Madras High Court Quarterly Digest: January to March 2026 [Citations 01 - 135]
CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 NOMINAL INDEX Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and...
CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
NOMINAL INDEX
Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
K.V.Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
A Karthik v. Mrs Rashmi Siddharth Zagade and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
I Periyasamy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
Freshtohome Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
Amman Try Trading Company Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy v. Raj Television Network Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
Origin Nutrition Private Limited v. Ms Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
Elizabeth F. Santhi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
P Naveenprasad v/s Homes Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. v. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
A Radhakrishnan v The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Gemini Communication Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
S Devi v. The Principal Secretary to the Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
T Rangaraj v. Ms Joy Crizildaa, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
Commissioner of Income-tax Coimbatore v. M/s Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
P Murugan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
SASTRA Deemed University v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamilnadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
K Kandasamy v. P Natarajan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
Prabhakaran v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
Amit Malviya v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
P Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
A Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
G Thirukalyanamalar v State Bank of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
P Balasubramaniyam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
Murugammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
Ponmudi v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
H Vennila v. State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
V v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
A.V.B.Prabhu v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
M/s KVN Productions v. Central Board of Film Certification and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. v M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
Jawahar Rajan v The Regional Passport Officer and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Zee Media Corporation Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
High Court Of Madras v. Ashok Surana, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
Bhagavathiraj v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
N.Kumar v. District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
N Ganesh Agarwal v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department & Ors. v. K. Marimuthu & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
The Accountant General v. M Radhakrishnan and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
S Muneeswaran and Another v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
Government of Tamil Nadu and Others v. M Rajesh Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Nagarajan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
M/s. Seyadu Beedi Company v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam v The Chief Election Commissioner and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
KMC College of Law v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
Under Secretary to Government and Others v. Dr Ajitha and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
Sowdhamani v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
N Samaran v. The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
KS Balakrishnan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
K. Athinarayanan v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
V Shiva v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Others v. N.K. Shankar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
Union of India and Others v. B Shankar Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr.Balaraman Palaniappan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
Chellamanickam v. The Principle Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
Vaiko v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
B Shyam and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust and another v. Government of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
Mrs Magitha Anna Christy v. State Human Rights Commission and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
M Kalaiselvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
MS Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
VBR Menon v. The Chief Controller of Explosives and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
Porkodi v. Siva and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
Mahesh v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
State of Tamil Nadu and another v. V Shunmugam, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
E Hariharan v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
B Shajimon v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Deputy Director v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
A Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
Nandhini v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
Gurumurthi and Another v. The District Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
Selvi v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
V Ponramu and Another v. The Registrar, SHRC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
R Viswanathan @ MGR Viswanathan v. The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
Vaiko and Others v. The Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
S Kumarasamy v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
R Vembu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
S. Selvaganesh v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
XXX v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
S Prabhu v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
C Selvakumar v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
REPORTS
Case Title: Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
The Madras High Court recently remarked that preventive detention laws were draconian and the state could not use it to settle political scores or silence the dissenting voice.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal held that the authorities should exercise the detention power sparingly and with extreme caution. The bench added that the courts should take a serious view whenever these powers were not used by the authorities in good faith.
The court also added that whenever it was established that the detention was in a callous manner, with extraneous consideration or for settling political scores, the State should take appropriate disciplinary action against the officer.
Case Title: C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
The Madras High Court held that the Long-Term Capital Gains exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely because the residential house was demolished before its sale.
The bench stated that since the sale took place later and the assessee reinvested the capital gains in another house within the prescribed time, the exemption is allowable.
Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi stated that Sections 54 and 54F are not two sides of the same coin. They are stand-alone provisions requiring satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein. Any claim for relief by an assessee can be considered and granted by the authorities only if a claim is made indicating compliance with those conditions.
Case Title: Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
The Madras High Court recently remarked that if no permission was necessary to erect a stone pillar for honouring Stan Swamy in patta land, no such permission was necessary for erecting a war memorial also.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus allowed the construction of a stupa for honouring the Natham Kanawai War.
The judge recalled that in a recent order, the High Court had allowed construction of stone pillar for Stan Swamy with his picture, in a private patta land. The court noted that while many saw swamy as a fighter for tribal rights, it was also true that he was arrested in a UAPA case and died in prison. The court then remarked that if no permission was necessary for that construction, it wasn't necessary for a war memorial also.
Case Title: M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
The Madras High Court has reiterated that animal sacrifice would not be permitted at the Thiruparankundram hills in the Madurai District.
Justice S Srimathy directed the managing trustee of the Hazrat Sulthan Sikkanthar Bhadhusha Dargha to conduct only the Urus festival (sandalwood festival) with 50 persons. The court also restrained the dargah from carrying animal meet, cooking or carrying non-vegetarian food. The court added that the direction must be followed from the base of the hill till its top.
Madras High Court Refuses To Halt Release Of Parasakthi Movie Over Allegations Of 'Stolen Script'
Case Title: K.V.Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to halt the release of Sivakarthikeyan starrer “Parasakthi” movie following a plea alleging that the movie's script was stolen.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed an application filed to restrain the release of the movie or continuing to permit its exhibition in theatres and OTT platforms. The court noted that the main prayer was to not permit director Sudha Kongara and others associate their names with the movie, and so the interim relief travelled beyond the scope of the main prayer.
The court also noted that Rajendran became aware about production of the movie in 2023 but had filed the suit in 2025. Thus, the court observed that the balance of convenience was not in favour of Rajendran and he could still claim damages even if the movie is released.
Noting that the Rajendran had not made out a case for grant of interim, the court dismissed the application.
