Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51 NOMINAL INDEX Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
NOMINAL INDEX
Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
K.V.Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
A Karthik v. Mrs Rashmi Siddharth Zagade and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
I Periyasamy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
Freshtohome Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
Amman Try Trading Company Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy v. Raj Television Network Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
Origin Nutrition Private Limited v. Ms Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
Elizabeth F. Santhi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
P Naveenprasad v/s Homes Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. v. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
A Radhakrishnan v The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Gemini Communication Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
S Devi v. The Principal Secretary to the Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
T Rangaraj v. Ms Joy Crizildaa, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
Commissioner of Income-tax Coimbatore v. M/s Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
P Murugan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
SASTRA Deemed University v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamilnadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
K Kandasamy v. P Natarajan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
Prabhakaran v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
Amit Malviya v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
P Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
A Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
G Thirukalyanamalar v State Bank of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
P Balasubramaniyam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
Murugammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
Ponmudi v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
H Vennila v. State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
V v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
A.V.B.Prabhu v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
REPORTS
Case Title: Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
The Madras High Court recently remarked that preventive detention laws were draconian and the state could not use it to settle political scores or silence the dissenting voice.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal held that the authorities should exercise the detention power sparingly and with extreme caution. The bench added that the courts should take a serious view whenever these powers were not used by the authorities in good faith.
The court also added that whenever it was established that the detention was in a callous manner, with extraneous consideration or for settling political scores, the State should take appropriate disciplinary action against the officer.
Case Title: C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
The Madras High Court held that the Long-Term Capital Gains exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely because the residential house was demolished before its sale.
The bench stated that since the sale took place later and the assessee reinvested the capital gains in another house within the prescribed time, the exemption is allowable.
Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi stated that Sections 54 and 54F are not two sides of the same coin. They are stand-alone provisions requiring satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein. Any claim for relief by an assessee can be considered and granted by the authorities only if a claim is made indicating compliance with those conditions.
Case Title: Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
The Madras High Court recently remarked that if no permission was necessary to erect a stone pillar for honouring Stan Swamy in patta land, no such permission was necessary for erecting a war memorial also.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus allowed the construction of a stupa for honouring the Natham Kanawai War.
The judge recalled that in a recent order, the High Court had allowed construction of stone pillar for Stan Swamy with his picture, in a private patta land. The court noted that while many saw swamy as a fighter for tribal rights, it was also true that he was arrested in a UAPA case and died in prison. The court then remarked that if no permission was necessary for that construction, it wasn't necessary for a war memorial also.
Case Title: M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
The Madras High Court has reiterated that animal sacrifice would not be permitted at the Thiruparankundram hills in the Madurai District.
Justice S Srimathy directed the managing trustee of the Hazrat Sulthan Sikkanthar Bhadhusha Dargha to conduct only the Urus festival (sandalwood festival) with 50 persons. The court also restrained the dargah from carrying animal meet, cooking or carrying non-vegetarian food. The court added that the direction must be followed from the base of the hill till its top.
Madras High Court Refuses To Halt Release Of Parasakthi Movie Over Allegations Of 'Stolen Script'
Case Title: K.V.Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to halt the release of Sivakarthikeyan starrer “Parasakthi” movie following a plea alleging that the movie's script was stolen.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed an application filed to restrain the release of the movie or continuing to permit its exhibition in theatres and OTT platforms. The court noted that the main prayer was to not permit director Sudha Kongara and others associate their names with the movie, and so the interim relief travelled beyond the scope of the main prayer.
The court also noted that Rajendran became aware about production of the movie in 2023 but had filed the suit in 2025. Thus, the court observed that the balance of convenience was not in favour of Rajendran and he could still claim damages even if the movie is released.
Noting that the Rajendran had not made out a case for grant of interim, the court dismissed the application.
Case Title: A Karthik v. Mrs Rashmi Siddharth Zagade and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
The Madras High Court recently remarked that that God or an Idol will never harm any person and the authorities cannot act on superstitions to remove idols from a person's house alleging that it has caused unnatural deaths in the locality.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ordered that a person can keep any idol in his own premises and worship peacefully by even inviting his friends or neighbors. The court added that the public cannot take law into their hands as a majority might and remove the idols.
