CITATIONS: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 to 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 122 NOMINAL INDEX S Ve Shekar v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 Thol.Thirumavalavan v. Dr.V.Vedha @ Dhamodharan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 Dr Jenbagalakshmi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 4 M. Nagappan v....
CITATIONS: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 to 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
NOMINAL INDEX
S Ve Shekar v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
Thol.Thirumavalavan v. Dr.V.Vedha @ Dhamodharan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
Dr Jenbagalakshmi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
M. Nagappan v. The Management, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
C Kannaiyan and Others v Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
K. Ezhilarasi v The Senior Divisional Manager, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
K. Shiva Kumar v State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
S Muralidharan v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
P Bhaskar v The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
A. P. Raju v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
R. Eswaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
Chinnakalai v The Tahsildar (Social Welfare Scheme) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
X v. The Chairperson and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
M/s. Unique Builders Vs The Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
Dr. C. Vijayabaskar v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
Mohammed Tharik Anvar @ Thar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
HCL Technologies Ltd. v. X, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
State Secretary v Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
Ganesan v. The Commandant, TN Special Police Force, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
C.Kohila v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
Ameen Batcha v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
P. Anandasundaresan v. M/s. Akshaya Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
R Kathiravan v The Divisional Engineer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Secretary TNPSC v R Saravanan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Thirumaran v The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
XX v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
Matrimony.com Ltd v. People Interactive (I) Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
Sri Nithyananda Swami v The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
A. Jacob Sahariah v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai v. The Joint Commissioner or GST (Appeals), Coimbatore, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
Anugraha Castings v. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
M.Murugan v. The District Secretary (and connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
R. Ramalingam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
TR Balu v R Kannan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
V Ramkumar and Others v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
Abbas Manthiri v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
M/s.Powergear Limited, Chennai. Vs. M/s.Anu Consultants, Hyderabad, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
Deepa v. S Vijayalakshmi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
Gopal Krishan Rathi vs. Dr. R. Palani, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited Vs Transtonnelstroy Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
Kajendran J v. Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
T Ramalakshmi v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
Mr VA. Pugazhendi v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
Jeyakumari v Stephen, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
M/s. Ultimate Computer Care v. M/s. S. M. K. Systems, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
A Rajendran v The Joint Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
CALEB SURESH MOTUPALLI v. CONT, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59
S Yuvaraj v The Commissioner of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
M/s. Ideaforge Technology Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
Suo Motu v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
V. R. Krishnakumar v. Commissioner of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
K. Shrish v The Controller Of Examination, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
M/s Janpriya Builders v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
XYZ v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
Sa. Sivasooryaa v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
Raji v Executive Magistrate/ The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
ST Sivagnanan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
Y Babu v The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Poongundran and Others v. The State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
S Gunasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
M/s.United Breweries Limited v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals II), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
Rajesh Anouar Mahimaidoss v Election Commission of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam v. Regional Officer, CBFC, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
Vendaraja v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
Prof. Dr. R. Manonmani and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
Bhuvaneswari and others v. M/s. Bvm Storage Solutions Pvt Ltd and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
Regina Begum v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
L V Sarojini v The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
C. Ganesan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
The State v MK Alagiri, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
B Manickam Tagore v. V Vijaya Prabakaran and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
Nupur J Sharma And Another v. The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
News Tamil 24x7 v. Shruthi Thilak and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
Venkatesh Sowrirajan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
Y Babu v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
ML Ravi v Election Commission of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
Ammavasithevar v. KR Chitran and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. The Principal Secretary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
Dr S John William v. Loyola College (Autonomous), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v. MA Noor Jehan Beevi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
S Shankar v. The Deputy Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
United India Insurance v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
A Devika v. The Senior Branch Manager and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
M. Gunasekaran v. The District Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
The District Collector and Others v. P Naveen Kumar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
The Secretary and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
Arasu S v. The Tahsildar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
MH Jawaharulla v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
Kajendran J v. The Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
V. Samburanam v. District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
Vijay Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
S. Mayalagu v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
Seeman v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
Kavitha Anand v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Secretary, TNPSC and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
Gillette Diversified Operations vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
S Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
B Kavitha v. The Registrar General, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Boopalan B v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
South Ganga Waters Technologies (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory Mr.Vijay Ramesh, Chennai vs Vedanta Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
State v. Govindaswamy and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
Marudhu Pandi v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
Mohammed Faruk v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
Prasanna Sankaranarayanan v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
REPORTS
Case Title: S Ve Shekar v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with the conviction of Actor-Politician S. Ve Shekar for his derogatory comments against women journalists.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that though Shekar had apologized, an apology itself would not be sufficient. The court added that once the contents are released and seen by persons, the complainants would be degraded and apologising would not remove the image from the public.
Case Title: Thol.Thirumavalavan v. Dr.V.Vedha @ Dhamodharan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
The Madras High Court has quashed a case registered against Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party head and Lok Sabha MP Thol Thirumavalan for alleged comments against Hindu women. The case was registered based on a complaint in 2020 alleging that Thirumavalan, in one of his interviews had made comments lowering the Hindu women.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that Thirumavalan had only spoken about what has been stated in the Manu Smriti and thus offence was not made out. Thus, noting that nothing was available to prosecute Thirumavalan, the court was inclined to quash the complaint on the file of District Munisff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, Madurai.
Case Title: Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
The Madras High Court recently clarified that both the Faceless Assessment Officer and Jurisdictional Assessment Officer have concurrent jurisdiction as far as assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made it clear that for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction. The court added that the in matters of international taxation, central Circle charges and search and seizure cases also, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction and the FAO, in such cases, did not have jurisdiction to make assessment, re-assessment or re-computation.
Case Title: Dr Jenbagalakshmi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a Doctor does not have a responsibility to 'verify' or 'ascertain' the age of a victim brought in for abortion, for the purposes of reporting crime under POCSO Act.
Section 19 of the POCSO Act put a legal obligation on a person to inform the relevant authorities when he/she has knowledge that an offence under the Act had been committed. Section 21 deals with the punishment for failing to report or record a sexual offence.
The High Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in SR. Tessy Jose and others v State of Kerala which held that the 'knowledge' requirement foisted on the Doctor cannot be that they ought to have 'deduced' from circumstances that an offence has been committed. It thus quashed the case lodged against a Doctor for failing to report an incident.
Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Pass Injunctive Relief In Industrial Disputes: Madras HC
Case Title: M. Nagappan v. The Management
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
Madras High Court: A single judge bench consisting Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed a civil revision petition against a District Munsif's order that refused to pass an injunction against TAW Footwear Division. The Munsif had rejected the plaint holding that the matter was an industrial dispute and fell exclusively within the Labour Court's jurisdiction. However, the court ruled that civil courts have jurisdiction over matters not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. Following Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamalakar Shantharam Wadke, it held that since the labour courts were not empowered to grant interim injunctions under the Industrial Disputes Act, civil courts are the appropriate forum.
Case Title: C Kannaiyan and Others v Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
The Madras High Court has ordered the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewage Board to pay Rs 10 Lakh compensation to the family of a man who died while doing manual scavenging in 2000.
Citing the words of Mahatma Gandhi, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that it was easy to blame the authorities when we, as citizens were pushing everything into the drains indiscriminately. The court emphasised the need to maintain the sewers much like the arteries carrying the blood to our brains.
The court criticized the authorities for making the father approach the labour commissioner for compensation and remarked that the authorities should have immediately agreed to pay the compensation. The court also observed that the labour commissioner should have been alive to the facts of the case instead of dismissing the case for default. The court added that the authorities could have initiated proceedings against the contractor, who made Sridhar work without any protective gears.
Case Title: K. Ezhilarasi v The Senior Divisional Manager
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
The Madras High Court recently observed that merely suppressing the fact of taking a treatment or obtaining medical leave could not be a ground to reject the entire life insurance claim.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus came to the aid of a widow, whose claim was rejected by the Life Insurance Corporation after her husband's death. The court noted that the petitioner's husband had died due to a sudden cardiac arrest and thus she was entitled to the claim amount as per the policy. The court thus directed the LIC to disburse the policy amount with 6% interest.
The court further noted that while filling out the application forms, the insured was to only answer in yes or no which was also filled up by the agent in most cases, without getting any instructions from the insured. In the present case also, the court noted that the insured had not approached LIC for policy but was rather canvassed by the agent, who later himself filed out the application form and obtained the signatures. Thus, the court opined that the insured had not suppressed the fact of medical leave or admission in hospital.
What Constitutes Valid Service Of Notice U/S 169 Of CGST Act? Madras High Court Clarifies
Case Title: Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court interpreted Section 169 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and stated that Section 169 mandates a notice in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively and on a failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes, then the State can, in addition, make a publication of such notices/ summons/ orders in the portal/ newspaper through the concerned officials.
The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “when the Statute had also mandated issuance of notice in person/ registered post/ e-mail, etc., the Rules cannot be limited to only serving it through electronic modes.”
Case Title: K. Shiva Kumar v State and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
The Madras High Court recently observed that while granting approval for prosecuting a public officer under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the concerned authority should apply its mind not just to the complaint before it but also on other materials to throw light on the need for prosecution.
In the order passed before his retirement, Justice N Seshasayee observed that while the authority granting approval need not examine all the materials and evidence before it, the authority still had to apply its mind and satisfy itself as to whether the nature of decision taken or recommendation made leads to a bonafide suspicion.
