidst Money Dispute
Case Title: S.Chandraprakash Jain v. M/s. GOD Pictures and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
The Madras High Court has temporarily stayed the release of the Tamil movie “Kumki 2” amidst money disputes between a financier and the producers of the movie.
Justice Anand Venkatesh passed the interim orders on a petition filed by S.Chandraprakash Jain under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the distribution and release of the movie. The court ordered a stay till December 3, after noting that there was a prima facie case in favour of the financier.
Case Title: S v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of a man for sexually harassing his two minor daughters.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman commented that it was a peculiar case and it was painful to see that the father, who was expected to be the protector, had in turn become the cause of suffering for the kids.
Noting that the father was a drunkard and the heinous acts were done in an inebriated state, the court added that the case was an example of how alcohol addiction destroys the harmony of a family and erodes moral values. The court added that the evils of alcohol not only affect the individual's health but also destroy the peace and sanctity of a family.
Case Title: Saravanan C v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
The Madras High Court recently quashed a case against a man for alleged rape on false promise to marry. While doing so, the court noted that the growing trend of invoking criminal process in private relationships must be checked.
Justice B Pugalendhi noted that recently, there was an increase in complaints of rape under false promise to marry, where the relationship was voluntarily entered into and was subsequently projected as deception or breach of promise. The court added that such personal matters do not warrant criminal prosecution.
S.138 NI Act Not Attracted On Dishonour Of Cheque Issued To Return Bribe Amount: Madras High Court
Case Title: P Kulanthaisamy v. K Murugan and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 416
The Madras High Court recently observed that dishonour of a cheque issued for returning a bribe amount could not be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as it was not towards repayment of a legally enforceable debt.
Justice K Murali Shankar observed that the agreement to secure a job in exchange of money is an agreement that is void ab initio and would fall under the Illustration to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The court thus noted that when a cheque is issued for discharging a debt which was not legally enforceable, the offence under Section 138 would not be attracted.
Case Title: Marico Limited v. Prahalad Rai Kedia
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed by Marico Limited, the manufacturer of Parachute Coconut Oil, seeking cancellation of the copyright registration granted to Kedia Industries for the label of Everest Coconut Oil.
A single bench of Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on November 11, holding that the two labels were clearly distinguishable and that Marico had failed to prove infringement.
Case Title: Shilpa Suresh v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
The Madras High Court has come to the rescue of a candidate who was not permitted to join the allotted Medical College after failing to pay the fee on time.
Justice Anand Venkatesh invoked the court's extraordinary jurisdiction and took into account the circumstances that prevented the candidate from paying the fee on time. The court noted that the candidate had obtained a good score in the NEET UG exam, and her parents had struggled to arrange the fee amount. However, unfortunately, the last date to pay the fee was on a Second Saturday, and the fee could not be paid within the time.
The court took into account the attendant circumstances and was inclined to permit the candidate to join the course. The court added that instead of the seat going to less meritorious student, it would be appropriate if it was given to the candidate ensuring that there was no compromise on merit.
Case Title: Minor v. P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 419
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a revision petition filed by a father-in-law seeking maintenance for his minor grandson from his former daughter-in-law.
Justice Victoria Gowri said that the father-in-law had made a misconceived attempt to disturb the life of his former daughter-in-law, who was now remarried and living a peaceful life. The court added that parents, who have lawfully chosen new paths, must be permitted to live in peace.
The court also took note of the vulnerabilities being faced by women in the country, who, even after remarriage, were dragged into marital disputes. The court underlined that it was vigilant to uphold the dignity, autonomy, and peace of womanhood, which was essential to protect the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v Shilpa Suresh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
The Madras High Court, on Friday, set aside a single judge order, allowing a meritorious candidate to join a medical college, after she failed to pay the fee within the prescribed time due to financial difficulties.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, while setting aside the order of the single judge, noted that the time scheme specified in the prospectus had to be followed by the candidates. The bench also noted that there may be many students who, like the candidate, could not join the allotted college in time.
Though the court set aside the order of the single judge, it talked to the candidate after pronouncing the order, advising her to take up another course and flourish in life, and not be disheartened that she could not pursue the MBBS course.
Case Title: Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
The Madras High Court has recently allowed an appeal by Ab Initio Technology LLC, a US-based company, against the Patent Office's refusal and directed that the patent application be allowed, holding that the claimed invention involved an 'inventive step' to satisfy Section 2(1)(j) requirement and is not excluded as a 'computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.
A single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the verdict on November 4, 2025, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Patent Office in July 2020.
On the objection of non-patentability, the Court observed that under Indian patent law, a computer-related invention is not automatically rejected under Section 3(k). If the invention offers a real technical improvement or produces a technical effect, it can still be patented even if it uses algorithms or computer programs. In this case, the Court found that the invention improved how quickly data queries are answered which gave the invention a clear technical character. Thus, the Court ruled that the invention was not barred by Section 3(k).
Case Title: Sahirsha @ MS Sha v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 422
The Madras High Court recently remarked that there has been an increase in misuse of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to settle personal scores, which ultimately undermines the true object of the Act.
Justice B. Pugalendhi thus directed the trial courts to make sure that cases are registered under Section 22 of the POCSO Act against adults giving false complaints under the Act.
Case Title: S Prasanna and another v. Jothika
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 423
The Madras High Court recently observed that while dealing with petitions filed under the Surrogacy (Regulations) Act seeking an order to have parentage and custody, the courts are expected to be sensitive, responsible, and compassionate without frustrating the beneficial objective of the legislation.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira observed that the Act is a beneficial legislation and its primary objective is to regulate surrogacy in India. The court added that an application filed under the Act should not be dealt with in a routine manner and the courts must keep in mind that these matters are touching upon the deepest aspirations of human life, to have a child.