Case Title: I Periyasamy v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Tamil Nadu Minister for Rural Development I Periyasamy and his family members challenging an ECIR registered against them by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the parties had filed the plea without approaching the adjudicating authority first. The bench thus directed them to approach the adjudicating authority as per law. The court added that if the parties were aggrieved by the orders of the adjudicating authority, they can file necessary pleas at such point of time.
Case Title: The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Tuesday (January 6) upheld a single judge's order directing lighting of the lamp at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparakundram hills near a dargah.
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan, while pronouncing the order, held that the order of single judge is not hit by res judicata as the issue was not decided in earlier litigations.
The bench said that the appellants–including the state authorities, Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah– had failed to produce formidable evidence to show that agama shastra prevented the lighting of the lamp at the site.
ALSO READ: Thiruparankundram Hill Row : Madras High Court Rejects Argument That 'Deepathoon' Was A Survey Stone
Madras High Court Upholds Trade Marks Registry Order Rejecting “Fresh Not Frozen” Mark
Case Title: Freshtohome Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Freshtohome Foods Private Limited, a Bangalore-based online grocery delivery platform against a 2019 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting its trademark application for the brand “FRESH NOT FROZEN”.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025.
The court held that the proposed mark was deceptively similar to an existing registered trademark, “FRESH N FROZEN”, which covers similar food-related retail services. The court said customers were likely to be confused at first glance.
Madras High Court Sets Aside GST Demand For Not Considering CBIC Circulars Cited By Taxpayer
Case Name: Amman Try Trading Company Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
The Madras High Court has set aside a GST demand on a corporate guarantee after finding that the tax department failed to consider CBIC circulars relied upon by the taxpayer while raising the assessment.
Allowing the writ petition, Justice G R Swaminathan held that an assessment order cannot survive if the tax department fails to consider the defence raised by the taxpayer.
The court held, “When a defense raised by the noticee is not considered in the final order, the order is vulnerable on that ground. On the ground of non-consideration of the contentions raised by the assessee, the impugned order is set aside.”
Case Title: Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy v. Raj Television Network Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The Madras High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction against a YouTuber accused of illegally streaming Tamil films claimed by Raj Television Network Limited.
The case centres on the Tamil films 16 Vayathinile, Kalangarai Vilakkam and Kudiyirundha Kovil. Raj Television says it holds exclusive copyright over these films, including their digital and streaming rights.
Justice N Senthilkumar, in an order passed on December 12, 2025, rejected Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy's plea to lift an ex parte injunction granted earlier this year in Raj Television's copyright infringement suit.
Case Title: Origin Nutrition Private Limited v. Ms Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
The Madras High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Origin Nutrition Private Limited, a maker of vegan protein products, in its trademark infrigment dispute with Tech7 Phyll Private Limited over the use of the name “ORIGIN/ORIGIN FRESH” for selling fruits and vegetables.
In an order dated December 19, 2025, Justice N Senthilkumar said that “ORIGIN” is a common, generic word and cannot be claimed as an exclusive trademark.
The court also pointed out that the two companies are in very different lines of business and serve different kinds of customers, leaving little room for any real confusion.
Buried Body Can't Be Exhumed Based On Sentiments Alone: Madras High Court Rejects Widow's Plea
Case Title: Elizabeth F. Santhi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
The Madras High Court recently rejected a woman's plea to exhume her deceased husband's body from the church cemetery.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that the wife had not shown any compelling reasons to exhume the body and as such the exhumation could not be ordered on mere sentiments.
The court highlighted that the right to decent burial was encompassed within the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court also highlighted that the disinterment or exhumation of the bodily remains stands on a different footing.
Case title: P Naveenprasad v/s Homes Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
While hearing an urgent petition challenging the publication of a book allegedly making personal attacks against Justice GR Swaminathan, the Madras High Court on Wednesday (January 7) directed the police to seize copies of such publication and also asked the authorities to ensure such scandalous publication does not take place.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan has also initiated suo moto contempt action against the publisher.
This comes, in the wake of the decision delivered on Tuesday by the division bench at Madurai, which has upheld Justice GR Swaminathan's order directing lighting of a lamp on a at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparakundram hills near a dargah.
Madras High Court Quashes CESTAT Chennai Order For Deciding Issues Not Under Appeal
Case Title: Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. v. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
The Madras High Court has pulled up the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai for overstepping its mandate, quashing its order and holding that the Tribunal cannot decide issues that were never appealed before it.
A Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi said that although Section 129-B of the Customs Act, 1962 confers wide powers on the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, those powers are not unbridled.
Madras High Court Allows US Inventor's Late Patent Examination Request Despite Indian Agent's Error
Case Title: Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
The Madras High Court has directed the Indian Patent Office to accept and process a request for examination filed by a US-based inventor, holding that a patent application cannot be treated as abandoned due to an inadvertent mistake by a patent agent.
The court ruled that in the absence of any intention to give up the invention, such procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Smythe challenging the Patent Office's refusal to accept his request for examination in relation to an invention titled “Prediction, Visualisation and Remediation of Satellite Conjunctions.”
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (January 07) directed the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary to constitute district-level monitoring committees to ensure that the orderly system is completely abolished in the state.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan directed the committee to be formulated within 2 weeks.
The committee shall be headed by the respective District Collectors and will have one revenue officer not below the rank of District Revenue Officer. It will further have two police officials not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police, who are to be directly nominated by the District Collector.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Gemini Communication Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court has held that from May 14, 2007, companies had to file their income tax returns electronically, and that paper returns filed after that date carry no legal validity
A bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar rejected a claim for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, holding that electronic filing of returns was a mandatory requirement for availing the benefit.
Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Relief To 93 Chennai Port Spillage Workers
Case Title: The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by the Chennai Port Authority, refusing to set aside an arbitral award that directed the port to reinstate spillage-handling workers and grant back wages, gratuity and other service benefits to 93 workers.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that the award did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality and did not conflict with public policy.
The court observed that the Port Trust, as a State instrumentality, is “is expected to act with a higher degree of fairness than ordinary employers”.
Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Wipro's 'PREMIO' Trademark On Crompton Greaves Plea
Case Title: Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “PREMIO” trademark registered in favour of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited. The Court found that the mark had not been put to genuine commercial use for more than five years.
Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on December 16, 2025. He allowed a rectification plea filed by Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, a Mumbai-based consumer electricals manufacturer.
The court held that the disputed mark was liable to be removed from the Register of Trademarks. It observed that “the petitioner has made out a case that after registering their trademark, the 1st respondent has not done anything to carry out the trade by using the trademark for a period of more than five years.”
Case Title: S Devi v. The Principal Secretary to the Government
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, directed the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) to permit only 300 shops at Marina Beach in Chennai.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira said that the shops would be selling three categories of items – (i) Eatables, (ii) Toys and related goods, and (iii) Fancy goods or souvenirs. The bench added that 100 shops could be allotted to each category, but also gave liberty to the GCC to make alterations in the number of shops in each category
The bench also directed that the shops should be allocated through draw of lots and the entire process must be conducted under the supervision of a retired high court judge. The court said that it would pass further orders for appointing a retired high court judge to supervise the allotment procedure.
Case Title: T Rangaraj v. Ms Joy Crizildaa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
The Madras High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of celebrity chef Madhampatty Rangaraj restraining celebrity stylist Joy Crizildaa from making social media posts against the former.
Justice N Sentilkumar noted that there could not be a blanket order restricting a person from exercising their right to express their views. The court noted that if Rangaraj wanted to restrain posts against him, he had to establish that there was commercial exploitation of his personality rights.
Case Title: Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
The Madras High Court has dismissed a patent revocation plea filed by Maya Appliances Private Limited, a Chennai-based company, seeking to revoke a food processor patent held by Versuni Holding B.V., a Netherlands-based home appliances company.
In an order passed on December 19, 2025, Justice N. Senthilkumar allowed Versuni's application seeking rejection of the revocation proceedings, holding that the challenge was not maintainable since the very same issue had already been raised in a pending patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Alloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra, the Court reiterated that, “once a defence available to the first respondent herein has been exercised, the same cannot be re-agitated before any other forum or in any other manner.”
Case Title: M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 9) directed the Central Board of Film Certification to forthwith grant U/A certificate to upcoming Tamil movie "Jana Nayagan" starring Vijay.
Justice PT Asha while pronouncing the order said: "After examining materials, it is crystal clear that the complainant's grievance appears to be an after thought".
The court said that entertaining such complaints would give rise to "dangerous trend".
The Court said that the action was without jurisdiction and once the modifications recommended by the examining committee is carried out, the certificate for the film would automatically follow.