The court also noted that while the order granting approval under Section 17A is an administrative order which is not justiciable, a collateral argument could be placed before the court while challenging the FIR and it is always open to the Court to consider the quality of approval granted. While considering the materials, if the court has reason to believe that the FIR is vexatious, motivated, or triggered by malafide or that the decision taken by the public servant is Bonafide, the approval under Section 17A would become critical for the case.
Case Title: S Muralidharan v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
The Madras High Court on Friday, constituted a Special Investigation Team comprising of two IPS officers to enquire into large levels of illegal mining that has been happening near the reserve forests of Western Ghats.
The specially constituted forest bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy transferred all the pending investigations into the batch of cases to the newly constituted SIT comprising G.Nagajothi, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, State Crime Records Bureau and G.Shashank Sai, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, Organised Crime, Intelligence Unit. The SIT, apart from investigating the ongoing cases was also given liberty to register fresh cases with respect to any illegal quarrying that may be unearthed during the course of the investigation. The court also directed the SIT to look into the possibility of a larger conspiracy and not leave out any "big fishes" who might have been part of the devastation.
Case Title: P Bhaskar v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The Madras High Court recently restrained the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department from constructing a shopping complex in a land belong to the Arulmighu Nandeeswaram Thirukoil using the surplus temple fund.
Commenting that temples should be kept out of litigation as much as possible, the bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that if the commercial complexes are permitted, there was a possibility that it could lead to further complications like return of investments, eviction of licensees/ tenants, recovery of unpaid rents, and preventing further encroachments.
More importantly, the court noted that as per the HR & CE Act, the surplus temple funds could be used only for the purposes specified in Section 66(1) or under Section 36A or Section 36B of the Act and for no other purpose. Noting that the purpose for which the shopping complex sought to be constructed by the HR & CE did not fall under any of the categories, the court observed that the decision had to be quashed and set aside.
Case Title: A. P. Raju v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
The Madras High Court recently discharged a former District Registrar from a corruption case observing that the materials put forward by the prosecution did not constitute any offence. The court noted that insisting a person to participate in a trial merely because the trial has commenced would violate his rights and compel him to undergo agony and anxiety.
Justice N Seshasayee (now retired) observed that while registering a document, the Registrar was only required to make prima facie inquiry and not expected to act like a civil court.
The court further noted that to constitute an offense under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution was required to produce materials that could prima facie persuade the court that it was adequate to frame charges. In the present case, the court opined that there was nothing to show that the petitioner had made personal gains with his decision which could attract the PC Act.
Case Title: R. Eswaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government to pay Rs. 50,000 compensation to a history sheeter for his illegal detention despite the Committee's report finding no sufficient cause for his detention.
Though the state claimed that the history-sheeter was not entitled for compensation, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution only uses the word 'person' and does not distinguish between a 'good person' or a 'bad person'. The court thus observed that no law could say that only a paragon of virtues could be paid compensation.
Persons Being Taken Care Of By Relatives Also Entitled To Claim Old Age Pension: Madras High Court
Case Title: Chinnakalai v The Tahsildar (Social Welfare Scheme) and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme did not contain any specific provision that excluded persons who were being taken care of by their relatives.
Thus, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan ordered benefits to be given to an octogenarian whose application for old age pension was rejected due to the fact that he was being taken care of by his grandchildren.
The court ruled that even though the petitioner was being taken care of by his grand children, he might still require financial help for other things including medical and incidental expenses. Thus, the court set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed him to give benefits.
Case Title: X v. The Chairperson and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
The Madras High Court has observed that merely submitting an application seeking adoption of a child would not confer any rights on the parties concerned to take custody of the child unilaterally without "scrupulously" following the due procedure.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that the procedures contemplated under the relevant statutes have to be scrupulously followed and the committee constituted must assess the couple, including their mindset, capacity, family setup etc.
Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 17) granted bail to YouTuber and whistleblower Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in a case for allegedly spreading misinformation about the investigation in an alleged land scam case.
The vacation court of Justice GR Swaminathan, while granting bail, orally remarked that the charges against Shankar did not warrant an arrest. The judge wondered how the State could arrest Shankar for such a case. When the state submitted that Shankar had been spreading misinformation through his channel and other channels, the judge commented that the state could choose not to listen to the interview.
Case Title: M/s. Unique Builders Vs The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the arbitral award can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The court further referred to its own judgment in K. Dhanasekar v. Union of India, 2019 where the court while referring to Harji Engineering Works Private Limited (supra) held that when there is a huge gap between the last date of the hearing and the date on which the award is passed, the arbitrator is obligated to explain the inordinate delay and in absence of such an explanation it would cause grave prejudice to the aggrieved party.
Furthermore, the arbitrator is mandated to send signed copies of the award to each party to an arbitration agreement under section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act but in this case, the copy was served on the counsel of the petitioner and the petitioner got his copy only after 10 days from the date of passing the award. This indicates a serious irregularity being committed by the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Dr. C. Vijayabaskar v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court has quashed the report of Justice A Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry with respect to former Tamil Nadu Health Minister C Vijayabhaskar citing irregularities in the report. The court primarily noted that Vijabhayaskar, who was initially called by the commission as a witness, was not given an opportunity to present his case after finding materials against him.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that Vijayabhaskar was not given an opportunity of hearing or to cross-examine the witnesses as contemplated under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952. Thus, the court held that the commission's conclusion ordering appropriate action to be initiated against Vijayabhaskar could not be sustained and was thus liable to be quashed. The court had previously stayed the recommendations against Vijayabhaskar.
Case Title: Mohammed Tharik Anvar @ Thar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
The Madras High Court has held that passing of a detention order against an individual cannot be a bar on the Court to decide such person's bail application.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus granted bail to a man against whom the State had passed a detention order, while the bail application was pending. The court had already passed the bail order when the Public Prosecutor informed the court that a detention order was passed. However, noting that the detention order could not be a bar, the court said that the bail order would stand and gave liberty to the man to work out his remedy against the detention order.
Case Title: HCL Technologies Ltd. v. X
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madras High Court has emphasised that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act [PoSH Act], the act of sexual harassment itself is given significance and not the intention behind the same.
Justice RN Manjula thus observed that in cases under the Act, what has to be looked at is not what the accused thought was 'decent' but how such a person made a person of another gender feel about his actions. Thus, the court held that if any action or gesture was not received well and was inappropriate and felt as unwelcoming behaviour, it would fall within the definition of sexual harassment.
Case Title: State Secretary v Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
The Madras High Court has read down a circular issued by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) initiating action against all employees of a shop including the supervisor of the shop whenever it was found that an employee of the shop was overpricing the customers.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy made it clear that a collective action could be taken only when there was prima facie material to show that all the employees had colluded and shared the profits among themselves. The court added that unless there was prima facie material, community liability could not be fastened merely based on the circular. Thus, the court deemed it fit to read down the circular to such an extent.
Case Title: Ganesan v. The Commandant, TN Special Police Force
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
The Madras High Court recently granted relief to a Police Nayak who was discharged from service after acquiring 100% blindness during service and being declared medically unfit for service.
Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench observed that though the proviso to Section 20(1) empowered the Government to exempt any establishment from the requirements of the Act, no such notification had been made exempting the Police Department. Thus, the court noted that the provision would be applicable to the uniformed service also and thus directed the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force to reinstate the workman.
Case Title: C.Kohila v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Maternity Leave Rules have to be interpreted in such a way that a woman employee would be entitled to seek leave twice during her service period and not in such a manner to deny her maternity leave for her third pregnancy even if it is taken for the first time.
Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the legislative intent of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government was to discourage having more children considering the health of the women, the financial constraints involved, the population control policy of the Government and the fact that the State exchequer may be burdened with more financial stress by extending maternity leave for many children. The court suggested that the rules should be given a purposive interpretation and when a female employee seeks maternity leave for the first time, the same could not be denied merely citing a third pregnancy.
Case Title: Ameen Batcha v The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
The Madras High Court has recently quashed a case against a 26-year-old man who was convicted and sentenced for allegedly raping his partner on a false promise to marry.
Relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharastra & Another, Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the present case appeared to be one where a consensual relationship that prolonged for a long time had turned sour.
The court also noted that the victim's statement revealed that the couple's physical relationship was not merely due to the alleged promise to marry and that the couple shared a good relationship. The court also noted that the victim was aged 24 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and was aware of the consequences of her actions. The court also added that the victim was neither naïve nor gullible.
Case Title: P. Anandasundaresan v. M/s. Akshaya Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
The Madras High Court recently observed that a letter issued by a Panchayat President would not be equivalent to a completion certificate issued by the competent authorities under the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act.
A division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel observed that as per the Act, since there was no provision and procedure prescribed for projects under execution outside the Chennai Metropolitan Area, the same was to be intimated to the concerned Local Planning Authority or Regional Deputy Director of the Town and Country Planning Department within 15 days from the date of notification of the rules after which the same was made public in the RERA website. The court thus concluded that there was no provision to substitute a letter from the Panchayat President as a completion certificate.
Case Title: R Kathiravan v The Divisional Engineer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
The Madras High Court had ordered all political parties, communal and other organizations in the State to remove permanent flagpoles erected by them on public places including national highways, lands belonging to the government, etc.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan of the Madurai bench directed the concerned parties to remove all permanent flagpoles within 12 weeks, failing which the authorities concerned shall take appropriate action after issuing notice to the parties. The court added that the authorities could, in such a case, recover the cost of removal from the concerned parties.
The court remarked that there was no law that permitted issuing licenses to install permanent flagpoles in public places. The court added that the police and the revenue authorities did not have jurisdiction to issue a No-Objection certificate allowing the erection of flag poles in public places. The judge also remarked that these flagpoles often caused inconvenience to the commuters and also affected traffic in some cases.