Case Title: Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited. Versus ICMC Corporation Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 424
The Madras High Court held that multiple remand orders issued by courts under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) without disturbing or reversing the findings on merits recorded by earlier Single Judges were incapable of implementation. The court found the situation unprecedented and unusual holding that the statutory scheme of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does not permit a wholesale de novo remand unless the appellate court first reverses the findings on merits which the court observed did not happen in any of the connected cases.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “where the appellate court does not enter into the merits of the matter and orders re-trial the order of remand would be, apart from being wholly illegal, completely unworkable since the findings on merits would remain and is not vacated so as to allow the trial court to examine the issue afresh by way of a re-trial.”
Case Title: AK
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
The Madras High Court recently observed that when the parties have solemnised marriage in a Hindu temple as per the Hindu rites, the mutual divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act would be maintainable even though one of the parties had not converted to the Hindu religion.
Justice PB Balaji held that when the parties have, by their conduct, shown that they had converted to the Hindu religion and had also specifically stated in the mutual divorce petition that they are Hindu, it would be sufficient to establish conversion.
The court noted that the marriage between the parties was solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs. The court noted that the parties had invoked the provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act conscious of the fact that they are professing Hindu religion. The court observed that there was no necessity for the court to conduct any roving enquiry merely because the wife's name continued to be her original Muslim name.
Case Title: RK Sarathkumaran v. The Chairman and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 426
The Madras High Court recently ruled against colleges charging additional tuition fees in the name of a break fee/miscellaneous fee. The court also directed the Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (CARE) University to refund the deposit made by the students with interest of 6% per annum.
While doing so, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan remarked that education must not be merely viewed as a commercial venture but must remain a noble service to society. The court added that when educational institutions focus on profit-making, it undermines the very essence of the institutions and becomes counterproductive to the larger purpose they seek to serve.
Supplementary Complaint Under PMLA Doesn't Require Fresh Cognizance: Madras High Court
Case Title: Rahul Surana v. The Assistant Director
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 427
The Madras High Court recently observed that a supplementary complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not a fresh or independent complaint requiring the court to take cognisance.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that a supplementary complaint is a part and parcel of the main complaint for which cognisance has already been taken. The court added that taking multiple cognisance for the same offence would render the judicial process redundant and would result in a delay in the justice delivery process.
Case Title: Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
The Madras High Court has held that using the word 'Determined' in the show cause notice (SCN) betrays an element of pre-determination on the part of the authority. The bench highlighted that the show cause notice must clearly specify whether the assessee is being charged with fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to invoke section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The bench stated that the authority has used the word “determined”. There is an ocean of difference between specifying something and determining something. The word “determined” found in the show cause notice cannot be construed as “specified”.
Case Title: RS Infotainment v. Mini Studio LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the makers of the new Tamil movie “Aromaley” from using the scenes and background music from the 2010 Tamil movie “Vinnaithandi Varuvaya”.
Justice N Senthilkumar passed the interim orders on a plea moved by RS Infotainment, producers of Vinnaithandi Varuvaya.
The production company had submitted that it had produced the 2010 movie in collaboration with Escape Artists Motion Pictures, under a Joint Venture Agreement dated February 16th, 2009 and as the producer, the company held all rights, including reproduction, adaptation, and public communication, under Sections 14 and 17 of the Copyright Act. The company also argued that it had moral rights under Section 57, to protect the integrity of the work from any distortion, mutilation, or modification that could harm the company's reputation or honour.
Case Title: Zubaitha Begum v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 430
The Madras High Court recently held that the high courts could not exercise their power under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant interim bail to a convict while their request for premature release was pending consideration before the appropriate government.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman held that once the sentencing part is over, the convict is not in the custody of the court and cannot be granted interim bail using the court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench added that the convicts would be entitled to suspension of sentence as provided under Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Vijarani
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 431
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Superintendent of Police could not be held responsible for the negligence shown by investigating officers in not filing final reports or closure reports before the court on time.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman held that though the Superintendent of Police had the responsibility to monitor the investigation, he could not be made responsible for the negligence. The court thus set aside an order of the single judge calling for disciplinary action against 5 SPs for not verifying the filing of the final report in a case since 2015.
Madras High Court Protects Personality Rights Of Musician Ilaiyaraaja
Case Title: Dr Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe Ashok Kumar, and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
The Madras High Court, on friday, passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja against unauthorised usage of his name, images, and other works by third parties.
Justice N Senthilkumar found a prima facie case in favour of the musician and granted interim relief in a suit moved by Ilaiyaraaja seeking to protect his personality rights. The court has also directed the respondents to file their counter.
Senior Advocate S. Prabakaran, appearing for Ilaiyaraaja, submitted that the suit was being filed against misappropriating and fabricating his identity in any form on the public platform. He submitted that various media and YouTube channels were using Ilaiyaraaja's images and name for commercial purposes to gain traction and generate revenue for exploitation.
Case Title: Aadhav Arjuna v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
The Madras High Court has quashed the FIR registered against Aadhav Arjuna, General Secretary of Election Campaign Movement of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party for his social media posts allegedly inciting violence.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira observed that Arjuna's tweet did not target any groups, and though it spoke about violence, it did not call for violence or hatred. The court observed that the tweets, though politically provocative and critical of police excess, did not cross any Lakshman Rekha, to fall under hate speech.
The court added that the tweet's essence was a political expression, which was a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Arjuna has been accused of inciting violence through his social media post and for allegedly calling for a revolution similar to that initiated by Gen Z in Nepal and Srilanka, in the State. Following this, an FIR was registered against Arjuna for offences under Sections 192 [wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot], 196(1)(b) [promoting enmity between different groups], 197(1)(d) ]imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integrity], 353(1)(b), and 353 (2) [statements conducing to public mischief] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita BNS 2023.
Case Title: Sreedevi Video Corporation v. SaReGaMa India Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
The Madras High Court has revived a copyright dispute over the audio rights to iconic Telegu and Tamil films including Sagara Sangamam, Salangai Oli, Shankarabharanam and Sitara, holding that Sreedevi Video Corporation's claim seeking a permanent injunction against Saregama India Ltd must be examined on merits even though its request for a declaration of ownership is time-barred.