Case Title: Commissioner of Income-tax Coimbatore v. M/s Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
The Madras High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke its revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by proceeding on an incorrect assumption about the nature of a transaction. The court ruled that such powers cannot be exercised where a demerger is wrongly treated as an amalgamation.
Dismissing the revenue's appeal, a bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar said the Commissioner had failed to first establish any error in the assessment order before ordering a revision.
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 9) temporarily stayed the single judge's order delivered earlier today directing CBFC to forthwith grant U/A Certificate for Tamil film 'Jana Nayagan' starring Vijay.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan in its order dictated:
"Respondent Union of India was not given sufficient time..one main grievance of UoI was that they were not given time to reply. Another grievance is that letter dated January 6 was not challenged, but court (single judge) quashed it. Respondents argue that there was no urgency... All said and done there was no certificate granted to respondents".
Thereafter the bench stayed the single judge's order.
Case Title: Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court on Monday (January 12) passed a John Doe order protecting personality rights of renowned actor and Rajya Sabha MP Kamal Haasan from illegal use of his image and likeness as well as commercial merchandising.
The court however did not restrain permissible forms of creative expression such as satire and caricature.
The court said that since a john doe has been added as second respondent to the plaint, the plaintiff was directed to give public notice regarding the court order in English and Tamil newspapers.
Case Title: Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
The Madras High Court has restrained India Research Watch from publishing articles in connection with the functioning of Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences without prior intimation to the Institute.
Justice P Dhanabal directed Research Watch to issue notice to the institute regarding queries or gist of articles to the email Id of the institute and await a response for 72 hours. The court added that if any response is received within 72 hours, the organisation could publish the statement along with the response. However, if no such response was received, the organisation could publish the article.
The court, however, added that the organisation was at liberty to make statements based on public records available, including court records.
Madras High Court Restrains Internet Service Providers From Illegally Streaming “Happy Patel” Movie
Case Title: Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court has restrained more than 30 internet service providers from illegally streaming the upcoming Hindi movie “Happy Patel Khatarnak Jasoos” produced by Aamir Khan Productions Private Limited.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy issued the interim direction in a plea moved by the production company. Noting that the irreparable injury would be caused unless interim relief is granted, the court ordered accordingly.
At the same time, the court noted that due to the expansive nature of the relief claimed, it was possible that legitimate business interests might also get affected. In such cases, the court directed the production house to indemnify the parties concerned.
Case Title: Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
The Madras High Court recently observed that the police does not have power to summon or question a person without a registered case.
Justice Sunder Mohan thus set aside a notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police calling upon a journalist seeking explanation for an article published by him allegedly containing defamatory statement against the police. The judge noted that the Section only gave powers to the police to arrest a person without warrant and did not give powers to question a person without even registering a case.
Case Title: S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
The Madras High Court has referred to its larger bench the question whether a person who has criminal cases pending against him, can be enrolled as an Advocate with the State Bar Council.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi decided to refer the issue to a larger bench after noting that Advocates Act did not empower the High Courts to impose conditions for enrolment.
The court also noted that though full bench of the High Court had agreed with a single judge on not allowing persons with pending criminal cases to enrol, the Supreme Court had held that the High Court cannot usurp the functions of a legislator and impose restrictions that did not exist in the Act.
The bench thus thought it would be appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench and directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice.
Case Title: P Murugan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a request made by an organisation for conducting the Jallikattu festival at Avaniyapuram after noting that the State was already conducting it.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that, considering the international importance of the Jallikattu festival, the state itself was organising it and thus Court could not entertain any independent request seeking permission to conduct the festival.
Case Title: SASTRA Deemed University v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA), a deemed university, challenging a government order that refused an alternate land offered by the University for setting up a prison and a subsequent eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that the government had decided to develop a prison in the government land where the university was encroaching.
The court also noted that the issues involved in the plea had already been litigated and the court could not interfere with the policy decision of the government by paving way for encroachers to re-litigate the issue.
Case Title: Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamilnadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
"Caste passions and bigotry must be uprooted to realise the constitutional vision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar," the Madras High Court recently remarked while dealing with a case relating to honour killing of a Scheduled Caste man— Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.
Stressing on the rights of victims and witnesses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that the investigating agency and the judiciary should work seamlessly to ensure that the life and liberty of even a single citizen should not be sacrificed at the altar of caste.