Case Title: A Karthik v. Mrs Rashmi Siddharth Zagade and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
The Madras High Court recently remarked that that God or an Idol will never harm any person and the authorities cannot act on superstitions to remove idols from a person's house alleging that it has caused unnatural deaths in the locality.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ordered that a person can keep any idol in his own premises and worship peacefully by even inviting his friends or neighbors. The court added that the public cannot take law into their hands as a majority might and remove the idols.
Case Title: I Periyasamy v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Tamil Nadu Minister for Rural Development I Periyasamy and his family members challenging an ECIR registered against them by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the parties had filed the plea without approaching the adjudicating authority first. The bench thus directed them to approach the adjudicating authority as per law. The court added that if the parties were aggrieved by the orders of the adjudicating authority, they can file necessary pleas at such point of time.
Case Title: The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Tuesday (January 6) upheld a single judge's order directing lighting of the lamp at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparakundram hills near a dargah.
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan, while pronouncing the order, held that the order of single judge is not hit by res judicata as the issue was not decided in earlier litigations.
The bench said that the appellants–including the state authorities, Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah– had failed to produce formidable evidence to show that agama shastra prevented the lighting of the lamp at the site.
ALSO READ: Thiruparankundram Hill Row : Madras High Court Rejects Argument That 'Deepathoon' Was A Survey Stone
Madras High Court Upholds Trade Marks Registry Order Rejecting “Fresh Not Frozen” Mark
Case Title: Freshtohome Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Freshtohome Foods Private Limited, a Bangalore-based online grocery delivery platform against a 2019 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting its trademark application for the brand “FRESH NOT FROZEN”.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025.
The court held that the proposed mark was deceptively similar to an existing registered trademark, “FRESH N FROZEN”, which covers similar food-related retail services. The court said customers were likely to be confused at first glance.
Madras High Court Sets Aside GST Demand For Not Considering CBIC Circulars Cited By Taxpayer
Case Name: Amman Try Trading Company Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
The Madras High Court has set aside a GST demand on a corporate guarantee after finding that the tax department failed to consider CBIC circulars relied upon by the taxpayer while raising the assessment.
Allowing the writ petition, Justice G R Swaminathan held that an assessment order cannot survive if the tax department fails to consider the defence raised by the taxpayer.
The court held, “When a defense raised by the noticee is not considered in the final order, the order is vulnerable on that ground. On the ground of non-consideration of the contentions raised by the assessee, the impugned order is set aside.”
Case Title: Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy v. Raj Television Network Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The Madras High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction against a YouTuber accused of illegally streaming Tamil films claimed by Raj Television Network Limited.
The case centres on the Tamil films 16 Vayathinile, Kalangarai Vilakkam and Kudiyirundha Kovil. Raj Television says it holds exclusive copyright over these films, including their digital and streaming rights.
Justice N Senthilkumar, in an order passed on December 12, 2025, rejected Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy's plea to lift an ex parte injunction granted earlier this year in Raj Television's copyright infringement suit.
Case Title: Origin Nutrition Private Limited v. Ms Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
The Madras High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Origin Nutrition Private Limited, a maker of vegan protein products, in its trademark infrigment dispute with Tech7 Phyll Private Limited over the use of the name “ORIGIN/ORIGIN FRESH” for selling fruits and vegetables.
In an order dated December 19, 2025, Justice N Senthilkumar said that “ORIGIN” is a common, generic word and cannot be claimed as an exclusive trademark.
The court also pointed out that the two companies are in very different lines of business and serve different kinds of customers, leaving little room for any real confusion.
Buried Body Can't Be Exhumed Based On Sentiments Alone: Madras High Court Rejects Widow's Plea
Case Title: Elizabeth F. Santhi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
The Madras High Court recently rejected a woman's plea to exhume her deceased husband's body from the church cemetery.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that the wife had not shown any compelling reasons to exhume the body and as such the exhumation could not be ordered on mere sentiments.
The court highlighted that the right to decent burial was encompassed within the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court also highlighted that the disinterment or exhumation of the bodily remains stands on a different footing.
Case title: P Naveenprasad v/s Homes Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
While hearing an urgent petition challenging the publication of a book allegedly making personal attacks against Justice GR Swaminathan, the Madras High Court on Wednesday (January 7) directed the police to seize copies of such publication and also asked the authorities to ensure such scandalous publication does not take place.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan has also initiated suo moto contempt action against the publisher.
This comes, in the wake of the decision delivered on Tuesday by the division bench at Madurai, which has upheld Justice GR Swaminathan's order directing lighting of a lamp on a at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparakundram hills near a dargah.
Madras High Court Quashes CESTAT Chennai Order For Deciding Issues Not Under Appeal
Case Title: Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. v. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
The Madras High Court has pulled up the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai for overstepping its mandate, quashing its order and holding that the Tribunal cannot decide issues that were never appealed before it.
A Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi said that although Section 129-B of the Customs Act, 1962 confers wide powers on the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, those powers are not unbridled.
Madras High Court Allows US Inventor's Late Patent Examination Request Despite Indian Agent's Error
Case Title: Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
The Madras High Court has directed the Indian Patent Office to accept and process a request for examination filed by a US-based inventor, holding that a patent application cannot be treated as abandoned due to an inadvertent mistake by a patent agent.
The court ruled that in the absence of any intention to give up the invention, such procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Smythe challenging the Patent Office's refusal to accept his request for examination in relation to an invention titled “Prediction, Visualisation and Remediation of Satellite Conjunctions.”
