Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 454 NOMINAL INDEX 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...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
NOMINAL INDEX
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
REPORTS
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.