On November 19, 2025, a Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar partly set aside a 2022 decision of a Single Judge who had dismissed the entire suit as barred by limitation.
The bench held that the court below had erred in treating the injunction prayer as merely consequential to the declaration relief.
Case Title: M/s. Parry Enterprises India Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
The Madras High Court has held that once CESTAT has classified wheat gluten as eligible for DFIA (Duty-Free Import Authorisation) exemption, Customs authorities are bound by those findings and cannot independently deny the exemption benefits.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh stated that the impugned orders have been passed only on the ground that Wheat Gluten is not covered under the DFIA Licence and, therefore, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption. If the CESTAT has already taken a view that Wheat flour and Wheat Gluten fall under the same classification, the entire proceedings of the respondent cannot be sustained, since all the other findings hinge upon only this issue.
Madras High Court Stays Trial Against IPS Officer Balveer Singh In Custodial Violence Cases
Case Title: Balveer Singh v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 436
The Madras High Court has stayed the trial in four custodial torture cases against IPS Officer Balveer Singh.
Justice Shamim Ahmed granted interim stay in a plea filed by the officer seeking to set aside the Judicial Magistrate order framing charges against him in four custodial torture cases, while he was holding the post of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ambasamudram.
Madras High Court Stays Single Judge Order Asking Actor Vishal To Pay ₹30 Crore To Lyca Productions
Case Title: Vishal Krishna Reddy v. Lyca Productions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 437
The Madras High Court, on Monday, stayed a single judge order directing actor Vishal to pay Rs. 30 crore due to the entertainment company Lyca Productions.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq granted the interim relief in an appeal moved by the actor challenging the June 2025 order of the single judge.
The judges however asked the actor to deposit 10 crore towards the credit of the case and directed the registry to deposit the money into an interest-bearing account.
Case Title: Suriya and Another v. Gandhi and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
The Madras High Court recently noted that the police could not refuse to register FIR based on complaint made by members belonging to Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe communities alleging dispossession of land, by terming it as civil disputes.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that as per Section 18A of the Schedules castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the officers could not conduct a preliminary enquiry when an information disclosed offence under the Act. The court noted that the nature of the allegation did not dilute the duty of the police to register an FIR once the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence.
Madras High Court Orders New PAN For Assessee After Dept-Issued Duplicate PAN Ruins CIBIL Score
Case Title: S. Senthil v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 439
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a fresh PAN (Permanent Account Number) to the assessee, who suffered adverse consequences because the defaulter holding the same PAN had a bad CIBIL. The bench held that the assessee cannot be made to bear serious CIBIL consequences arising from the Income Tax Department's duplicate PAN allotment.
Justice C. Saravanan stated that the PAN that was allotted to the assessee on 18.05.2007 was also erroneously allotted to the said person, namely Subramaniyan Senthil S/o. Subramaniyan. Although the said person has been given a new identity, the mistakes committed by the said person have affected the assessee, as the identity of the assessee and his financial transactions are traceable to the PAN that was originally allotted to the assessee on 18.05.2007, which is in the cloud.
Case Title: People for Cattle in India v. The Commissioner, GCC and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
The Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC), on Tuesday (25th November), informed the Madras High Court that muzzling of pet dogs has not been made mandatory in the city and that no penalty would be imposed on the pet owners for not muzzling the dogs in public places.
Making submissions before Justice V Lakshminarayanan, Advocate Arun Babu submitted that the GCC had only issued an advisory asking pet owners to muzzle their dogs and that the same had not been made mandatory. The counsel, however, informed that pet dog owners need to leash their dogs in public places, and a fine of Rs 500 would be imposed if the same is not complied with.
Case Title: Muthu Subramaniam v. The State Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 441
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea for renaming the Tamil Valarchi Thurai (Tamil Development Department) to Tamil Membattu Thurai.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the naming and renaming of a public department was within the domain of the government, and the court could not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to do the same.
The petitioner, Muthu Subramaniam had approached the court after his request for the same was rejected by the Director of Tamil Nadu development. Subramaniam had argued that the word “development” could not be equated with the word “Valarchi”. He submitted that the word “valarchi” meant growth, increase, enrichment, etc whereas development had a different connotation meaning like upliftment, betterment etc. The petitioner thus sought to change the name of the department.
Madras High Court Allows Udaipur Salon To Use 'Bounce', Rejects South Indian Chain's Appeal
Case Title: Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
The Madras High Court has dismissed appeals filed by Spalon India Private Limited, operator of the “BOUNCE” salon chain in South India, against an order vacating the interim injunction earlier granted in its favour over the use of the word “Bounce” by an Udaipur-based salon, “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio.”
A Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, on November 21, 2025, upheld the Single Judge's finding that the rival marks and logos were sufficiently distinct and that the injunction could not be continued.
On examining the competing marks, the Single Judge noted significant visual differences, Spalon India uses only the word “BOUNCE,” whereas the Udaipur salon uses the expression “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio” along with a logo featuring a scissor graphic, eight stars in a semi-circle, and a circular seal carrying the full business name. The court also recorded that Spalon India operates in Chennai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad, while the Udaipur salon functions solely within Udaipur, Rajasthan.
Case Title: Vallikannu v The District Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a crime remains undetected due to the inaction of the investigating agency, it violates the victim's right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court added that the State, as the guardian of fundamental rights, must step in and provide monetary relief to the victims in such cases.
Justice B. Pugalendhi held that such compensation to the victims is to recognise the failure of the system as a whole and to impose corrective responsibility upon the State. The court added that such compensation is a reminder that justice delayed/denied at the stage of investigation is a grave violation.
Case Title: Gokuleswaran v. The Regional Passport Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 444
The Madras High Court recently observed that an adverse police report could not override the statutory right conferred under the Citizenship Act, when a person's citizenship by birth is proved by way of genuine documents.
Justice PT Asha thus came to the rescue of a man, born to Sri Lankan parents, whose passport application was rejected by the authorities. The court noted that the man was born in 1986, prior to the cutoff date provided under the Act. Thus, the court held that the man was a citizen of the country by birth.