Case Title: Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court has dismissed applications filed by Netflix's Indian entity - Los Gatos, seeking to reject the plaint filed by Dhanush's Wunderbar, in connection with alleged copyright infringement by Nayanthara, Vignesh Sivan, and others.
Justice Abdul Quddhose also informed the parties that he would be hearing the interim injunction application filed by Wunderbar on February 5th, 2025.
Dhanush, who produced the movie “Naanum Rowdy Daan” has approached the court claiming that some behind-the-scene footages from the movie was used unauthorisedly in the making of Nayanthara's documentary “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale”. Since Netflix India's office is in Mumbai, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, he had moved an application seeking leave to sue the company in the High Court which was allowed.
Case Title: The Secretary TNPSC v R Saravanan and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
The Madras High Court recently observed that the proviso to Section 3(j) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 which prohibits an ex-serviceman once recruited from claiming concession for further recruitment, should be interpreted as applying to ex-servicemen who are already recruited on the date of the application. Thus, the court clarified that the proviso would not apply to an ex-serviceman who was not recruited at the time of the application but was subsequently recruited before the result of the recruitment for a higher post was published.
The Madurai bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that when an ex-serviceman has accepted employment in a lower post due to its immediate availability, he should not be held ineligible to claim the ex-serviceman concession for a higher post, especially when the disqualification was not expressly provided and when there was no fault on the part of the applicant. The court added that the concession given to ex-servicemen for their services to the nation should be reasonably interpreted in a manner that does not penalize them for procedural delays.
Case Title: Thirumaran v The Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court has observed that merely ventilating about the manner in which a particular religion is treated would not constitute an offence under Section 505 of the IPC. The high court also added that to constitute an offence under the Act, there must be incitement of feeling of one group against another.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that abusive language by itself was not an offence unless it was shown that the person making the speech had the intention or knowledge that the speech could provoke or break the public peace.
Case Title: XX v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
While allowing a minor girl's mother's application to permit termination of a 28-week pregnancy, the Madras High Court observed that the minor girl, who was 16 years old had domain over her body and had the autonomy to make a decision regarding continuing her pregnancy or otherwise.
Noting that the minor had clearly mentioned her willingness to terminate the pregnancy, Justice S Sounthar observed that while deciding cases of this nature, consideration must be in the interest of the minor. The court added that since the medical termination is concerned with the body of the minor girl, her wish should be given primary importance.
Case Title: Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
While disposing of an undertrial prisoner's plea alleging mistreatment inside the Puzhal Central Prison, the Madras High Court emphasized that the education of a prisoner could provide scope for hope as it would help them lead a better life when they are out of the prison.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman observed that a prisoner was entitled to basic human rights and his right to education was a part of his fundamental right to personal liberty. The court also added that the Basic Principles for Treatment Of Prisoners 1990 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly specifically provided that all prisoners had the right to take part in cultural activities and education aimed at the full development of the human personality.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court while upholding special court's order dissolving an inter-faith marriage, has held that in inter-religious marriages, persistently compelling a spouse to convert himself or herself to another religion to which the other spouse belongs to, amounts to cruelty.
A division bench of Justice N Seshasayee (now retired) and Justice Victoria Gowri further held that when a husband or a wife in a matrimonial life was subjected to persistent and consistent cruelty compelling them to convert to another religion, the same would also amount to curtailment of life and liberty ensured in Article 21 of the constitution. The bench further held that such cruelty would also amount to the denial of the fundamental right to profess religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.
The court observed that when a person is not allowed to profess and practice their religion, it would miserably affect the quality of their life and would result in a lifeless life without dignity. The court also held that when a man or woman in marriage is compelled to convert in the name of god and in the name of religion for the sake of securing matrimony, it would shatter the foundation of the matrimony itself.
Case Title: Matrimony.com Ltd v. People Interactive (I) Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
The Madras High Court has held that a recent advertisement of the matrimonial company Shaadi.com giving money back guarantee if unable to find a bride/groom in 30 days is prima facie misleading and deceptive.
Justice RMT Teeka Raman observed that real terms of the offer, which is "contrary" to the promise made in the ad, are "tucked in fine print". As per the terms and conditions, the money back guarantee is triggered when a premium member sends at least 10 interests but doesn't get a single accept within first 30 days.
This prompted the bench to allow an interim injunction application filed by Shaadi.com's competitor Matrimony.com.
Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a suit filed by PhonePe to declare its mark as a well known trademark and to grant permanent injunction against “BundlePe” and “LatePe”.
Justice P Velmurugan observed that the term “Pe” was not a unique or distinct one as claimed by PhonePe and was commonly used word in the payment services industry. The court noted that the word, which was a transliteration of the Hindi word “Pay”, was widely used by other prominent companies such as Google Pay, Paytm, and ApplePay. The court noted that given the widespread use of the word “Pe” in the payment sector, PhonePe could not be exclusively associated with the word.
Case Title: Sri Nithyananda Swami v The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
The Madras High Court, on Friday, dismissed an appeal filed by Swami Nithyananda seeking to be appointed as the Madathipathi or Head of three Mutts - Sri Somanatha Swami Temple & Mutt at Thiruvarur, Sri Arunachala Gnanadesikar Swami Temple & Mutt at Vedaranyam, and Sri Po.Ka.Sathukal Madam at Vedaranyam.
Dismissing his appeal, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan orally remarked that Nithyananda was not even in India to be able to administer the temples. The court thus opined that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the single judge.
Nithyananda had approached the court against the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board directing the Assistant Commissioner to appoint Executive Officers to administer the properties of the three temples as per Section 60 of the HR&CE Act.
Case Title: A. Jacob Sahariah v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madras High Court recently allowed the construction of a Bible Study Centre by the District Secretary of the CSI Church Erichamamoottu Villai in the Kanyakumari District.
The bench of Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice N Senthil Kumar observed that the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the constitution could not be curtailed or taken away on mere apprehension of law and order and there could no impediment for the Government authorities to deny permission to construct a Bible Study Centre.
Case Title: Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice P. Dhanabal has held that the proviso to Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not extend to cases where the default continues beyond the moratorium period.
The court noted that Section 10-A only imposes a moratorium temporarily suspending the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Section 10-A bars an application for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor, for any default arising on or after 25.03.2020 for a period of six months.
In interpreting the proviso to Section 10-A, the court held that the bar on filing CIRP applications applies only to defaults that occur within the moratorium period. Thus, if a default persists beyond this period, the bar does not extend to such continuing defaults.
GST Registration And Payment Of Tax After Inspection Is Not Voluntary Conduct: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai v. The Joint Commissioner or GST (Appeals), Coimbatore
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
The Madras High Court stated that GST registration and payment of tax after inspection is not a voluntary conduct.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “there is a deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax by not registering himself under the Act and also issuing receipts as donation to the Trust. Only after the inspection they have agreed to pay the tax by registering themselves. This conduct cannot be said to be a voluntary conduct.”
Case Title: Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
The Madras High Court has dismissed the writ petitions filed by Flipkart owners Sachin and Binny Bansal challenging the complaint made by the Deputy Director, ED, and the subsequent show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority for violating provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India, [TISPRO] Regulations 2000.
While doing so, Justice S Sounthar observed that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of raising their objections before the adjudicating authority. The court noted that as per the Act, the petitioners had remedy not just before the civil court but also had an option for a second appeal before the High Court under Section 35 of the Act. thus, the court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the plea.
Case Title: M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the issue of ineligibility of the arbitrator cannot be raised during the pendency of the execution proceedings. The court held that the Executing Courts cannot suo motu dismiss the Execution Petition(s) solely on the ground of unilateral appointment of an arbitrator.
The court held that the executing court cannot suo motu annul the award when a party to the agreement did not challenge the award on the ground of ineligibility of the arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “As long as there is no objection raised, it cannot be said that a mere unilateral appointment of arbitrator would vitiate the entire arbitral proceedings which culminated in an award”, the court stated.
Case Title: Anugraha Castings v. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High Court recently emphasized that courts should refrain from passing ex-parte orders in a routine manner and must only pass such orders when there is a real emergency which was shown through the plaint and averments.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that ex-parte orders can have disastrous consequences and could possibly bring a party's business to a halt. The court added that by the time the party is heard and the ex-party order is vacated, the party and its customers may have faced a huge loss.
Pointing to the Supreme Court's direction in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, in which the court enunciated the principles relating to granting or refusal of injunction, the High Court highlighted that the courts in the State should always bear the directions in mind and ensure that ex-parte orders are passed only in case of grave emergency.
Case Title: M.Murugan v. The District Secretary (and connected cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court has allowed the Hindu Munnani to carry out demonstrations against alleged encroachment in the Thiruparakundram Hills where a Kasivishwanathar temple and a Sikkandar dargah have been coexisting.
Noting that the entire issue could have been handled in a better way, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima allowed the protests to be conducted by the organization today (4th February 2025), at Palanganatham junction between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm. The court added that proper arrangements should be made for the protests and both the organisers and the police must ensure that no law and order issues arise due to the protests. The court also asked the organizers to ensure that only one megaphone be carried to the protest site and the entire protest be video graphed.
Case Title: R. Ramalingam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
The Madras High Court recently observed that prisoners have a right to access minimal facilities that are required to deal with their physical condition and the government could not shirk its responsibility for providing better facilities to prisoners.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima noted that in some cases a prisoner's physical or medical condition may require certain facilities which should be provided to him. The court added that a prisoner, either convicted or undertrial did not cease to become a human being and continued to enjoy all fundamental rights including the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.