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (January 07) directed the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary to constitute district-level monitoring committees to ensure that the orderly system is completely abolished in the state.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan directed the committee to be formulated within 2 weeks.
The committee shall be headed by the respective District Collectors and will have one revenue officer not below the rank of District Revenue Officer. It will further have two police officials not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police, who are to be directly nominated by the District Collector.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Gemini Communication Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court has held that from May 14, 2007, companies had to file their income tax returns electronically, and that paper returns filed after that date carry no legal validity
A bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar rejected a claim for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, holding that electronic filing of returns was a mandatory requirement for availing the benefit.
Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Relief To 93 Chennai Port Spillage Workers
Case Title: The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by the Chennai Port Authority, refusing to set aside an arbitral award that directed the port to reinstate spillage-handling workers and grant back wages, gratuity and other service benefits to 93 workers.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that the award did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality and did not conflict with public policy.
The court observed that the Port Trust, as a State instrumentality, is “is expected to act with a higher degree of fairness than ordinary employers”.
Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Wipro's 'PREMIO' Trademark On Crompton Greaves Plea
Case Title: Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “PREMIO” trademark registered in favour of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited. The Court found that the mark had not been put to genuine commercial use for more than five years.
Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on December 16, 2025. He allowed a rectification plea filed by Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, a Mumbai-based consumer electricals manufacturer.
The court held that the disputed mark was liable to be removed from the Register of Trademarks. It observed that “the petitioner has made out a case that after registering their trademark, the 1st respondent has not done anything to carry out the trade by using the trademark for a period of more than five years.”
Case Title: S Devi v. The Principal Secretary to the Government
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, directed the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) to permit only 300 shops at Marina Beach in Chennai.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira said that the shops would be selling three categories of items – (i) Eatables, (ii) Toys and related goods, and (iii) Fancy goods or souvenirs. The bench added that 100 shops could be allotted to each category, but also gave liberty to the GCC to make alterations in the number of shops in each category
The bench also directed that the shops should be allocated through draw of lots and the entire process must be conducted under the supervision of a retired high court judge. The court said that it would pass further orders for appointing a retired high court judge to supervise the allotment procedure.
Case Title: T Rangaraj v. Ms Joy Crizildaa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
The Madras High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of celebrity chef Madhampatty Rangaraj restraining celebrity stylist Joy Crizildaa from making social media posts against the former.
Justice N Sentilkumar noted that there could not be a blanket order restricting a person from exercising their right to express their views. The court noted that if Rangaraj wanted to restrain posts against him, he had to establish that there was commercial exploitation of his personality rights.
Case Title: Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
The Madras High Court has dismissed a patent revocation plea filed by Maya Appliances Private Limited, a Chennai-based company, seeking to revoke a food processor patent held by Versuni Holding B.V., a Netherlands-based home appliances company.
In an order passed on December 19, 2025, Justice N. Senthilkumar allowed Versuni's application seeking rejection of the revocation proceedings, holding that the challenge was not maintainable since the very same issue had already been raised in a pending patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Alloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra, the Court reiterated that, “once a defence available to the first respondent herein has been exercised, the same cannot be re-agitated before any other forum or in any other manner.”
Case Title: M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 9) directed the Central Board of Film Certification to forthwith grant U/A certificate to upcoming Tamil movie "Jana Nayagan" starring Vijay.
Justice PT Asha while pronouncing the order said: "After examining materials, it is crystal clear that the complainant's grievance appears to be an after thought".
The court said that entertaining such complaints would give rise to "dangerous trend".
The Court said that the action was without jurisdiction and once the modifications recommended by the examining committee is carried out, the certificate for the film would automatically follow.
Case Title: Commissioner of Income-tax Coimbatore v. M/s Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
The Madras High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke its revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by proceeding on an incorrect assumption about the nature of a transaction. The court ruled that such powers cannot be exercised where a demerger is wrongly treated as an amalgamation.
Dismissing the revenue's appeal, a bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar said the Commissioner had failed to first establish any error in the assessment order before ordering a revision.
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 9) temporarily stayed the single judge's order delivered earlier today directing CBFC to forthwith grant U/A Certificate for Tamil film 'Jana Nayagan' starring Vijay.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan in its order dictated:
"Respondent Union of India was not given sufficient time..one main grievance of UoI was that they were not given time to reply. Another grievance is that letter dated January 6 was not challenged, but court (single judge) quashed it. Respondents argue that there was no urgency... All said and done there was no certificate granted to respondents".
Thereafter the bench stayed the single judge's order.
Case Title: Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court on Monday (January 12) passed a John Doe order protecting personality rights of renowned actor and Rajya Sabha MP Kamal Haasan from illegal use of his image and likeness as well as commercial merchandising.
The court however did not restrain permissible forms of creative expression such as satire and caricature.
The court said that since a john doe has been added as second respondent to the plaint, the plaintiff was directed to give public notice regarding the court order in English and Tamil newspapers.
Case Title: Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
The Madras High Court has restrained India Research Watch from publishing articles in connection with the functioning of Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences without prior intimation to the Institute.
Justice P Dhanabal directed Research Watch to issue notice to the institute regarding queries or gist of articles to the email Id of the institute and await a response for 72 hours. The court added that if any response is received within 72 hours, the organisation could publish the statement along with the response. However, if no such response was received, the organisation could publish the article.
The court, however, added that the organisation was at liberty to make statements based on public records available, including court records.