Case Title: Softgel Healthcare Private Limited v. Pfizer Inc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
The Madras High Court has overturned a Single Judge's order that had permitted pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a United States court to obtain documents and testimony from Chennai-based Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Letters Rogatory are formal requests sent by a court in one country to a court in another country seeking assistance in gathering evidence for a legal proceeding
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar ruled on November 25 that the U.S. court's request amounted to pre-trial discovery, which is barred in India because the country has invoked its right under the Hague Convention to reject such requests.
Case Title: XX v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
The Madras High Court has commended the State of Tamil Nadu for implementing its earlier order to ensure the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (PoSH Act).
Justice RN Manjula observed that the government has shown tremendous interest in ensuring that the court orders are complied with and that the State emerges as a model for other States to follow.
The court added that each legislation brought in to prevent violence against women is not just a vow but an unspoken vow that the State has taken to see that such incidents are not repeated.
Case Title: S Palanivel Rajan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (connected cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (27th November), quashed the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against 28 advocates and 4 police officers in connection with the violence that broke out in the High Court campus on February 19, 2009.
Justice Nirmal Kumar was inclined to quash the criminal case, noting that a decade and a half had passed, and the parties had now buried the hatchet. The court also noted that continuing the proceedings would be a futile exercise.
The court noted that there was an inordinate delay as the FIR was registered in the year 2009 and the case was taken on file only in 2025, and the trial was also yet to proceed. Thus, noting the Supreme Court's directions on right to speedy trial being an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court was inclined to quash the proceedings.
Case Title: The Sessions Judge v. Sathish
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
The Madras High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man who pushed his former lover in front of a moving train after she refused to marry him.
While the bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman agreed that the commission of murder could not be justified, the court added that the act did not fall under the category of rarest of rare. The court also noted that the accused was not beyond redemption and there was a possibility of reformation.
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Makers Of "Dude" Movie From Using Songs Of Ilaiyaraaja
Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
The Madras High Court, on Friday (28th November), temporarily restrained the makers of the "Dude" movie from using the songs of renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja.
Justice N Senthilkumar granted an interim injunction in a plea moved by the musician seeking to restrain Mythri Movie Makers, producers of the "Dude" movie, from using his songs unauthorisedly. The court had reserved orders on November 26, after hearing the parties.
Ilaiyaraaja had approached the court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the producers of the Dude movie from using his copyrighted works unauthorizedly and a mandatory injunction asking them to remove such infringing content from the movie. Ilaiyaraaja has also sought disclosure of profits and gains received by the production house from the unauthorised exploitation of his copyrighted works.
Case Title: Chellathai v. The Joint Director and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
The Madras High Court recently ordered the Directorate of Pension and other officials to grant family pension to the second wife of a deceased man, even though the marriage was void.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that even though the marriage was void, since it was solemnized during subsistence of the first marriage, the deceased employee had nominated the second wife, and not any other person, to receive the family pension. The court also noted that even during his lifetime, the deceased employee was living with his second wife, which would substantiate the nomination.
Case Title: H.Sunil Kumar vs M Deepak Kumar Samdariya and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
The Madras High Court has recently observed that although arbitral tribunals are not bound by the Evidence Act, they must still follow its foundational principles when assessing evidence to avoid judicial scrutiny.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh stated that “the fundamental principles of the Evidence Act which provides the basis for dealing with the case must be satisfied failing which the Arbitral Award will infract the fundamental policy of Indian law. It can also lead to perverse finding and suffer from patent illegality.”
Case Title: M/S.Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S.E.C.Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
The Madras High Court partially set aside an arbitral award holding that arbitrator cannot pierce a corporate veil or treat a non-signatory as an alter ego to fasten liability, while modifying the award to direct repayment of a loan of Rs. 2.5 crore with interest.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the arbitrator exceeded its jurisdiction by treating a third party as the petitioner's sister concern and concluding breach of contract based on that inference.
Madras High Court Jails Contemnor For Repeated Breach Of HUL's 'WHEEL' Trademark Injunction
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Roopa Industries
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
The Madras High Court has sentenced the proprietor of Roopa Industries to three months civil imprisonment and attached the company's property for repeatedly breaching an injunction protecting HUL's 'WHEEL' and 'ACTIVE WHEEL' trademarks.
In an order passed on November 26, 2025, Justice N Senthilkumar found that Roopa Industries had continued using deceptively similar marks despite a subsisting injunction, and held that its conduct warranted action under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes consequences for disobedience or breach of injunction.
Case Title: Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a Patent Office order that refused Hi Tech Chemicals' challenge to an anti-stick coating patent owned by Allied Metallurgical Products, after finding that the authority failed to properly examine the objections raised.
The court said that “the quality of obviousness analysis leaves much to be desired” and directed a fresh hearing before a different officer.
A single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, delivering the judgment on November 18, said the Patent Office did not explain why it rejected key arguments about whether the invention was new, inventive or offered any technical advantage.
Case Title: Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
The Madras High Court has held that payment for IPLC (International Private Leased Circuits) Services does not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan examined whether the payment made by the assessee for IPLC services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of a payment made to a foreign-based company.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
The Madras High Court has permitted the Tamil Nadu government to carry out its development works for the strengthening of ponds to store excess rainwater and the development of Eco Park in the land that was earlier leased out to the Madras Race Club.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that there was an urgent and compelling need for the State to undertake the projects, which would eventually improve the air quality, reduce pollution sources, and prevent the city from being inundated.
The court thus modified an earlier order of a single judge that had ordered status quo in the case, thereby preventing the state's development.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
The Madras High Court has permitted the lighting of lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills.
Justice GR Swaminathan primarily observed that the deepathoon was not located in the area that belonged to the Muslims and thus lighting the lamp would not affect the rights of the community. At the same time, the court added that not allowing the lighting of lamps would affect the rights of the temple and the devotees.
The court also criticised the conduct of the temple management in not taking steps to protect the rights of the temple or the devotees. The court further observed that the temple management had failed to discharge its duty.