It also frowned upon the investigating agency for "selectively" not arresting the mother of Kavin's partner, both sub-inspector of police and accused in thethe third accused in the crime.
Case Title: K Kandasamy v. P Natarajan and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
The Madras High Court recently observed that a single appeal is maintainable against a common order involving a claim and counter claim.
Justice AD Maria Clete added that though a counterclaim is treated as a cross-suit under Order VII Rule A of CPC, a single judgment in the suit would not require multiplicity of appeal.
The court, however, added that though a single appeal can be preferred, there was a statutory obligation to value the appeal and pay court fee in respect of all adverse reliefs granted in the degree.
Case Title: Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madras High Court has reiterated that it cannot use inherent powers to mould the relief sought and grant a money decree when the same has not been sought or pleaded by the party.
Justice AD Maria Clete added that the inherent power of the court should be exercised within the framework of the CPC and the relief should be granted in accordance with the law, complying with the procedural and fiscal requirements.
The court also remarked that granting a relief which was not sought either by way of counterclaim or through independent proceedings amounts to travelling beyond the pleadings and violates the settled principle that no party can be granted a relief which has not been prayed or proved.
Case Title: Prabhakaran v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
The Madras High Court recently stressed on the need to protect the rights of women who are caught up in the "modern web" of live-in relationships.
Justice S Srimathy remarked that live-in relationships are a cultural shock to the Indian society but are happening widely everywhere. The bench added that the girls enter live-in relationship assuming themselves to be modern but later realise that the relationship does not guarantee any protection.
The court remarked that there is a need to protect the women who are caught in the modern culture. It remarked that live-in relationships could be recognised as similar to the Gandharva marriages (love marriage) that are part of the eight types of marriages in ancient India. The court thus noted that the women in live-in relationships could be protected by granting them the status of wife under Gandharva marriage.
Case Title: Amit Malviya v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP's Amit Malviya for his tweets criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy CM and Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Udhayanidhi Stalin's remarks on Santana Dharma
Justice S Srimathy observed that Malviya had only reacted to the speech made by the Minister and continuing any proceedings against him for such reaction would be an abuse of the process of law and would cause him irreparable harm and injury.
The Court also recorded that while no case had been registered against the Minister for his hate speech in the case, it was painful that a hate speech case was registered against the person reacting to it.
Case Title: Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of a law student with chronic schizophrenia by directing the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to provide fee waiver, as long as the student was within the 40% benchmark disability.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the Tamil Nadu Government and the university had introduced the welfare scheme, providing a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, but it was being extended only to the persons admitted in the 5% quota earmarked for persons with disabilities.
The court noted that when the State intended to provide a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, such implementation could not be approached pedantically by clubbing it with a reservation.
Case Title: Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High Court recently criticised the State for collecting sensitive data of students who had stigmatic background.
Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan set aside an order passed by the Member Secretary of the Model School, calling for certain information of students. The court noted that the information was sensitive and there was no explanation on how this data was going to be used or stored. Calling it a violation of the privacy of students, the court noted that it would be a clear discrimination and ill-treatment of students studying in the Model schools.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar in an extortion case. The court, however, imposed additional conditions on his bail.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman has asked Shankar not to make any statement, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the case, including comments against the conduct of the officers. The court has also asked Shankar not to interact with or intimidate the co-accused or the witnesses in the case.
The court has also restricted Shankar's movement, adding that any movement should be for the purpose of availing medical facilities or in connection with seeking legal assistance in the case. The court made it clear that any violation of the conditions shall be viewed seriously, and strict action would be taken against Shankar.
The court has also directed the Dean of the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to constitute a Medical Board consisting of experts to analyse and assess Shankar's medical condition. Shankar has been asked to appear before the board on 2nd February, which will examine him and submit a report, in a sealed cover, to the court on 3rd February 2026.
Can't Deny Maternity Benefit For Third Pregnancy Of Public Servants: Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: P Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the benefit of maternity leave should be extended to government servants even for their third pregnancy.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed also commented that, though similar orders have been passed by the Supreme Court and the high court repeatedly, the authorities failed to understand the intent of the previous orders. The court thus directed the High Court registry to circulate the order to all judicial officers heading the District Judiciary throughout the state to ensure stricter compliance.