Madras High Court Restrains Internet Service Providers From Illegally Streaming “Happy Patel” Movie
Case Title: Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court has restrained more than 30 internet service providers from illegally streaming the upcoming Hindi movie “Happy Patel Khatarnak Jasoos” produced by Aamir Khan Productions Private Limited.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy issued the interim direction in a plea moved by the production company. Noting that the irreparable injury would be caused unless interim relief is granted, the court ordered accordingly.
At the same time, the court noted that due to the expansive nature of the relief claimed, it was possible that legitimate business interests might also get affected. In such cases, the court directed the production house to indemnify the parties concerned.
Case Title: Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
The Madras High Court recently observed that the police does not have power to summon or question a person without a registered case.
Justice Sunder Mohan thus set aside a notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police calling upon a journalist seeking explanation for an article published by him allegedly containing defamatory statement against the police. The judge noted that the Section only gave powers to the police to arrest a person without warrant and did not give powers to question a person without even registering a case.
Case Title: S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
The Madras High Court has referred to its larger bench the question whether a person who has criminal cases pending against him, can be enrolled as an Advocate with the State Bar Council.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi decided to refer the issue to a larger bench after noting that Advocates Act did not empower the High Courts to impose conditions for enrolment.
The court also noted that though full bench of the High Court had agreed with a single judge on not allowing persons with pending criminal cases to enrol, the Supreme Court had held that the High Court cannot usurp the functions of a legislator and impose restrictions that did not exist in the Act.
The bench thus thought it would be appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench and directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice.
Case Title: P Murugan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a request made by an organisation for conducting the Jallikattu festival at Avaniyapuram after noting that the State was already conducting it.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that, considering the international importance of the Jallikattu festival, the state itself was organising it and thus Court could not entertain any independent request seeking permission to conduct the festival.
Case Title: SASTRA Deemed University v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA), a deemed university, challenging a government order that refused an alternate land offered by the University for setting up a prison and a subsequent eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that the government had decided to develop a prison in the government land where the university was encroaching.
The court also noted that the issues involved in the plea had already been litigated and the court could not interfere with the policy decision of the government by paving way for encroachers to re-litigate the issue.
Case Title: Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamilnadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
"Caste passions and bigotry must be uprooted to realise the constitutional vision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar," the Madras High Court recently remarked while dealing with a case relating to honour killing of a Scheduled Caste man— Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.
Stressing on the rights of victims and witnesses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that the investigating agency and the judiciary should work seamlessly to ensure that the life and liberty of even a single citizen should not be sacrificed at the altar of caste.
It also frowned upon the investigating agency for "selectively" not arresting the mother of Kavin's partner, both sub-inspector of police and accused in thethe third accused in the crime.
Case Title: K Kandasamy v. P Natarajan and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
The Madras High Court recently observed that a single appeal is maintainable against a common order involving a claim and counter claim.
Justice AD Maria Clete added that though a counterclaim is treated as a cross-suit under Order VII Rule A of CPC, a single judgment in the suit would not require multiplicity of appeal.
The court, however, added that though a single appeal can be preferred, there was a statutory obligation to value the appeal and pay court fee in respect of all adverse reliefs granted in the degree.
Case Title: Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madras High Court has reiterated that it cannot use inherent powers to mould the relief sought and grant a money decree when the same has not been sought or pleaded by the party.
Justice AD Maria Clete added that the inherent power of the court should be exercised within the framework of the CPC and the relief should be granted in accordance with the law, complying with the procedural and fiscal requirements.
The court also remarked that granting a relief which was not sought either by way of counterclaim or through independent proceedings amounts to travelling beyond the pleadings and violates the settled principle that no party can be granted a relief which has not been prayed or proved.
Case Title: Prabhakaran v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
The Madras High Court recently stressed on the need to protect the rights of women who are caught up in the "modern web" of live-in relationships.
Justice S Srimathy remarked that live-in relationships are a cultural shock to the Indian society but are happening widely everywhere. The bench added that the girls enter live-in relationship assuming themselves to be modern but later realise that the relationship does not guarantee any protection.
The court remarked that there is a need to protect the women who are caught in the modern culture. It remarked that live-in relationships could be recognised as similar to the Gandharva marriages (love marriage) that are part of the eight types of marriages in ancient India. The court thus noted that the women in live-in relationships could be protected by granting them the status of wife under Gandharva marriage.
Case Title: Amit Malviya v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP's Amit Malviya for his tweets criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy CM and Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Udhayanidhi Stalin's remarks on Santana Dharma
Justice S Srimathy observed that Malviya had only reacted to the speech made by the Minister and continuing any proceedings against him for such reaction would be an abuse of the process of law and would cause him irreparable harm and injury.
The Court also recorded that while no case had been registered against the Minister for his hate speech in the case, it was painful that a hate speech case was registered against the person reacting to it.
Case Title: Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of a law student with chronic schizophrenia by directing the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to provide fee waiver, as long as the student was within the 40% benchmark disability.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the Tamil Nadu Government and the university had introduced the welfare scheme, providing a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, but it was being extended only to the persons admitted in the 5% quota earmarked for persons with disabilities.
The court noted that when the State intended to provide a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, such implementation could not be approached pedantically by clubbing it with a reservation.
Case Title: Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High Court recently criticised the State for collecting sensitive data of students who had stigmatic background.
Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan set aside an order passed by the Member Secretary of the Model School, calling for certain information of students. The court noted that the information was sensitive and there was no explanation on how this data was going to be used or stored. Calling it a violation of the privacy of students, the court noted that it would be a clear discrimination and ill-treatment of students studying in the Model schools.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar in an extortion case. The court, however, imposed additional conditions on his bail.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman has asked Shankar not to make any statement, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the case, including comments against the conduct of the officers. The court has also asked Shankar not to interact with or intimidate the co-accused or the witnesses in the case.