Madras High Court Strikes Down Wrongful Copyright Entry Over 'Sagar Homeo Stores' Logo
Case Title: Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir Mukkaram Ali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
The Madras High Court has ordered the cancellation of a copyright entry that wrongly gave a rival businessman ownership of the artistic logo used by the long-established “Sagar Homeo Stores,” holding that the record had been incorrectly created despite the store's earlier trademark and copyright registrations.
A single bench of Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on November 28, 2025, ruling that the 2009 registration obtained by Mir Mukkaram Ali, a competing homeopathic businessman, was inconsistent with the store's prior statutory rights. The court directed that the entry be expunged from the Register of Copyrights.
Case Title: M/s MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. v. M/s Vishnu Associates & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
In a rejection of a challenge to an arbitral award, the Madras High Court has upheld the Sole Arbitrator's decision directing MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. to pay over 1.23 crores in relation to an agreement over the release of the film “Maatraan”.
Dissmissing a plethora of arguments contended by the Petitioner, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on 28th November 2025 ruled that a guarantee deed, claimed as “comfort letter” by the Petitioner, was not a mere formality but a “binding commitment” to cover financial loss, and in fact was enforceable.
The dispute arose out of a film distribution deal for the Tamil movie “Maatraan” entered into between Vishnu Associates and Eros International Media Ltd., wherein, Vishnu Associates paid ₹2 crore upfront to distribute the Tamil and Telugu versions of the film in Karnataka. When the Tamil version could not be released due to local unrest owing to the Cauvery water dispute, the distributor invoked force majeure.
Case Title: Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
The Madras High Court has refused to vacate its interim order restraining the makers of Ajith starrer "Good Bad Ugly" movie from using three songs of renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja.
Justice N Senthilkumar, on Wednesday, observed that Ilaiyaraaja is entitled to protect his work from distortion. The court thus dismissed the application filed by Mythri Movie Makers, producers of "Good Bad Ugly", seeking to vacate the interim order, noting that it did not have merit.
Case Title: A v. M and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
While setting aside a Non-Bailable Warrant issued against a husband for not paying maintenance arrears, the Madras High Court recently highlighted the importance of following procedure while issuing such orders.
Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that the object of Section 125 CrPC was social justice and the courts should ensure that the maintenance orders are implemented while safeguarding the liberty of individuals from arbitrary arrest. The court highlighted the balance between enforcement and fairness was the hallmark of criminal jurisprudence.
Noting the procedural irregularities involved in the case, the court observed that it underscored the need for trial courts to record the provisions under which the warrants are issued and to follow the statutory sequence before resorting to non bailable warrant.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
In an innovative approach, the Madras High Court has suggested the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority provide assistance to persons who have lost their cellphones or similar articles to get back the same without physically approaching the court.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was taking up a suo motu proceeding registered to implement the pilot project formulated by the Committee of the Supreme Court of India for the disposal of criminal cases.
While disposing of the cases, the court noted that in many cases where mobile phones or similar articles were stolen, their value diminished significantly after the theft and recovery. The court noted that in many cases, after theft, the persons would move on and buy new phones, and did not appear before the Magistrate to apply for the return of the stolen properties. The court noted that to get back the stolen property, the parties usually had to spend more than its value, lose their wage, take leave, travel and spend, and wait for the whole day in court.
Thus, the redress such grievances, the court suggested that the Legal Service Authority could provide its assistance.
Case Title: PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
While granting relief to the Thengalai sect (Southern cult) to conduct the ceremonial worship at the Sri Devaraja Swamy temple in Kancheepuram, the Madras High Court recently observed that the fundamental right to freedom of religion cannot be expanded to affect the rights of the temple's office holders or to disturb the peaceful atmosphere of the temple.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar rejected the argument of the Vadagalai sect (Northern cult), which argued that giving ceremonial rights to the southern cult would infringe their rights under Article 25 and 26.
The bench noted that as per the earlier round of litigations, which started as early as in the 18th century, the southern cult was given the rights of official performance of certain services to the deity.
Case Title: Nannir Water Sources LLP v. Syed Imran and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
The Madras High Court recently granted interim relief to a water purifier company by restraining a YouTuber from making videos containing disparaging and defamatory statements about the company's product.
Justice N Senthilkumar observed that the false statements made by the YouTuber would put an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade guaranteed to the company under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The court added that the defamatory statements made by the YouTuber would not only affect the company's goodwill, but would also affect its business prospects and commercial standing.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
After noting that its earlier order, permitting the lighting of lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills was not complied with by the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, the Madras High Court today permitted devotees to go to the hill and light the deepam themselves.
Justice GR Swaminathan made the direction in a contempt petition moved by one of the petitioners in the earlier litigation. The court also directed the CISF commandant of High Court's Madurai bench to give protection to the devotees, allowing them to carry out the court order. The court also permitted the contempt petitioner to take ten other persons along with him.
Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
Renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja has settles the civil suits he had initiated against Mythri Movie Makers, producers of the movies “Dude” and “Good Bad Ugly”, over the alleged unauthorised usage of his copyrighted works.
Appearing before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, the parties informed the court that they had entered into negotiations and concluded a settlement. The parties also filed a joint memo of compromise, which was digitally signed by Ilaiyaraaja and representative of Mythri Movie Makers.
As per the terms of settlement, the production house has paid Rs. 50,00,000 to the musician, after deducting a TDS of 10%by way of RTGS. The parties have agreed that upon receipt of the money, the production company will be permitted to continue using the songs in “Dude” movie. With respect to the songs in the “Good Bad Ugly” movie, the production company agreed to desist from using the songs.
Noting the settlement, the court decreed the suit as per the terms of the compromise memo.
Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s. Sangeetham House of Veg
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “Sangeetham House of Veg” trademark held by a Thiruchendur-based restaurant, after finding that the registration was obtained in violation of an earlier court-recorded settlement that required the outlet to change its name.
The settlement had been reached in a trademark infringement suit filed by Chennai-based Sangeetha Veg Restaurant, which said the Thiruchendur restaurant's name and “S” logo were deceptively similar to its own “Sangeetha” brand.
Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on November 6, 2025, allowing the rectification petition filed by the Chennai restaurant. The court held that the Thiruchendur outlet had suppressed key facts while securing its trademark registration and that the mark could not remain on the register in light of the binding settlement.
Case Title: The Official Assignee v. S Arjunlal Sunderdas and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the release of the latest Tamil film “Vaa Vathiyar” over alleged unpaid dues by the movie's producer, KE Gnanavel of Studio Greens.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan passed the interim direction in an execution petition filed by the official liquidator of the Madras High Court to deal with the estate of realtor and financier Arjunlal Sunderdas after he was declared insolvent. In 2019, the court had noted that Gnanavel owed Rs. 10,35,00,000 to Sunderdas and 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.
Since this order has not been complied with completely, the official liquidator filed the execution petition seeking to prohibit the release of future movies of Studio Green. The present petition was to prohibit the release of the "Vaa Vaathiyar" movie, which was slated to be released on December 5, and to attach the proceeds of the movie towards the satisfaction of the decretal amount.
The court has now passed an interim order prohibiting the release of the movie till 5th December.
Case Title: KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others v. Rama Ravikumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
The Madras High Court today dismissed a letter patent appeal against the order of a single judge in a contempt petition, permitting devotees of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills, which is located close to a dargah.
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that devotees were permitted to light the lamp since single judge's initial order was not complied with by the temple administration. Such modification in the initial order, the division bench said, was sustainable.
The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by the Madurai's District Collector, city Police Commissioner and Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple against a single judge's order yesterday, permitting devotees to light lamps at the hilltop. State's HR&CE (Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments) Department also entered appearance.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
The Madras High Court has quashed the prohibitory order issued by the Madurai District Collector under Section 144 CrPC(Section 163 BNSS) in the Thiruparakundram region, following the clashes that broke out while implementing a court order passed yesterday, allowing devotees to go to the temple and light lamps at the stone pillar.
Justice GR Swaminathan quashed the order, observing that the same was promulgated only to circumvent the implementation of the court order. The court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city to give police protection to the devotees allowing them to light the lamps at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) situated at the lower hilltop on the Thiruparankundram hills.
Case Title: M/s. Devaraj & Others v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
The Madras High Court has held that the rectification power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is akin to the review power under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and is limited to rectifying any mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal cannot re-adjudicate issues or modify its original order under the guise of rectification.
Section 254(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, grants the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) the authority to amend its orders to rectify any mistake apparent from the record.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan stated that when the power under section 254(2) is akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the scope and ambit of rectification/review could be only within the contours provided under the provision. When the provision only allows for rectification for any errors apparent on the face of the record, the mistake should be discernible on the face of the record without requiring any elaborate enquiry or reasoning. In the garb of rectification, the issue cannot be re-adjudicated, and a fresh order cannot be passed effacing the original order, which is clearly impermissible.
Case Name: MRF Limited vs. Additional Director, DGGI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
The Madras High Court has quashed Show Cause Notices issued to Apollo Tyres Limited and MRF Limited alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the composite supply of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps (TFF) since tax difference was paid voluntarily.
In twin judgments dated November 28,2025, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy examined if Show Cause Notice had fulfilled the ingredients of Section 74 to hold that payment deferred due to confusion prevailing confusion in the industry regarding tax treatment of TFF is not attributable to tax evasion.
The High Court dismissed grounds for invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act together with Respondent's stance that payment subsequent to initiation of investigation was invalid. The High Court observed that there was 'no criminal motive' attributable to the Petitioner.
Case Title: R Thirumurugan v. R Thennarasu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
The Madras High Court recently held that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department can inquire into alleged maladministration in a temple. The court added that when a temple accepts public contributions, it assumes the nature of a public institution, and the State can intervene even if it is not a notified public religious institution.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal observed as under,
“When public contributions/donations have been accepted, temple assumes the character of a public institution. If public contributions are involved, State can intervene in case of maladministration or misappropriation of funds, following the procedure as outlined in the Act and Rules, and take necessary actions. Right to administer the temple would not include maladministration. Therefore, power of State is not confined only in respect of notified public religious institutions, since the definition of temple would include temple used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, and Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is empowered to decide issues relating to characteristic of a religious institution,” the court said.
Case Title: C Kayalvizhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
The Madras High Court recently observed that sexual offences against a minor is a heinous crime against society and even a single incident could be considered for detaining such an accused.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima rejected a detenu's argument that the detaining authority could not invoke the provisions for a solitary incident.
Madras High Court Orders Fresh Review of TVS Motor's Patent Plea For Scooter Frame Design
Case Title: TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
The Madras High Court has overturned a decision by the Patent Office that had denied TVS Motor Company a patent for its "vehicle frame assembly" invention. The court said the Patent Office did not properly examine how the design worked or whether it was truly obvious from earlier technologies.
In its ruling dated November 28, 2025, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said the refusal order did not provide enough reasoning to conclude that TVS Motor's invention lacked originality. Because the analysis was incomplete, the court sent the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh review.
Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Charged Under NDPS Act
Case Title: A Affice Khan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a man booked under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The Supreme Court had recently orally observation that "Anticipatory bail is never granted in NDPS case". The Top Court had made the observation while refusing to interfere with Punjab and Haryana High Court's denial of anticipatory bail to an accused booked under the Act.
In the present case however, Justice K Rajasekar noted that the conditions under Section 37 of the Act were satisfied for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail and ordered accordingly.
Case Title: PVR Inox Ltd and Another v. Airports Authority of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Civil Aviation to take a policy decision on allowing cinema multiplexes within the airport premises.
In doing so, Justice M Dhandapani also gave relief to PVR INOX, which was asked to close down its cinema hall functioning in the Multi-Level Car Parking Complex near the Chennai Airport. The court ordered that till a policy decision was taken by the Union Government, the Airport Authority of India could not ask PVR to shut down its theatre.