The court also directed the Chief Secretary to strictly adhere to the principles previously laid down by the court and communicate the order to the Secretaries of Government and Heads of departments for strict compliance.
Case Title: A Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
The Madras High Court recently observed that encroachment, even if having a religious character, cannot be permitted on a public place or land vested with the local body. The court added that it is the duty of the Municipal Commissioner to remove the encroachment after due notice.
Justice V Lakshminarayana thus ordered the removal of a shrine of Mother Velankanni that had been installed in a public road. Commenting that a road or street does not have religious character, the court noted that, irrespective of the nature of the superstructure, the encroachment had to be removed.
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
The Madras High court, on Tuesday (27th January) set aside an order of the single judge directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant U/A certificate for Vijay's Jana Nayagan movie.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, however, sent the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration, noting that the natural justice principles were not followed. The single bench has been directed to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the CBFC to respond. The producer KVN Productions has also been given liberty to amend the writ petition.
Case Title: G Thirukalyanamalar v State Bank of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a non-citizen can also file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a State action if the same is allegedly arbitrary, making unreasonable discrimination and results in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar also noted that the rehabilitation scheme for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees provides for benefits such as shelter, education, and employment in India, particularly in the State of Tamil Nadu. The court thus opined that the State Bank of India's action, in denying employment opportunity to an otherwise eligible candidate, merely on the ground that she was a Sri Lankan national was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: P Balasubramaniyam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court recently lamented the institution of multiple cases in family disputes and commented that instead of approaching the Family Courts to settle the disputes, parties often expanded the disputes to criminal courts and other jurisdictions and sometimes even the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Pointing out that there is no end to docket multiplication in family disputes, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed as under,
“There is no end to docket multiplication, when it comes to family disputes. From the Family Courts, it is expanded to Criminal Courts and the other jurisdictions and now, slowly, all subjects under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are also being occupied for the dispute…If the issue is not settled, they are supposed to go for trial and if a prayer is made for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights or maintenance, as the case may be, the Court will grant or refuse the relief depending on whether the grounds are made out or not. But, unfortunately, variety of litigations are filed for the family dispute,” the court said.
The court has also imposed costs on a father-in-law for filing a case against daughter-in-law for wreaking vengeance.
Case Title: Murugammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the construction of Kalabhairavar Dhagana Mandapam by the Isha Foundation.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 did not prohibit granting of license for crematorium within 90 meters of dwelling place or source of drinking water supply. The court noted that as per the rules, the only pre-requisite was to obtain license from the village panchayat.
The bench also noted that construction of the gasifier crematorium would be for the benefit of the community and could not be said to be against public interest.
Case Title: Ponmudi v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court recently observed that higher courts should not mechanically issue directions to the authorities for early disposal of petitions and should consider the urgency required in each cases.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan observed that every court or statutory authority is expected to dispose of appeals, revisions, etc in a systematic manner and in order of seniority. The court added that if it issues directions to dispose of applications and any particular matter alone is disposed of, it would cause prejudice to other persons who are waiting for disposing their appeals.
Case Title: H Vennila v. State and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court recently observed that conferring a gold medal on students is an academic matter which should be left to the academicians.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there was no legal right involved in getting a gold medal and it was only a competition between the students involved. The court thus took a different view than the one taken by the Delhi High Court.
The court noted that there was no legal right for granting gold medal and the meaning of “first attempt” should be left to the academicians themselves especially when they are imparting a meaning uniformly for all the students.
Case Title: V v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
The Madras High Court recently overturned the conviction of a father under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter.
Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the statement of the witnesses including the victim and the mother, was exaggerated, with malafide and was made only to wreak vengeance against the father while the divorce proceedings were pending between the parents.
Case Title: A.V.B.Prabhu v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court recently observed that the State cannot unilaterally declare projects using temple funds. The court added that the State has no role to envision projects for temples without consulting with the temple itself.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C Kumarappan thus set aside a Government Order issued by the State for carrying out civil works in Shri Kallazhagar Temple, Madurai to the tune of 40 crores as part of the state's “Iconic Project” to provide facilities in ancient temples.
The bench also noted that there was a meed to professionally manage temple assets through temple trustees who were to be appointed in rotation. The court added that the Trustees, who were to be persons of high standard, were to be assisted by a team of efficient managers with knowledge and interest in Hindu religion.