The court has also restricted Shankar's movement, adding that any movement should be for the purpose of availing medical facilities or in connection with seeking legal assistance in the case. The court made it clear that any violation of the conditions shall be viewed seriously, and strict action would be taken against Shankar.
The court has also directed the Dean of the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to constitute a Medical Board consisting of experts to analyse and assess Shankar's medical condition. Shankar has been asked to appear before the board on 2nd February, which will examine him and submit a report, in a sealed cover, to the court on 3rd February 2026.
Can't Deny Maternity Benefit For Third Pregnancy Of Public Servants: Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: P Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the benefit of maternity leave should be extended to government servants even for their third pregnancy.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed also commented that, though similar orders have been passed by the Supreme Court and the high court repeatedly, the authorities failed to understand the intent of the previous orders. The court thus directed the High Court registry to circulate the order to all judicial officers heading the District Judiciary throughout the state to ensure stricter compliance.
The court also directed the Chief Secretary to strictly adhere to the principles previously laid down by the court and communicate the order to the Secretaries of Government and Heads of departments for strict compliance.
Case Title: A Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
The Madras High Court recently observed that encroachment, even if having a religious character, cannot be permitted on a public place or land vested with the local body. The court added that it is the duty of the Municipal Commissioner to remove the encroachment after due notice.
Justice V Lakshminarayana thus ordered the removal of a shrine of Mother Velankanni that had been installed in a public road. Commenting that a road or street does not have religious character, the court noted that, irrespective of the nature of the superstructure, the encroachment had to be removed.
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
The Madras High court, on Tuesday (27th January) set aside an order of the single judge directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant U/A certificate for Vijay's Jana Nayagan movie.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, however, sent the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration, noting that the natural justice principles were not followed. The single bench has been directed to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the CBFC to respond. The producer KVN Productions has also been given liberty to amend the writ petition.
Case Title: G Thirukalyanamalar v State Bank of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a non-citizen can also file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a State action if the same is allegedly arbitrary, making unreasonable discrimination and results in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar also noted that the rehabilitation scheme for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees provides for benefits such as shelter, education, and employment in India, particularly in the State of Tamil Nadu. The court thus opined that the State Bank of India's action, in denying employment opportunity to an otherwise eligible candidate, merely on the ground that she was a Sri Lankan national was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: P Balasubramaniyam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court recently lamented the institution of multiple cases in family disputes and commented that instead of approaching the Family Courts to settle the disputes, parties often expanded the disputes to criminal courts and other jurisdictions and sometimes even the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Pointing out that there is no end to docket multiplication in family disputes, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed as under,
“There is no end to docket multiplication, when it comes to family disputes. From the Family Courts, it is expanded to Criminal Courts and the other jurisdictions and now, slowly, all subjects under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are also being occupied for the dispute…If the issue is not settled, they are supposed to go for trial and if a prayer is made for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights or maintenance, as the case may be, the Court will grant or refuse the relief depending on whether the grounds are made out or not. But, unfortunately, variety of litigations are filed for the family dispute,” the court said.
The court has also imposed costs on a father-in-law for filing a case against daughter-in-law for wreaking vengeance.
Case Title: Murugammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the construction of Kalabhairavar Dhagana Mandapam by the Isha Foundation.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 did not prohibit granting of license for crematorium within 90 meters of dwelling place or source of drinking water supply. The court noted that as per the rules, the only pre-requisite was to obtain license from the village panchayat.
The bench also noted that construction of the gasifier crematorium would be for the benefit of the community and could not be said to be against public interest.
Case Title: Ponmudi v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court recently observed that higher courts should not mechanically issue directions to the authorities for early disposal of petitions and should consider the urgency required in each cases.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan observed that every court or statutory authority is expected to dispose of appeals, revisions, etc in a systematic manner and in order of seniority. The court added that if it issues directions to dispose of applications and any particular matter alone is disposed of, it would cause prejudice to other persons who are waiting for disposing their appeals.
Case Title: H Vennila v. State and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court recently observed that conferring a gold medal on students is an academic matter which should be left to the academicians.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there was no legal right involved in getting a gold medal and it was only a competition between the students involved. The court thus took a different view than the one taken by the Delhi High Court.
The court noted that there was no legal right for granting gold medal and the meaning of “first attempt” should be left to the academicians themselves especially when they are imparting a meaning uniformly for all the students.
Case Title: V v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
The Madras High Court recently overturned the conviction of a father under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter.
Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the statement of the witnesses including the victim and the mother, was exaggerated, with malafide and was made only to wreak vengeance against the father while the divorce proceedings were pending between the parents.
Case Title: A.V.B.Prabhu v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court recently observed that the State cannot unilaterally declare projects using temple funds. The court added that the State has no role to envision projects for temples without consulting with the temple itself.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C Kumarappan thus set aside a Government Order issued by the State for carrying out civil works in Shri Kallazhagar Temple, Madurai to the tune of 40 crores as part of the state's “Iconic Project” to provide facilities in ancient temples.
The bench also noted that there was a meed to professionally manage temple assets through temple trustees who were to be appointed in rotation. The court added that the Trustees, who were to be persons of high standard, were to be assisted by a team of efficient managers with knowledge and interest in Hindu religion.
Case Title: Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the accused booked under the POCSO Act after finding that the name of the survivor/victim was explicitly mentioned by their counsel in the cause title of the criminal petition.
A bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri strongly condemned the conduct of the petitioners' counsel and further directed that the said amount be paid to the survivor.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By Actor Vijay Challenging 1.5 Crore Income Tax Penalty
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Actor Vijay challenging the Rs. 1.5 crore penalty imposed on him by the Income Tax Department for undisclosed income of Rs 15 crore in the financial year 2015-16.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the show cause notice had been issued within the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
As the court found no infirmity in the issuance of the notice, it refrained from examining the other aspects of the matter.
At the same time, the court granted liberty to Vijay to assail the notice and the consequential order before the appellate tribunal on grounds other than limitation.
Case Title: Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
The Madras High Court has observed that Kumbabishekam festivals in a temple cannot be conducted by an individual, especially when there are multiple communities residing in a village.
Justice S Srimathy thus directed the fit person appointed to the Sri Muniyandi Swamy temple, Sri Ayyanar Swamy temple, Sri Karuppa Swamy temple and Sri Muthumariamman Swamy Temple to form a committee consisting of persons from each community for conducting the Kumbabishekam festival at the temples.
The court remarked that first honour should not be given to any community and there should not be any discrimination.
Case Title: Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
The Madras High Court recently observed that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act would not come into play with respect to the acceptance of bond for appearance.
Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that Section 37 comes into play only when the liberty of a person from custody is sought and not when the accused is merely securing appearance pursuant to the summons.
Case Title: Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that resignation from service, even if for medical reasons, would result in forfeiture of past service and such a person would not be entitled to pensionary benefits.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice C Kumarappan held as under,
“'Resignation' from a service or post as per Rule 23 of The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 entails forfeiture of past service. Therefore, resignation from service even on medical or health grounds entails forfeiture of past service. The grounds based on which resignation is sought is immaterial and resignation shall only mean forfeiture of past service,” the court said.
Case Title: Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a recovery under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act is made from the shirt pocket of the accused, it would be seen as a personal search, and compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 50 of the Act would be mandatory during such a search.
Highlighting the importance of following statutory procedure under the Act, Justice Victoria Gowri noted that NDPS prosecutions are not ordinary and the statutory safeguards are not empty formalities but minimum assurance to ensure that the powers were exercised responsibly and legally.
Madras High Court Permits 'Jana Nayagan' Movie Producer To Withdraw Plea Against CBFC
Case Title: M/s KVN Productions v. Central Board of Film Certification and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (February 10) permitted KVN Productions, producers of Vijay starrer "Jana Nayagan" movie to withdraw their plea challenging the certification process of the Central Board of Film Certification.
Justice PT Asha permitted a request made by Vijayan Subramaniam, advocate for the production company.
The production company had sent a letter to the High Court registry expressing its intention to withdraw the case. The production company had informed the court that it had decided to go ahead with the review process and thus did not wish to continue with the litigation. Following the letter, the case was posted today under the caption "for withdrawal".
Madras High Court Directs Producers Of Kochadaiyaan Movie To Pay ₹2.52 Crore Towards Unpaid Debt
Case Title: M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. v M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court has directed Mediaone Global Entertainment, the production house engaged in the production of Rajnikanth starrer “Kochadaiyaan” movie, to pay Rs. 2.52 Crore towards unpaid debts.
Though Justice Sunder Mohan observed that neither the production house nor the complainant had proved their case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court highlighted that the purpose of the law was to compensate the complainant. The court also noted that the alleged cheque was issued in 2014 and the court had to adopt a course to secure ends of justice.
Case Title: Jawahar Rajan v The Regional Passport Officer and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that renewal or reissue of a passport should be considered in the same manner as a fresh issue, and prior permission from the court would be necessary in case of pendency of criminal case.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice S Srimathy, and Justice KK Ramakrishnan was answering a reference made to it by a single judge in view of conflicting decisions by two division benches.
The court thus concluded that the restrictions contained in the Act apply not only to fresh applications but also for re-issuance and renewal. The court noted that a person facing criminal proceedings is not absolutely disentitled from getting a passport but it was subject to the permission of the criminal court where the case was pending.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Zee Media Corporation Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court has asked cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni to pay Rs 10 lakh for translating old CDs involved in a Rs. 100 crore defamation suit filed by him over allegedly defamatory content against him in connection with the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
Justice RN Manjula noted that translating and transcribing the contents of the CD was a humongous task which would take the entire time of an Interpreter and Typist for almost 3 to 4 months. The court fixed the entire cost of the process and asked Dhoni to pay the charges since he was obligated as the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Finds Man Guilty Of Contempt For Accusing Sitting Judges Of 'Genocide'
Case Title: High Court Of Madras v. Ashok Surana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court has found a man guilty of contempt of court for making scandalous allegations against sitting judges of the High Court, alleging that the judge had committed “genocide” and “crime against humanity”.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman, noted that the man had repeatedly made scandalising comments against more than 20 judges of the court and had made intemperate and unwarranted expression against the judiciary.
The court was taking up a suo motu contempt petition initiated against Ashok Surana. The suo motu was registered when Surana made serious comments against one of the judges who was presiding over the bench while hearing a petition filed by him. Surana had commented that the judge had committed genocide and crime against humanity on a scale unknown to mankind.
Case Title: Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
The Madras High Court has criticised the Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society for not taking appropriate action on a sexual harassment complaint made by one of its woman employees.
Rejecting the society's argument that a writ petition would not be maintainable against the credit society, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that protecting women employees from sexual harassment at workplace was a public duty and thus the writ petitions would be maintainable.