The court made the orders on a plea moved by PVR INOX challenging an order of the Airports Authority of India, asking PVR to shut down its operations in the complex near the Chennai Airport.
Case Title: C Somasundaram v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
The Madras High Court has asked the Chief Secretary of the Tamil Nadu state to issue a necessary circular to all State Government Departments to ensure that all representations submitted by Persons with Disabilities should be considered at the earliest.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the authorities should act with a greater degree of sensitivity and empathy while dealing with applications/appeals by persons with disabilities. The court added that when a constitutional and statutory obligation is put on the State to work for the welfare of persons with disabilities, such petitions should not be kept pending for a long time.
Case Title: M/s China Datang Technologies and Engineering Company Limited v M/s NLC Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that appointment of arbitrator by a high court in case of an international commercial arbitration renders the award a nullity. Sections 4 and 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) are non -derogable and it is only the Apex Court which can appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration.
The Court further observed that a conjoint reading of Section 11(6) and Section 11(12)(a), ACA makes it abundantly clear that the power to appoint an arbitrator in an ICA lies exclusively with the Supreme Court. The Court further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration and such power is in the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court. The aforesaid provisions are non-derogable and any order passed by the High Court appointing an arbitrator in ICA suffers from complete lack of jurisdiction and is a nullity in law.
Madras High Court Paves Way For Release Of Film 'Akhanda 2' After Parties Agree To Settle Dispute
Case Title: Eros International Media Limited v. 14 Reels Entertainment Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
The Madras High Court has paved the way for release of Nandamuri Balakrishna starrer Akhanda 2, after its producers agreed to settle pending payments towards Eros International.
Justice Anand Venkatesh vacated an earlier interim order granted by a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan restraining the release of the movie till the petition filed by Eros against the producers of the movie was disposed of. The film is set to release tomorrow (December 12).
The judge decided to vacate the interim stay after recording the joint memo filed by the parties and noting that the producers had transferred an amount of Rs. 5 Crore as part payment.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Housing Board v M/s NCC Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award of ₹51.48 lakhs passed in favour of the contractor, M/s. N.C.C. Ltd., on the ground of an inexplicable and excessive seven-year delay in its decision.
On December 8th, 2025, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh ruled that such a delay, which is "explicit and adversely reflects on the findings," renders the award in conflict with the public policy of India and is vitiated by patent illegality, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
The Madras High Court has refused to grant bail to Saravanan, Sub Inspector of Police, accused of in the honour killing of Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.
While dismissing Saravanan's appeal against the District Court's refusal to grant bail, Justice K Murali Shankar observed that honour killing continued to plague Indian society despite the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and freedom of marriage. Reiterating the Supreme Court's observation that “bail not jail” does not apply to heinous crimes like honour killing, the court added that in such cases, bail should be a carefully guarded exception balancing liberty with societal order.
Case Title: Kalanithimaran and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
The Madras High Court has recently quashed a case registered against members of the Hindu Munnani for participating in an alleged unlawful protest.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the FIR did not disclose any specific act against the members and merely alleged that they had participated in a protest organised by their political organisation. The court observed that criminal law cannot be invoked on vague allegations, especially when it is to criminalise peaceful expression.
Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order Against Accused In Anna University Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
The Madras High Court has quashed the detention order issued against Gnanasekar, accused in the Anna University Sexual Assault Case.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman was inclined to quash the detention order after noting that Gnansekaran was already convicted and sentenced in connection with the sexual assault case. The court thus disposed of a habeas corpus plea by Gnanasekar's mother, Gengadevi.
Gnanasekar was accused of sexually assaulting a 2nd year engineering student at the Anna University campus in Chennai in December 2024. The High Court had constituted a Special Investigation Team to investigate the incident after finding faults in the state police's investigation. On June 2, Gnansekaran was sentenced to life imprisonment of a minimum 30 years and a fine of Rs 90,000.
Case Title: Milan Textile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Initiating Officer and Anr.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 485
The Madras High Court has recently held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, authorities cannot proceed against any property standing in the name of a corporate debtor for offences committed before the insolvency process, even if such property is alleged to be held benami.
A single bench of Justice G R Swaminathan ruled that Section 32A(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, offers wide protection to the property of a corporate debtor after a successful resolution.
The court observed that the word “property” in the provision is unqualified and must therefore be given its widest meaning.
Case Title: Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v The Secretary to Government of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
The Madras High Court has directed the Government of India to formulate a comprehensive policy for providing legal assistance to Indian citizens outside its territory.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the Government had a constitutional duty, and the absence of any legislative framework should not come in the way of such inference.
The court noted that labour migration was a reality in the country, and through this migration of labour across continents, the Government was earning a huge foreign exchange through inward remittances. The court added that when the nation's exchequer was being benefitted, the Government had a correlative and corresponding duty to come to their rescue when there were issues from the overseas employment.
Case Title: Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
The Madras High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is valid if the original order is completely silent on the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to assess or reassess income that has escaped assessment.
Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar stated that the original order of assessment is wholly silent in regard to the claim under Section 80HHC. Normally, when an order of assessment is passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, there is a presumption that the issues raised for consideration in the return of income have been duly taken note of by the Assessing Officer.
Commercial Courts Act Bars Intra-Court Appeals In Patent Disputes: Madras High Court
Case Title: ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
The Madras High Court has held that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge while deciding a statutory patent appeal under the Patents Act. The court reiterated that the Commercial Courts Act does not permit a second appeal within the High Court.
A division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan passed the order on December 12, 2025, while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by Italian pharmaceutical company Italfarmaco SPA challenging an earlier decision of a Single Judge of the Madras High Court.
Case Title: Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
The Madras High Court recently remarked that the new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, transformed the criminal process and made it more victim-centric, citizen-responsive and justice-oriented.
Justice L Victoria Gowri added that the new code emphasised timeliness, transparency, accountability, and proportionality. The court added that the BNSS codified timelines for investigating agencies, ensuring that the agencies could not keep the matters pending uncertainly, making victims languish without closure.