The court thus observed that prison justice could not be confined to a rigid framework and must be expanded taking into consideration the physical or medical condition of the prisoner.
Case Title: TR Balu v R Kannan and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
The Madras High Court has ordered the Editor, Publisher and the Printer of Tamil Weekly 'Junior Vikatan', to pay Rs. 25,00,000 as damages to DMK's TR Balu for having published malicious and defamatory content against him without verifying the same.
Justice AA Nakkiran remarked that the freedom of press was to be used for publishing news to the people backed by solid proof and could not be used to tarnish the image and reputation of a person without verifying the veracity of the news. The court added that Junior Vikatan, being a renowned magazine should have been more cautious before publishing the news.
Case Title: V Ramkumar and Others v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (February 4th) slammed the Special Investigation Team probing the sexual assault of a 2nd Year Engineering Student at Anna University in Chennai in December last year.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan questioned the SIT for sending summons repeatedly to the journalists grilling them with questions touching upon their personal lives and even seizing their electronic devices alleging that the journalists had shared the FIR containing details of the victim girl. The court asked the SIT why it had selectively questioned the journalists when it had not made attempts to question the officers who were responsible for the FIR leak.
Case Title: Abbas Manthiri v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court has issued guidelines to be followed during the transit of cattle from one place to another. The court emphasized that the rules should be strictly followed to ensure the safety and well-being of the cattle during transportation.
Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that transporting cattle was a careful process that required strict adherence to the Animal Welfare Regulations, proper vehicle equipment, and ensuring the cattle's health and safety during the journey.
The court directed the transporters to ensure that there is adequate space to stand, lie down and turn around. The court also stated that the safety of the cattle should be ensured while loading and unloading the cattle, in order to prevent injury and stress. For this, the court said that the ramps and loading docks should be designed to prevent the cattle from slipping or falling
Case Title: Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
The Madras High Court has recently criticised a Seizing Officer attached to the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs for seizing a gold “Mangalya Thali Kodi” (necklace) from a Srilankan citizen alleging that the same was against the Baggage Rules 2016.
The court observed that the quantity of jewellery worn by the petitioner was normal for a newly married person and that the officers, while conducting searches should respect the customs of every religion in the country. The court also noted that it was unfair on the part of the officer to remove the petitioner's thali and such act was intolerable.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy further noted that the officer had seized the thali without even considering its importance and the officer's acts amounted to annihilation of the customs of the Hindu religion and the culture of the country. The court also went on to state that the officer seemed to have worked with an ulterior motive to distract the attention of the other officials for the benefit of someone else and thus directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs (Tamil Nadu and Puducherry) to conduct an inquiry against the officer and take appropriate action as per law.
No Bar On Court To Entertain More Than One Application U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Powergear Limited, Chennai. Vs. M/s.Anu Consultants, Hyderabad
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that there is no prohibition for the Court to entertain more than one application under Section 29A of the Act seeking extension of time for the arbitrator to pronounce arbitral award provided sufficient cause is demonstrated.
The court noted that 'section 29A' of the Arbitration Act does not prohibit multiple applications for extending the mandate of the Arbitrator. The only requirement is that sufficient cause must be demonstrated for seeking extension of the mandate of the tribunal.
It further added that when there are no restrictions as to the number of times an application seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal can be filed, the court cannot prohibit parties from filing such applications provided sufficient cause is demonstrated.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court recently observed that the procedure adopted by the Family Courts in the State insisting on the personal appearance of the parties in a family case for every hearing resulted in procedural delays and inefficiency. The court noted that such insistence often lead to significant delays and affected the performance of the court.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan also pointed out that it was inhuman to expect that the litigant was available at every beck and call of the court. The court emphasized that Family Courts were expected to approach family matters in a humane and reasonable manner. The court added that the courts had to be more empathetic to the physical, emotional, and financial distress of the litigants.
The court further added that Section 13 of the Family Courts Act and Rule 41 of the Family Court Rules do not prevent the litigants from being represented by advocates but only state that the parties are not entitled to be represented as a right. The court added that the intention behind bringing such provisions was to ensure that the procedure does not become adversarial. The court added that the legal provisions did not intent to affect the rights of the parties.
Case Title: Deepa v. S Vijayalakshmi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
The Madras High Court recently observed that Section 46(4) of CrPC and Section 43(5) of the BNSS Act which prevents the arrest of a woman after sunset and before sunrise is directory and not mandatory.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice M Jothiraman explained that the provisions did not provide the consequences of non-compliance of the requirement. The court observed that if the legislature intended the provision to be mandatory, it would have set out the consequences for non-compliance. The court also added that while effecting arrest, the police officer was performing a public duty and the victim could not be allowed to suffer for the neglect of duty by the police officer.
The bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dattatraya Moreshwar Vs The State of Bombay, in which it was held that a statute creating a public duty was directory and those conferring private rights were imperative. The court noted that holding the acts done in neglect of duty as null would cause serious inconvenience to the persons who are have no control over those entrusted with duty and would be against the main object of the Act.
Case Title: Gopal Krishan Rathi vs. Dr. R. Palani
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice K. .R. Shriram (Chief Justice) and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy have observed that an arbitral award does not have to follow any specific format; just as every judge writes their judgment in a particular style, arbitrators also write in different styles.
The court also held that any ground which was not raised in a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be raised at the stage of appeal under Section 37 of the Act. The court further observed that reasoning of the award must be 'proper', 'intelligible' and 'adequate'.
Case Title:M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited Vs Transtonnelstroy Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that when the view taken by the Arbitrator is not even a plausible view, an award passed by such an arbitrator can be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration act on the ground of patent illegality.
The court noted that a plain reading of clause 13.16.5 shows that when price variation formula in CPA 32 is adopted, then the respondents cannot be entitled to claim any additional costs, unless there is a claim falling under the three exceptions, namely customs duty, excise duty and output TN VAT which also is again subject to the rider that it will be paid to the extent that it is not covered by the price variation formula.
Case Title: Kajendran J v. Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court has asked the courts across the state of Tamil Nadu not to insist on conducting potency tests on accused persons in a routine manner. The court also directed the Director General of Police to issue circulars to the departments asking the officers to refrain from sending the accused for potency test in a mechanical manner.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan, which was constituted to monitor the implementation of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice Act on the judicial side, made the observations after being informed that while there was awareness against Two-Finger tests in the state, instances of male potency tests still continued.
The bench also noted that despite previous orders and a circular issued by the DGP, minor boys who were involved in romantic relationships with minor girls were mechanically arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Boards, which then sent the minor boys to the observation homes. The court noted that such procedure ran counter to the earlier circulars and the orders of the court and thus directed the DGP to re-familiarise the police officials regarding the circular, making them aware of the procedure to be followed in such cases.
Case Title: T Ramalakshmi v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
The Madras High Court has recently clarified that a prisoner could be granted ordinary or emergency leave while an appeal is pending before the High Court or a Special Leave petition is pending before the Apex Court.
The full bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice TV Thamilselvi, and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that as per Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982, the prison authority was empowered to grant ordinary leave. The court however clarified that if the prisoner is facing trial in any other case, the prison authorities.
Siding with an observation of a division bench of Madras High Court in Latha v. State, the court observed that Rule 35 states that no prisoner, on whom a trial was pending, could not be granted leave. The court noted that the language used in the Rules is “pending trial” and not “pending appeal”. Thus, the court said that the rules would not bar a prisoner who had an appeal pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court.s could reject his leave application in limine.
Case Title: Mr VA. Pugazhendi v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
The Madras High Court has vacated a stay on the proceedings initiated by the Election Commission of India on the basis of representations filed by individuals in connection with the AIADMK “two leaves” symbol dispute and party leadership row.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan asked the ECI to inquire into the issue within the parameters of its powers under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. The bench asked the ECI to first satisfy itself about the existence of a party dispute, its jurisdiction and then proceed with the inquiry.
Case Title: Jeyakumari v Stephen
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
The Madras High Court has observed that a marriage between a Hindu and a person belonging to any other religion cannot be celebrated under the Hindu Marriage Act as the Act requires both the parties to the marriage to belong to the Hindu faith.
The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice N Senthilkumar also noted that often a Hindu person was marrying a foreigner, a non-Hindu belonging to a different faith as per Hindu customs. The court noted that while choosing a life partner was a personal choice, the legality of the marriage, performed as per Hindu customs would be under cloud. Thus, the court held that if a Hindu person wished to marry a non-Hindu, the marriage should be registered as per the Special Marriage Act to avoid any illegality and challenge to the subsequent legal marital status. The court also added that there must be an awareness in this regard, among prospective brides and grooms.
Madras High Court Issues Directions To Clear Backlog Of Cheque Bounce Cases In Magistrate Courts
Case Title: M/s. Ultimate Computer Care v. M/s. S. M. K. Systems
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
Noting the pendency of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions for speedy of disposal of cases.
“Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are clogging the Magistrate Courts for years on account of various reasons. The very purpose of the introduction of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would be defeated on account of the delay involved in the disposal of such matters,” the court said.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the pendency of cases defeats the purpose for the introduction of Chapter XVII of the Act. The court added that though the Constitutional Courts had issued directions in this regard, lack of effective oversight mechanisms have resulted in the directions remaining mere paper directives.