In the process, the court also ended a 25 year old legal battle by the woman employee against the management and directed the management to pay retirement benefits to the employee along with 60% of the back wages.
Interest Of Child Paramount, Not Of Perpetrator: Madras High Court Affirms Joint Trial In POCSO Case
Case Title: Bhagavathiraj v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by an accused under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act noting that there was no failure of justice merely because there was a joint trial.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima observed that when courts were dealing with matters of child abuse, they must apply the laws in the best interest of the child and not the interest of the perpetrators of the crime. In the present case, the court noted that the Special Court had rightly conducted joint trial against two accused who had committed the offence of sexual assault on a minor child, though separately.
Places Of Worship Act Does Not Protect Encroachment By Temple On Government Land: Madras High Court
Case Title: N.Kumar v. District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by the Managing Trustee of Sri Arulmighu Raajakaliamman Temple in Ramanathapuram District of Tamil Nadu, claiming protection for the temple which was allegedly built on an encroached land.
Rejecting the claim that the ancient temple was protected under the Places of Worship Act, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the Act was only meant to protect the religious character of temples and not to protect a structure that was put up on Government land by encroaching.
Madras High Court Upholds Conviction Of Pastor For Sexually Assaulting Disabled Minor
Case Title: Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction of a pastor for sexually assaulting a minor who had physical and intellectual disability.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima held that the circumstances, the testimony of victim, and failure of the accused to rebut the statutory presumption established his guilt.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a pastor challenging his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the Special court.
Case Title: N Ganesh Agarwal v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
A Madras High Court judge recently recused from hearing a case after All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ) alleged that a senior advocate had taken a sum of Rs 50 Lakh from the client in the name of bribing the judge for passing suitable orders.
Justice Nirmal Kumar recused from hearing the case and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for posting before an appropriate bench and for issuing appropriate orders to the Vigilance Cell so that an enquiry could be conducted and appropriate action could be taken.
Previous Service As Village Assistant Can't be Excluded For Pension : Madras HC
Case Name : The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department & Ors. v. K. Marimuthu & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan held that the service rendered as a full-time Village Assistant after 01.06.1995 cannot be treated as non-provincialised service. It must be fully counted along with Village Administrative Officer service for pensionary benefits.
It was noted by the court that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 do not contain any definition for the expression “non-provincialised service”. It was observed by the Court that after the Village Assistants were appointed as per Government Order, they were treated as full-time employees. Therefore their service could not be termed as non-provincialised service.
It was held by the Court that the service rendered as Village Assistant does not constitute “non-provincialised service.” Therefore the respondents are entitled to have their entire service counted for pensionary benefits.
Case Title: The Accountant General v. M Radhakrishnan and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
The Madras High Court recently held that the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules prohibit contracting of a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that bigamous marriage was a grave misconduct under the service rules, warranting departmental action. Thus, the court ruled that the second wife's name could not be included in the Pension Payment Order even after the death of the first wife.
Case Title: S Muneeswaran and Another v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction and sentence of a couple for administering poison and killing their child with mental disorder.
While the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima sympathised with the parents and the difficulties that they may have faced to bring up the child, the court noted that the parents had a bounden duty to take care of their child whether the child was born with or without disabilities. The court also remarked that no one had the right to take law into their own hands and take another person's life.
Case Title: Government of Tamil Nadu and Others v. M Rajesh Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
The Madras High Court has reiterated that while promotion is not a fundamental right, the employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion.
"It is well settled principle of law that the promotion is not a fundamental right, however, consideration for promotion is the fundamental right," the court said.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan however, added that one could not expect mathematical precision from a Government department to consider posting the employee in a particular post to make him eligible for promotion. The court added that in such matters, one had to see if there was any motivated abnormal delay on the part of the Government Department.
Case Title: Nagarajan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
The Madras High Court has expressed shock over ancient temple properties being let out on rent by officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Department without taking steps to protect the structure.
Noting that the Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE was involved in the exploiting of the temple property for financial gain, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the tenants had no right to occupy or damage ancient structures in the temple based on illegal permission granted by the Joint Commissioner.
Case Title: M/s. Seyadu Beedi Company v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
The Madras High Court recently held that “beedi rollers” who have been employed through an intermediary agency would still be considered as employees under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Justice K Surender thus refused to interfere with an order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, holding that the beedi rollers were liable to be enrolled as PF members. The court noted that the EPF Act was beneficial legislation, and though the company had adopted dubious methods to engage services of beedi rollers, it could not be said that they were not employees of the company.
Madras High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Political Parties Delisted By ECI
Case Title: Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam v The Chief Election Commissioner and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (18th February) refused to grant interim relief to political parties against their delisting by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that if any interim relief was to be granted, it would amount to allowing the main prayer itself. The court thus dismissed the interim relief plea filed by the parties and refused to stay ECI's decision or revoke the registration of the parties till the disposal of the case.
The parties – Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, Manithaneya Makkal Katchi, and Manithaneya Jananayaga Katchi had approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the ECI on September 19, 2025, delisting 474 Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs) and to revoke the deregistration/delisting of the parties.
Case Title: KMC College of Law v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of India to process applications filed by nine private law colleges seeking permission for additional intake starting from the academic year 2025-2026.
On the BCI's claim that there was no requirement for new Law Colleges in some areas, the bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that such a drastic decision could not be taken regarding the arena of need-know basis, in the absence of any data for judicial scrutiny.