The court also added that the BNSS embodied a shift from the punitive colonial framework to a justice-centric democratic framework. The court remarked that timely investigation was the first guarantee of fairness to both the victim and accused and added that the investigating agencies should strictly adhere to the statutory timelines.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. Director General of Police and Others (connected cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to take a call on the Standard Operating Procedures, which would be made applicable to all political parties for public meetings, by January 5, 2026.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a lot of suggestions and objections were placed before it. Having gone through the affidavits filed by the State and the submissions made by the parties concerned, the bench directed the State to take a decision considering the suggestions and objections made by the parties concerned.
The court added that if any party had objections to the SOP, they were at liberty to challenge the same by filing a separate case.
Madras High Court Rejects Jaipur Restaurant's Co-Ownership Claim To 'Dasaprakash' Trademark
Case Title: Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
The Madras High Court has refused to recognise a Jaipur-based company as a co-owner of the “Dasaprakash” trademark, holding that the brand is a jointly owned family mark that could not have been transferred by a single family member.
The original mark is commonly associated with a South Indian restaurant chain.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh, in a judgment dated December 16, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. and upheld a 2009 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting its request to be recorded as a co-proprietor of the registered trademark.
The court held that no valid assignment or transfer of trademark rights had ever taken place in favour of the company and that the “Dasaprakash” mark continued to be jointly owned by the successors of its founder, K. Seetharama Rao.
Case Title: Shri. Harigovind v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Non-corporate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
The Madras High Court held that the notices under Section 153C are unsustainable where a search for 'other person' was initiated after 01.04.2021.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that the first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 153C is not only for the purpose of abatement but also for all other purposes, viz., initiation of search for other person in terms of Section 153C(3) of the Act. In such a case, the date of initiation of search for the assessee is the date on which the documents were handed over to the JAO of the assessee, i.e., 25.11.2022 is the date of initiation of search for the assessee.
Case Title: P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493
The Madras High Court has recently observed that it was time that an audit be conducted regarding payment of fee to the law officers in the State.
Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation on noting that Additional Advocate Generals were appearing even in small matters where their presence was not required. The court added that while it could not enquire into the quantum of fee to be paid to senior counsels and additional advocate generals, good governance was required to ensure that public money was not given away to a favoured few.
Case Title: Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 494
While setting aside the Central Government's order refusing registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 to a trust engaged in the teaching of yoga, the Madras High Court recently remarked that Bhagavad Gita is not a religious book, but more about moral science.
Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a petition filed by Arsha Vidya Parampara trust against an order filed by the Director, FCRA Wing, Ministry of Home Affairs rejecting an application for registration under the Act.
The court also noted that the reason why organisation was termed religious was because it taught Bhagavad Gita. The court observed that Bhagavad Gita was not a religious book and speaks about internal and eternal trust. The court also remarked that the Gita had inspired some national leaders during the freedom struggle and under Article 51A(b) it was the duty of citizens to cherish and follow the noble ideas which inspired our national struggle for freedom.
The court also noted that the trust taught Vedanta and Yoga, which also could not be termed as religious. The court remarked that Yoga was universal and could not be viewed through the prism of religion.
Case Title: The Government of India v. S Somasundaram and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
The Madras High Court recently held that the grant of a state pension to a freedom fighter would not automatically result in the extension of a central pension to the pensioner. The court added that for granting the Central Government Pension Scheme, the conditions stipulated in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (SSS Scheme) had to be followed.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan set aside an order of the single judge, which held that once the state government has extended the benefit of the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, the central government has to extend the same, and that the eligibility criteria fixed by the central government need not be followed strictly.
Case Title: Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 496
The Madras High Court has directed the Patent Office to grant an inventor one opportunity to demonstrate the working of his invention, holding that a potentially viable invention should not be rejected without adequate consideration.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenging the rejection of his patent review application relating to an invention titled “Solar Supplemental Power Source.”
The invention is described as an electro-mechanical device intended to generate electricity even when solar energy is unavailable.The court noted that the petitioner was only seeking an opportunity to demonstrate his invention.
Case Title: The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Ciaion: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
The Madras High Court held that the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee under a government rehabilitation scheme is a capital receipt and is not taxable as revenue.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan examined whether the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee from the Government under the rehabilitation scheme should be treated as a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee or as a capital receipt, taking it out of the purview of the taxable income.
Case Title: K.M. Mammen v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 498
The Madras High Court held that once the assessee's entitlement to compounding had attained finality through earlier orders, then the Income Tax Department could not apply the revised Compounding Guidelines.
Justice C. Saravanan referred to the Explanation to Section 279(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and noted that the new compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 bearing reference F.No.285/08/2014-IT (Inv.V) would apply, only if a new application is/was filed in terms of paragraph 3.2 of the said guidelines.
Case Title: S Vijayakumar v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 499
The Madras High Court recently asked the central government to consider bringing in a law, similar to that in Australia, to monitor internet usage by children.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan made the suggestion after noting that pornographic content is widely available to children using the internet. The court observed that the end users had to be made aware of the menace of child pornography, and till such legislation was passed, it was the duty of the authorities to create awareness campaigns.
Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
The Madras High Court, on Friday, granted interim bail to YouTuber and journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar. Shankar was arrested on December 13 on allegations of assault and extortion by a film producer.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal noted that Shankar had serious health issues and needed treatment. The court also noted that the authorities had been filing cases against Shankar, curtailing his personal liberty. The court was thus inclined to grant interim bail to Shankar from 26th December 2025 to 25th March 2026.
While hearing the case on Friday, the vacation court also criticised the state police for targeting Shankar, who was exercising his fundamental right to dissent. The court criticised the authorities for running behind journalists whenever there was dissent.
Case Title: Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501
The Madras High Court recently held that special honours in a temple cannot be claimed as an absolute right and that the first honour in the temple was always to the deity. The court thus dismissed the plea of an ashramam that sought first special honour for its head at the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kanchipuram.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted though there was an existing practice of honouring the heads, whether it could be claimed as a right or not was an issue that was to be determined by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.