Case Title: A Rajendran v The Joint Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
While dismissing a plea seeking to frame a scheme of administration in Arulmighu Varatharaja Perumal and Senraya Perumal Temple by appointing non-hereditary trustees from a particular caste, the Madras High Court observed that the very prayer is opposed to public policy and constitutional goals.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy lamented that despite 75 years of the Constitution, sections of the society was yet to shed the unwanted baggage. The court added that if such prayers are allowed, the very operation of the Constitutional Scheme would get frustrated. The court added that any prayer which has the effect of perpetuating caste is not only unconstitutional but also opposed to public policy.
Madras High Court Upholds Rejection Of AI-Human Integration Patent Claim
Case Title: CALEB SURESH MOTUPALLI v. CONT
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court bench dismissed an appeal seeking a review of a patent claim for a product designed to integrate human and AI capabilities. The appeal was filed by Caleb Suresh Motupalli before the single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, challenging the order of the Controller of Patents. Upon review, the court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the Controller's decision and accordingly rejected the appeal.
The court concurred with the defendant's submission that the claims were too vague, and lacked a clear technical feature. The court found that the invention did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act due to its ambiguity and failure to properly base the claims on the details provided in the complete specification. It held that the invention did not offer any clear method to achieve the intended result. Additionally, it determined that the invention had no real technical effect and failed to deliver the promised super-augmentation of the user.
The court held that The Controller erred by dealing with the review application as an original application for a patent grant, conducting a second full-fledged hearing, and issuing an order in the nature of an order-in-original under Section 15 of the Patents Act.The court noted that the Controller should have rejected the review application as the original order did not suffer from any procedural defect or sufficient reason.The court did not accept the submissions of the applicant and dismissed the appeal filed by Caleb, upholding the Controller's decision to reject the patent application.
Case Title: S Yuvaraj v The Commissioner of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed an application for permitting a procession condemning the recent events at Thiruparakundram, Madurai.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that for the incidents that happened in Thiruparakundram, resolutions had already been passed between the concerned parties before the RDO and there was no need to conduct another procession, in Chennai to condemn the incidents. The court highlighted that the State could not permit any form of protest which disrupted the public peace and harmony. The court highlighted that Unity in Diversity was the strength of the country and government had to maintain the harmony among the different religions.
Case Title: M/s. Ideaforge Technology Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Drone Manufacturing company – Ideaforge, seeking to quash a cheating case registered against it by Garuda Aerospace Pvt Ltd.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that the grounds taken by Ideaforge to quash the case was in the nature of defence which could be decided only at the time of trial. The court also noted that there was prima facie material to proceed with the case. Thus, the court was not inclined to quash the case and dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Suo Motu v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court has ordered a CBI probe into the large-scale illegal mining of beach sand that has caused a huge loss to the Tamil Nadu state exchequer to the tune of ₹5,832 Crore.
The division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman held that the facts of the issue- granting mining lease/approvals, permitting illegal inclusion of monazite in mining lease, lack of efficient monitoring, arbitrary royalty settlement, lack of initiation of appropriate actions, etc suggested that there was a scheme of collusion, corruption and connivance among political, executive, and private mining companies.
The court thus opined that a thorough enquiry was necessary to unearth the involvement of government officials and the illegalities perpetuated by them. The court added that a political nexus to the massive scam also could not be ruled out and directed the CBI to probe into the same.
Case Title: V. R. Krishnakumar v. Commissioner of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
The Madras High Court has recently transferred pending cases against a whistleblower journalist to the Crime Brance – Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) citing that the Commissioner of Police (Vepery) and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central Crime Branch) seemed to have foisted false cases with malicious intention.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that though it was a settled law that the accused could not choose the investigation agency to investigate the case against him/her, in exceptional circumstances, the court could exercise its extraordinary power when the situation demands credibility and instill confidence in the investigation.
The court was hearing a plea by Krishnakumar @ Varaaki who had approached the court to transfer the pending investigation against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other investigation agency. Varaaki informed the court that he was an activist, journalist, and whistleblower who was involved in exposing the corruption and misconduct in public offices.
Case Title: K. Shrish v The Controller Of Examination
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court recently refused relief to a student who had approached the court seeking condonation of deficiency of attendance.
Calling him an “unfortunate student who wanted to ride two horses” the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan noted that if the court chose to sympathize with the student, it would only be misplaced sympathy and amount to mocking students who attend the classes regularly. The court also added that the courts could not interfere in academic matters and had to leave such matters to the wisdom of academicians.
Case Title: M/s Janpriya Builders v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
The Madras High Court has recently observed that regularisation of unauthorized construction cannot be claimed as an absolute right and the government was not expected to regularise such unauthorized buildings in a routine manner by invoking the exemption under the Town and Country Planning Act.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that if such routine regularisation is allowed, the very purpose of building plan permission would be defeated. The court added that illegal constructions not only caused environmental damage but also posed a threat to the safety and security of the neighbors and citizens living nearby. The court thus added that the government could not be a mute spectator in such cases which are causing inconvenience to the people.
The court also added that merely because the builder had invested an amount in the property, the court could not show any leniency of misplaced sympathy. The court added that due to the large-scale collusion on the part of CMDA, the Corporation and other competent authorities, the builders are emboldened to commit such crimes at the cost of the people with the hope that they can escape the clutches of proceedings by submitting regularisation applications.
Case Title: XYZ v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
The Madras High Court recently asked the Ministry of External Affairs and the Consulate General of India in Houston, USA to renew the passport of a 10th-grade minor girl living in the USA with her father. The application for renewal was rejected by the consulate for want of the mother's signature.
Justice S Sounthar noted that the relationship between the father and the mother had become strained and they had been living separately since 2021. The court remarked that the misunderstanding between the parents should not affect the education of the child.
The court noted that if the passport of the child was allowed to expire without renewal, there was a danger that the child may acquire illegal migrant status and the same may adversely affect the child's education. The court observed that merely because the passport manual prescribed consent of both parents at the time of renewal, the right of the child to pursue education could not be denied on technical grounds.
Case Title: Sa. Sivasooryaa v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
The Madras High Court has recommended the Ministry of Women and Child Development to resume reserving two seats in MBBS and BDs courses for students who have been conferred with the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar.
While the court agreed that discontinuing the reservation is a policy decision of the government, the bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice N Senthuilkumar observed that such reservation would be a right step for inculcating scientific temper among students as envisaged in the preamble of the Constitution.
Though the Ministry argued that conferment of award was itself a recognition and hence no additional benefit may be given to the awardees beyond the award, the court observed that the "child awardee for exceptional achievements needs encouragement" and that the reservation was rightly introduced.
Case Title: Raji v Executive Magistrate/ The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
The Madras High Court has ordered reopening of a temple in Villupuram which was sealed in 2023 following caste related conflicts.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to reopen the Draupadi Amman temple. The court asked the government to take action against any person who attempted to create law and order problems. In March last year, the court had directed the Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE, Villupuram District to perform poojas in the temple but had emphasised that no one else will be allowed in the temple.
Case Title: ST Sivagnanan v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
The Madras High Court, on Monday, dismissed a plea seeking directions to the authorities to desist from issuing permission to conduct Maha Shivaratri celebrations at Isha Foundation in light of violations of pollution norms in previous celebrations. By doing so, the bench also allowed Isha to go ahead with its Mahasivarathri celebrations.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar took on record the affidavit filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board informing the court that Isha Foundation was well-equipped to deal with any solid, liquid or noise pollution that may arise during the Mahasivarathri festival in its Coimbatore premises on 26th and 27th of February 2025. The bench, noting that there was no reason to raise apprehensions, dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The Madras High Court stated that appeal can't be dismissed due to procedural delay, when assessee has complied statutory requirements including pre-deposit.
“The appeal should not be dismissed merely due to a procedural delay, especially when the petitioner has made an effort to comply with the statutory requirements, including the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments towards the disputed tax amount” stated the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh.
Case Title: Y Babu v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
The Madras High Court has referred to a larger bench the issue on whether subsequent bail applications filed by an accused should be listed before the roster bench even if the judge who had dealt with an earlier bail/anticipatory bail petition is available.
Justice Sunder Mohan referred the question to the larger bench after noting the Supreme Court's clarification in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. The Registrar General which the high court said had held that where the roster system is followed in many High Courts, the applications filed by the accused in the same FIR would have to be placed only before the roster Judge.
Justice Mohan was of the opinion that the Supreme Court's decision in the case was only a clarification with respect to the listing of bail applications filed by the accused in the same FIR and not with regard to the subsequent bail applications filed by the same accused.
Case Title: Poongundran and Others v. The State and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
The Madras High Court has quashed a case against members of the Dravidar Kazhagam for protesting against Hindi imposition in Egmore in 2022.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan quashed the FIR filed against Vice President Poongundran, General Secretary Anburaj, and Treasurer Kumaresan. They were booked by the Egmore Police for offences under Section 143(Punishment for member of unlawful assembly), 188(Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the IPC read with Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act for unlawful assembly and for disobeying the order promulgated by a public servant.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
The Madras High Court has recently held that when divorce is sought on the grounds of adultery, the alleged adulterer should be made a co-respondent if the details are known. The court also observed that if the details of the alleged adulterer is not known, the petitioner could be excused from the requirement of impleading the alleged adulterer.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that in Indian culture, being branded as an adulterer was not a badge of honor and the alleged adulterer should be given an opportunity to disprove the allegations made against him/her. The court added that if an opportunity was not given, the person would be condemned behind his back.
The court also noted that giving an opportunity to the alleged adulterer would discourage one from making reckless allegations as one would think twice before putting forth baseless allegations.
Case Title: S Gunasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
The Madras High Court recently upheld the compulsory retirement of a District Judge noting that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had assessed the materials and concluded that his continued service was not in the public interest.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that unless the material relied on by the administrative committee is shown to be irrelevant, tainted or with malice, the court could not interfere with the same.
The court observed that as a judicial officer, Gunasekar was bound to obey the circulars and the orders of the High Court. The court also observed that Gunasekar could not contend that he should be treated on par with other Government servants. The court also noted that to secure higher degree of probity and integrity, the High Court thought it fit to require judicial officers to provide information about the acquisition of assets by their family members even though it is out of their own funds.
Case Title: Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with an amendment made to Statute 25, Chapter IX, Volume 1, University Calendar 2016 of the Madras University through which the University decided to appoint Head of Departments on a rotational basis based on performance and merit of the professors of concerned departments.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the position was given as a designation and not a promotion to supervise the particular department. The bench added that the position did not alter the service conditions and thus could not be claimed as an absolute right by the professors.
The bench also noted that the headship was provided to represent, regulate, and monitor the activities in the department and was not a promotion. The court emphasized that even promotions could not be claimed as a right and what could be claimed was only a right to be considered for promotion.
The court noted that such rotational designation of the HOD post would enhance the efficiency in a department and would provide equal opportunity to all senior professors in the Department who may have their own expertise, ideas and vision. The court also added that before the amendment, the Senior most professor held the post till his retirement or promotion to higher rank which would, in effect, deny the opportunity of other senior professors who are all eligible to be designated as HODs.
Case Title: TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging the leasing out of temple land for building an Arts and Science College.
The division bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan noted that even though the requirements of Rule 2 (1) of the Alienation of Immovable Trust Property Rules 1960 have not been entirely complied with, the advantages of the purpose for which leasing was done would outweigh the procedural infractions.
The court also noted that while Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 and the rules provided the procedure to be followed during the alienation of immovable trust property, the act and the rule were silent on the consequences of non-compliance with the procedural requirements. Thus, the bench observed that in the absence of consequence of non-compliance, the word 'shall' used in the provisions could be said to be directory and not mandatory.
Case Title: M/s.United Breweries Limited v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals II)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the supply of holographic stickers or excise labels by the Prohibition and Excise Department which is to be affixed on manufactured and bottles alcoholic liquor is a supply of “goods” simplicitor and not a supply of “service”. The court thus ruled that such supply of holographic stickers would not be taxable under the GST enactments.
Justice C Saravanan noted that the holographic sticker was a label and therefore a good within the meaning of Section 2(52) of the CGST Act and the supply of label by the department had to be construed as a supply of “goods” and not a supply of “service”.
Case Title: Rajesh Anouar Mahimaidoss v Election Commission of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
While dismissing a plea seeking a system for educating voters against the corrupt practice of seeking votes in the name of religion, caste or language and uphold the Constitution of the country, the Madras High Court recently observed that the Indian Democracy, though 75 years old is still in its infancy.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that though a mandamus as sought for could not be issued, the court could only hope that things change and citizens as well as politicians change and not adopt caste or religion as the basis for contesting in election or for voting preference.
Case Title: Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam v. Regional Officer, CBFC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking direction to the Central Board of Film Certification to not certify the upcoming Tamil movie “Bad Girl”.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the plea noting the submission of the CBFC stating that till date, it had not received any application for censorship of the movie. The court added that even otherwise, the Board was equipped to perform its duty and would consider the application for censorship in accordance with law.
The observation was made on a petition filed by the President of Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam, an association to create unity and friendship among all community and help economically weaker people. The organisation also works for the development of Brahmins.
Case Title: Vendaraja v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man accused of setting his wife ablaze and killing her after noting that there was no legally acceptable evidence to connect him to the crime.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that though the woman had died in a tragic manner and there were matrimonial disputes between the couple, the accused could not be made liable unless there were legally acceptable evidence connecting him to the crime. The court also noted that the possibility of a suicide could also not be ruled out and the deceased could have committed suicide by self immolation.
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the Vendaraja, who was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court for offences under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. The case of prosecution was that he had set his wife ablaze.
The court opined that the trial court had casually brushed aside the discrepancies in witness testimonies and the recovery of material objects. The court noted that the deceased was a well-built woman, and her hands were not found tied. The court opined that it was difficult to believe that the accused had tied the legs of the deceased on his own and without anyone's aid.
Case Title: Prof. Dr. R. Manonmani and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
The Madras High Court has directed the State government to appoint professors specialising in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, General Surgery and Orthopaedics, to the post of Dean in Government Medical Colleges, whose promotion was delayed due to an oral order of the court and imposition of Model Code of Conduct (MCC) in light of the 2019 general elections.
Justice Anand Venkatesh in his order observed, “In the case in hand, there was an oral direction issued by the Madurai Bench of this Court not to issue the promotion and transfer order till a particular date and ultimately, those writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. This oral direction issued by the Madurai Bench of this Court should not act prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners, who would have otherwise got the promotion and transfer orders along with others on 28.2.2019 when the Medical Officers working in the other 22 specialities were issued with the promotion and transfer orders".
The court noted that the Government delayed the promotion of the individuals due to an oral instruction by the court asking the state not to issue any promotion order until a challenge to the same was heard. The court noted that the petitioners, who were otherwise eligible to be appointed as Deans, should not be denied the opportunity when they were not at fault. The court added that no person should suffer due to the act of the court.
Case Title: Bhuvaneswari and others v. M/s. Bvm Storage Solutions Pvt Ltd and Another.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the Insurance company would be liable to pay compensation to the family of the deceased even if the driver of the vehicle that was involved in the accident was under the influence of alcohol at the time.
Justice M Dhandapani followed a decision of the Kerala High Court in Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid vs. Girivasan E.K and held that even if the policy document had a condition that driving of vehicle in an intoxicated condition is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance company would still be liable to pay the compensation.
Case Title: Regina Begum v The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
Noting that a convicted prisoner has a right to marry, the Madras High Court recently granted emergency leave to a prisoner for 15 days with the necessary escort for his marriage. The court passed the orders on January 3rd, 2025, enabling the prisoner to solemnize his marriage that was to take place on January 15, 2025.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima relied on Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982 which states that an emergency leave may be granted to a prisoner for attending death or serious illness of father, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter, full brother or full sister, or the wedding of the prisoner or son, daughter, full brother or full sister and for delivery outside the prison in case of female pregnant prisoner.
The court remarked that when the rule expressly provides for the grant of leave, the court could not contrarily dispose of such pleas. The court also disagreed with the practice adopted by some jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, where a life convict was not granted the right to marry.
Case Title: L V Sarojini v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
The Madras High Court recently observed that fixed deposits in Banks, jewels, etc would come within the definition of “property” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The court thus noted that a complaint under Section 23 of the Act was maintainable when the daughter failed to maintain the mother after having fixed deposits transferred in her name.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan reiterated that the 2007 Act was a beneficial legislation that must be given a liberal construction in consonance with the objective of the Act. The court added that the Act was aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, and when two views was possible, the court should interpret it in favour of the beneficiaries.
Case Title: C. Ganesan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
Promoting its idea for a casteless society, the Madras High Court recently observed that no caste could claim ownership of a temple and that administering a temple by a particular caste was not a religious practice that could be protected under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that only if a group followed a particular philosophy or had a distinct way of carrying their faith could a group be called a denomination. The court added that the caste itself was not a religious denomination, and when no religious denomination or essential religious practice was involved, no protection could be granted under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The court also added that the exceptions under Articles 25 and 26 should always be tested within the secular fabric and should stand scrutiny of the Constitutional goal.
Case Title: The State v MK Alagiri
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
The Madras High Court on Tuesday allowed a revision petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the order of a Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, discharging former Union Minister MK Alagiri from offences under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC in a case for allegedly encroaching on temple land for building a college.
The court also dismissed a revision petition filed by Alagiri against the order of the Magistrate refusing to discharge him from offences under Section 120B and 408 of the IPC in the same case.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that as per the submissions, there were no grounds for discharging the Minister from the criminal case. Rather, the court observed that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with Alagiri's prosecution.
Case Title: B Manickam Tagore v. V Vijaya Prabakaran and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed an application filed by Congress MP Manickam Tagore seeking to reject an election petition challenging his victory from the Virudhunagar Parliamentary Constituency in the 2024 General Assembly Elections.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the disputed issues had to be tried with reference to the documents and evidence to be produced by the parties. The court added that it could not decide the disputed facts and issues at the stage of rejecting the election petition as it could not form an opinion at that stage. Noting that the exercise has to be done by the court at the time of dealing with the election petition and noting that there were allegations with regard to provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, the court was not inclined to reject the election petition.
Case Title: Nupur J Sharma And Another v. The Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against the CEO of OpIndia, Rahul Roushan, and its Editor, Nupur Sharma, for allegedly spreading fake news about migrant workers of Bihar being attacked in Tamil Nadu.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, on Tuesday (4th March), allowed the plea filed by Rahul and Nupur in 2023 seeking to quash the FIR registered against them by the Avadi Police.
The Thiruninravur Police in the Avadi City Police Commissionerate had registered the case under Sections 153A, 501, and 505 of the IPC for making statements and publishing defamatory content, thus promoting enmity between different groups of people. The case was registered upon a complaint lodged by Suryaprakash, a member of the IT Wing of the ruling DMK party. In his complaint, Suryaprakash stated that the portal had published fake news, which could create conflict and a sense of fear among the migrant workers in the State. He also stated that the news could cause disruption to public tranquility.
Case Title: News Tamil 24x7 v. Shruthi Thilak and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
The Madras High Court has recently refused to interfere with an order of the Special Judge for POCSO cases, Chennai, directing registration of an FIR against a Tamil news channel for allegedly revealing the identity of a victim in a POCSO case. As per Section 23 of the Act, media is restricted from disclosing the identity of the child, including name, address, photograph, family details, etc and any contravention of the rules is punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than 6 months but may extend to 1 year or with fine or both.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that no prejudice would be caused to the news channel if an FIR was registered and an investigation was carried on by the jurisdictional police. The court added that mere irregularity by the Special Judge could not be treated as an illegality. Further, considering the seriousness of the offence, the court was not inclined to set aside the order or stay the investigation.
Case Title: Venkatesh Sowrirajan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
The Madras High Court has asked various Temple authorities to ensure that only devotional songs are played by the orchestra that it may engage during any temple festival.
Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy was dealing with a petition stating that movie songs being sung inside temples is inappropriate. The court observed that orchestra arranged by the temple should ensure that only devotional songs are played inside the temple and should avoid playing non-devotional songs.
Case Title: Y Babu v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
While answering a reference made by a single judge, a division bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that all successive bail applications/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR/Crime Number shall be listed before the judge holding the roster.
On February 21, Justice Sunder Mohan had referred to a larger bench the issue on whether subsequent bail applications filed by an accused should be listed before the roster bench even if the judge who had dealt with an earlier bail/anticipatory bail petition is available.
Thus answering the reference, a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran confirmed that if there was a change in the roster when the successive bail petition came up, the judge dealing with the successive application should give weightage to the views expressed by his predecessor judge who dealt with the previous application.
Case Title: ML Ravi v Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the election of DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran from the Chennai Central constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.
Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the plea filed by Advocate ML Ravi, who had also contested the election from the same constituency for Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi. The court also allowed a plea filed by Maran seeking to delete certain parts of the election petition.
In his plea, Ravi claimed that the election to the Chennai Central constituency was not free and fair and alleged that there were corrupt practices during the election. He thus sought to declare the election to the constituency null and void.
Case Title: Ammavasithevar v. KR Chitran and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
A division bench of the Madras High Court has upheld the decision of a single judge directing all political parties, communal and other organizations in the State to remove permanent flagpoles erected by them on public places, including national highways, lands belonging to the government, etc.
The division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice S Srimathy dismissed an appeal filed against the single judge's order, noting that there was no reason to interfere with the same.
In January this year, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed all political parties in the State to remove the permanent flagpoles erected by them in public land within 12 months. The single judge also directed the concerned authorities to take appropriate action if the parties failed to comply with the orders of the court.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. The Principal Secretary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 5 Lakh on the State of Tamil Nadu for filing a writ appeal in a matter that had already attained finality through the order of the Supreme Court.
Dismissing the appeal filed by the State, Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the appeal was a “re-agitation” of a matter that had already been settled by a division bench of the Court and approved by the Supreme Court. Thus, the court imposed a cost directing the state to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the sanitary worker whose appointment was challenged and the remaining Rs. 2,50,000 to be paid to the Madras High Court Legal Services Authority.
Case Title: Dr S John William v. Loyola College (Autonomous)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
The Madras High Court recently observed that every individual has a right to complain of certain misdeeds, and merely because the complaint was not proved or not substantiated with materials, the individual could not be dismissed from service.
In doing so, Justice C Kumarappan modified the order of dismissal from service imposed on an Associate professor to that of compulsory retirement. The court also directed the college to pay all monetary benefits and other attendant benefits to the professor. The court noted that dismissing the professor from service at the fag end of his career when he had been serving the institution for more than 20 years was shockingly disproportionate.
Noting that the remedy should not be worse than the disease, the court emphasised that the punishment should always be commensurate with the gravity of the guilt. The court observed that in service jurisprudence, the Disciplinary Authority to always consider various factors, including the long period of service, promotions, period remaining for superannuation, etc.
Case Title: Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v. MA Noor Jehan Beevi and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
The Madras High Court has directed the Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department (CBCID) to investigate the genuineness of a law firm and its associates after noting that the lawyers had been indulging in forum shopping, misrepresenting the court, and attempting to legalise their illegal activities.
Justice Jagadish Chandira thus ordered a special team to be formed for investigation headed by an officer above the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the genuineness of the police complaints filed against the parties. The court also directed the team to enquire into the role played by the law firm and its associates in the land case and details of any pending case against the firm and its people.
The court also directed all police personnel in the state to strictly adhere to the Standard Operating Procedures in registering complaints and issuing CSRs and to take necessary legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor if any complaint relating to immovable property had to be closed as one of civil in nature.
Case Title: S Shankar v. The Deputy Director
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attaching property worth Rs. 10 crore of Tamil filmmaker S Shankar in a copyright infringement case in connection with the 2010 movie 'Enthiran'.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar stayed the provisional attachment order on a plea moved by the Director. The ED had attached the property on February 17 following a complaint by Arur Tamilnadan claiming that Shankar had violated his copyright as the story of the movie was inspired by his story – Jugiba. Since offences under the Copyright Act are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the ED had passed the order provisionally attaching the property.
Case Title: United India Insurance v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Madras High Court has set aside a notice issued by the Chennai Metri Rail Limited proposing to acquire the property belonging to United India Insurance for construction of metro station in connection with the Phase-II project of CMRL.
Justice Anand Venkatesh held that it was open for the CMRL to acquire the property of a nearby temple, as per its original plan. Borrowing the words of the Kerala High Court in a recentdecision, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the almighty would show kindness and benevolence on all for the development of metro station, which would benefit lakhs of people.
The court also noted that lands belonging to religious institutions were not exempt from land acquisition and such acquisition of the temple lands would not be in violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Case Title: A Devika v. The Senior Branch Manager and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
The Madras High Court has recently held that while disbursing the amount under an insurance policy, the Insurance company was only expected to disburse the amount to the beneficiary nominee or collector nominee named in the policy and need not go into any dispute regarding the legal heirs.
Relying on an earlier order of the Madras High Court, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that when a person has been named a beneficiary nominee in the policy, they would be entitled to make a claim for the entire amount of the policy unlike a collecting nominee, who receives the amount in trust to be distributed to all legal heirs.
Case Title: M. Gunasekaran v. The District Registrar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
The Madras High Court has clarified that pleadings in a civil suit is not a document or instrument to be registered under the Registration Act or the Stamp Act. The court added that authorities cannot entertain the pleadings or make entries regarding the same in the encumbrance certificate.
Justice Anand Venkatesh made the observations noting that previously, the courts have ruled in favour of registering pleadings to ensure that an innocent purchaser is not put into distress. The court observed that though the earlier directions were well intended, it had a flip side to it and if allowed to continue, it would result in more confusion.
Case Title: The District Collector and Others v. P Naveen Kumar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Madras High Court has set aside an order of a single judge allowing Angapradakshinam, a ritual of devotees rolling over the plantain leaves on which other devotees had consumed food.
The division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice G Arul Murugan set aside an order passed by Justice GR Swaminathan in May 2024. The court noted that whether such a practice was against the public morality or order could not be decided by the High Court at this point since the Supreme Court was already seized of a similar issue arising from the Karnataka High Court.
At the same time, the court opined that the practice did not appear to directly offend the public order or morality. With respect to public health, the court noted that there was no proof, document or literature to suggest that the practice of rolling over the used leaves would be a health hazard. The court noted that when a particular group wanted to perform the ritual to fulfil their vow, believing that they would get the blessings of god, it could not be said to offend the public order. Agreeing that there was no scientific proof for such practices, the court observed that every religious practice was based on belief and scientific evidence could not be sought for the same.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
While granting divorce to a police constable, the Madras High Court recently observed that the wife's complaint against him alleging that he had an extra-marital affair and that he had a connection with terrorist organizations could not be ignored as the same would cause severe mental torture and would amount to mental cruelty.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima also noted that the wife had left the minor child with the husband without taking care of the child, which would show that she was not interested in saving the matrimonial relationship.
Case Title: The Secretary and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
The Madras High Court has held that the State Minority Commission does not have any locus standi to call for records from a minority educational institution to verify its adoption of the reservation rule.
Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that minority educational institutions were exempt from the purview of Article 15(5) which gave power to the State to make special provisions of law for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes relating to admission to educational institutions, including private institutions.
Case Title: Arasu S v. The Tahsildar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
The Madras High Court has recently observed that while applying for a legal heirship certificate, if no proof is available to determine who the legal heirs are, the authorities may prepare a report based on the affidavit given by the applicant and five affidavits of persons knowing the family, like a neighbour or a relative.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that when there is no rival claim, each and every fact cannot be verified, and the authority was expected to make the best judgment based on the available materials.
Case Title: MH Jawaharulla v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
The Madras High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed against the conviction of MLA MH Jawaharulla and other members of the Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) in a case involving the receipt of foreign funds. The court thus confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on Jawaharulla.
Justice P Velmurugan, however, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) not to arrest Jawaharulla for a period of one month considering the holy month of Ramzan was ongoing and Jawaharulla, along with the other revision petitioners, was observing fast for Ramzan. The court made it clear that the agency would execute the order of the Magistrate Court after a period of one month if the petitioners had not obtained a stay on the sentence.
Case Title: Kajendran J v. The Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
Noticing the routine manner in which every child in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) was being subjected to medical examination mechanically, the Madras High Court has asked the doctors and hospitals to conduct medical examinations based on the nature of the complaint.
A special bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan, which has been monitoring the implementation of the POCSO Act, observed that though Section 27 of the POCSO Act provided for medical examination of a child against whom 'any' offence had been committed, when the Section was read with Section 164A of the CrPC, it had to be understood that the medical examination was with respect to cases in which there was a penetrative sexual assault.
However, the court added that medical examination could not be done away with for all cases falling under Sections 7,9, and 11 of the Act. The court was conscious that there may be cases where though the offence was that of sexual assault, the child might have suffered injury that needed to be examined. Thus, the court asked the doctors examining the child to decide on the tests to be conducted based on the complaint of the child.
Case Title: V. Samburanam v. District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
The Madras High Court has asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate all appropriate actions to ensure that the issuance of bogus community certificates is stopped in the state, and action has to be taken to prosecute those who are involved in securing such bogus community certificates.
Noting that there was a big racket going on in the State, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that if proper action were not taken, it would defeat the very object of bringing in reservation. The court thus asked the State to ensure that only genuine persons who belong to the community are entitled to avail the benefits of reservation.
The court noted that through the bogus community certificate, the persons were availing reservation and such other facilities under different government schemes. The court thus directed the government to ensure that the correctness of certificates is verified. The court added that when a reference certificate was given to the authorities, the authenticity of the same is verified and if found incorrect, action should be taken to cancel the reference certificate.
Case Title: Vijay Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act. Section 13 states that no party to a suit or proceeding shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner as a right.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran dismissed the plea noting that no further adjudication was required in the matter as the legal position was already settled.
The petitioner had argued that the section infringed the advocate's right to practice in court as provided under the Advocates Act 1961. It was argued that a legal practitioner's right was absolute under the Advocates Act and thus any prohibition on the same was unsustainable. It was also submitted that when advocates were not allowed to represent, the litigants would find it difficult to defend their cases.
Case Title: S. Mayalagu v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court has stressed that courts should be slow to ignore delay once the limitation period for a particular suit expires and the action becomes time-barred.
Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the statute relating to limitation determines the life span of a legal remedy and as time passes, newer causes would come up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy. Remarking that time is precious, the court thus noted that if the life span of legal remedy was not followed, it may lead to unending uncertainty and anarchy.
Case Title: Seeman v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to club all FIRs registered against Naam Tamilar Katchi party chief Seeman for his alleged comments against Periyar.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea after observing that the plea sought an omnibus relief without mentioning the details of the FIRs registered against Seeman, without impleading the police stations where the FIRs were registered, and without impleading the complainants. Wondering how the registry even numbered the petition without the details, the court dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Kavitha Anand c. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
Justifying the upper age limit prescribed for women under the provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021, the Madras High Court recently observed that a woman who uses ART services for begetting a child is duty-bound to take care of the child till he/she attains majority. The court thus held that the woman must be biologically and financially capable of supporting the child for 18 years.
Justice S Sounthar also noted that there was a higher risk in pregnancy after the age of 50 years and it was considering such factors, that the legislature decided to fix an upper age limit to apply for the ART.
Case Title: Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Secretary, TNPSC and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant relief to a candidate with 60% locomotive disability who had failed to sign his answer sheet while attending the Combined Civil Services Examination-IV (Group-IV Services) examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the commission had provided clear instructions to the candidates and in such cases, the court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not modify or relax the conditions. The court added that "acceding" to the request of the candidate would be far exceeding the scope of the examination and changing the rules of the game.
The court further underscored that the rules could not be changed for a "particular candidate who had omitted to affix the signature". The court remarked that a different approach could not be taken as there would be other candidates who would have committed irregularities in answering the examination and allowing the plea would open gates for them to approach the court for consideration.
Case Title: Gillette Diversified Operations vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
Finding that the refund claim was filed within two years from the “relevant date” as defined in Explanation 2(a) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act , the Madras High Court recently clarified that a refund claim cannot be denied on the basis of retrospective operation of the Proviso to Rule 90(3) pf the CGST Rules.
The High Court clarified this upon finding that the refund claims filed in the portal on Sep 21, 2018, Oct 09, 2018 and Oct 10, 2018, were within two years from the date of exports made during July 2017, August 2017 and September 2017, in time in terms of Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST.
Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that since Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which deals with “acknowledgement of refund claim”, was inserted with effect from May 18, 2021, vide Notification No.15/2021-CT, the same cannot be given retrospective effect for denying refund on unutilized ITC claimed within the limitation period.
Case Title: S Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court has recently observed that under the Senior Citizens Act, love and affection is an implied condition under Section 23(1) of the Act and it is not necessary to have an explicit mention of the same in the settlement deed.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran noted that the Act was meant to safeguard the security and dignity of the senior citizen. The court noted that when a senior citizen made a transfer of property, it was not just a legal act but an act made with the hope of being cared for in their old age. Thus, the court noted that when the transferee did not provide the promised care, the senior citizen could invoke Section 23(1) to have the transfer annulled.
The court held that the Act, being a beneficial piece of legislation was to be interpreted liberally to ensure that the intent of the legislation is fulfilled and the rights and dignity of senior citizens are effectively protected. The court added that when two or more views were possible, it was the duty of the court to interpret the provision to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning. The court emphasised that if the usual meaning of the language in the Act does not capture the legislature's objective, a broader interpretation may be applied, provided the words support the meaning.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
The Madras High Court has observed that a wife watching pornography or engaging in self pleasure by itself was not cruelty upon the husband unless it was proved that the same affected the matrimonial relationship.
The Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the fundamental right of privacy included spousal privacy also and the contours of spousal privacy included a woman's sexual autonomy. Highlighting that self pleasure was not a forbidden fruit, the court noted that even after marriage, the woman continued to retain her individuality and her fundamental identity could not be subsumed by spousal status.
The court also remarked that when self-pleasure among men was acknowledged universally, the same among women could not be stigmatized. From a biological perspective, the court also noted that while men could not establish conjugal relationships after self-pleasure, it was not the case with women. The court thus highlighted that unless it was shown that the spouse was treated with cruelty, the conduct of the wife, in watching porn or indulging in self-pleasure could not attract Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Title: B Kavitha v. The Registrar General
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Criticizing the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal and the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur for denying maternity benefit to an Office Assistant, the Madras High Court has held that when there was no dispute regarding the marriage, the employer should not seek proof beyond reasonable doubt for granting the maternity benefit.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the action of the Magistrate was wholly unwarranted and inhumane. The bench added that when prima facie evidence was available, the Magistrate seemed to have fished for reasons and rejected the maternity leave application. Thus, the court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the woman for the mental agony suffered by her due to the respondents' actions.
Case Title: Boopalan B v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by an ex-serviceman who claimed that the Defence Space Agency was targeting him with the help of 'radiation' which caused severe health conditions and sought an inquiry into the 'Havana Syndrome' in India.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the man did not produce any medical records to establish such reactions in his body.
The court was hearing the plea of B Boopalan, who claimed that due to high-frequency microwave radiation used by the Defence Space Agency against him, he is suffering from health issues. He submitted that he could feel the unknown high-frequency microwave radiations across his body including hitting on spinal area, harming on eyes, tongue and nose and brain, headache chilling and severe aches in his body.
Case Title: South Ganga Waters Technologies (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory Mr.Vijay Ramesh, Chennai vs Vedanta Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once a party nominates an arbitrator in response to a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), it cannot later argue in a petition under Section 11 of the Act that the claim for which the notice was issued is time-barred.
The court observed that while deciding a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the law is now well settled that the referral court will have to look only into the prima-facie existence of the arbitration clause and once the court is satisfied that there exists an arbitration clause, necessarily, the court will have to refer the dispute to arbitration.
Case Title: State v. Govindaswamy and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
While setting aside the acquittal of a customs officer for amassing wealth disproportionate to his income, the Madras High Court recently remarked that corruption in India has gone into unimaginable ratio.
Quoting the prophecies of Jesus, Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that the philosophy of life should be not to take bribes.
The court found the officer's wife guilty of the offences and refused to quash the case against her. The court added that corruption starts from home, and when the homemaker herself becomes a party to the corruption, there would be no end. The court also emphasised the need to fight corruption from home.
Case Title: Marudhu Pandi v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
While refusing to set aside the conviction of a man for murder, the Madras High Court held that wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased could not prove that there was grave and sudden provocation for bringing in an exception.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima held that to prove grave and sudden provocation, the individual, due to extreme emotional distress caused by provocative action or circumstances, should lose self-control and commit a wrongful act, potentially leading to death. The court added that to prove an offence as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it must be shown that the accused was provoked by an act of the deceased. In the present case, though the court agreed that there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased, there was no proof that the deceased had provoked the accused to commit murder.
Case Title: Mohammed Faruk v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Madras High Court recently criticised the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases for rejecting applications filed by accused persons under Section 317 CrPC on the ground that the accused had already filed such petitions. The court thus recalled an NBW issued by the special court.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the trial courts should not issue NBWs without application of mind and have held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally when facts and circumstances require such an exemption. The bench thus noted that the special court was being consistently insensitive to the settled proposition of law.
Case Title: Prasanna Sankaranarayanan v The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu state police not to harass Rippling co-founder in connection with an enquiry into his alleged matrimonial dispute with his estranged wife.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan asked the police not to harass the petitioner in a complaint filed by his wife.
Prasanna has alleged that the police authorities had been conducting a roving enquiry into his whereabouts and were visiting his mother's house. He also alleged that the police had illegally arrested his friend, in an attempt to know his location and were threatening to register an FIR against him. He also informed the court that the police had raided his vacation home in Chennai and seized the phone of the caretaker, along with the CCTV cameras. Thus, citing urgency, he sought for directions to the police not to harass him in connection with the enquiry.