Case Title: Under Secretary to Government and Others v. Dr Ajitha and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
The Madras High Court recently ruled against High Courts allowing mop-up counselling for vacant seats after the scheduled date for counselling is over.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan held that allowing such violation of schedules would open a Pandora's box and defeat the whole purpose of fixing timelines for admission.
The bench also noted that though the founding fathers of the Constitution did not place any limitation on the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the schedule for counselling and the last date of admission were prescribed by Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment), 2025 and the courts could interfere in case of illegality only when the last date of admission was not over. The court added that when the last date of admission is over, the parties had to work out their remedy by approaching the Apex Court, which would decide the issue on a case-by-case basis.
Case Title: Sowdhamani v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Madras High Court recently quashed a case against a woman, who had posted comments online on a picture of minor girls in school uniform holding liquor bottles. In the comment, the woman discussed the nature of the administration being rendered by the political party in the State.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the offences as alleged were not made out and quashed the cases registered against the woman for offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(b), 153 of IPC along with Section 66E of the IT Act and Sections 74 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court noted that the complaint, which was lodged by a person belonging to a political party, appeared to be one filed for political vindication.
Case Title: N Samaran v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
The Madras High Court recently observed that the temple festivals conducted by the State through the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department could not perpetuate caste.
Justice Bharata Chakravarthy noted that the very purpose of India becoming a republic was to treat everyone equally. The court added that the endeavour of every authority in the country should be to annihilate caste and not to perpetuate the same. The court thus submitted that a temple festival, being conducted by the State, could not be allowed to perpetuate caste by using caste names in the invitations.
Case Title: KS Balakrishnan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person from the marginalised community cannot be denied access to public burial or cremation ground and the same is a criminal offence under the SC/ST Act.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan added that denying public burial or cremation ground to a person from marginalised community is a form of practicing untouchability which is prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution.
The Court also noted that the Act gave powers to the District Collector to issue directions whenever persons from marginalised community were treated unfairly. The court thus directed the District Collector of Erode to take action against persons who had allegedly levelled the graves of people belonging to the marginalised community.
Case Title: K. Athinarayanan v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
The Madras High Court on Friday (20th February) directed the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register an FIR against Tamil Nadu Minister for Municipal Administration, Urban and Water Supply, KN Nehru, for alleged bribery in appointments to the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department, based on information shared by the Enforcement Directorate.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the ED had not just made a vague complaint, but had shared voluminous materials which showed that there was a prima facie case. The court added that even when a preliminary enquiry could be conducted by the State under Section 173 of the BNSS within 14 days, the State was only delaying the investigation.
Thus, noting that a probe by an independent agency was necessary, and noting that a prima face case had been made out, the court directed the DVAC to register a complaint and proceed with the investigation.
Case Title: M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
The Madras High Court, on Friday (20th February), dismissed two writ petitions filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder Dr. Ramadoss seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to declare him as the party's President and to freeze the "Mango" symbol for the upcoming assembly elections till the party disputes are settled.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the parties to work out their remedies before the civil court.
Ramadoss had filed the first writ petition seeking to quash an earlier communication sent by ECI to Anbumani informing that the party has been allotted “Mango” symbol for the upcoming 2026 elections. He also called upon the ECI to issue a fresh communication to Ramadoss's address. Ramadoss alleged that Anbumani had committed fraud on the ECI and created documents without any authority to mislead the ECI as if Anbumani continued to be the party president.
Case Title: V Shiva v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Madras High Court has held that the term “Family” under the Indian Stamp Act does not include grandparents and any settlement made by the grandchildren in favour of the grandparent would be chargeable as per the appropriate provisions.
Answering a reference made to it, the full bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice C Kumarappan held that the Act, being a fiscal and revenue generation law, had to be taken in its literal meaning and could not be given a restrictive or expansive meaning.
Case Name: The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Others v. N.K. Shankar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar held that the penalty cannot justify withholding promotion after punishment ends. Further the 'check period' concept is illegal after imposition of the punishment.
Referring to the judgment in DIG of Police & Another v. V. Rani, it was held by the Court that the concept of a check period after the expiry of a punishment is illegal and cannot be used to withhold promotional consideration.
It was further noted by the Court that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had correctly granted the respondent notional promotion from 01.04.1987 and the consequential promotion thereafter. It was held by the Court that no error was apparent on the face of the record . With the aforesaid observations, the Review Application filed by the department was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. B Shankar Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
The Madras High Court recently held that generating Tatkal tickets for out-of-turn passengers without collecting fare would be misconduct under the Railway Service Conduct Rules. The court thus found an employee guilty of issuing tickets to third parties and violating the norms for issuing tickets.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the employee had generated tickets based on reservation forms, which were not handed over to him across the counter and which were collected by him before his duty time. The court thus concluded that he had violated the provisions of the Railways Service Conduct Rules.
Case Title: MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr.Balaraman Palaniappan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a hospital cannot treat the doctors working with it as normal employees or restrain them from taking up employment at other hospitals post resignation.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the doctor is not like a workmen in a factory, or regular employees. The court remarked that doctors render their services to hospitals, and that hospitals would not be able to survive without such services.
The court also noted that the hospitals could not have "rivalry" among themselves as it was not similar to a commercial establishment. The court noted that the rivalry between hospitals itself was a misnomer since a hospital was an independent entity, running to serve patients and not a commercial business.
Case Title: Chellamanickam v. The Principle Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
The Madras High court recently rejected a man's request for a No Caste No Religion certificate, noting that the same could not be claimed without relinquishing the religion fiirst.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy of Madurai Bench noted that unless the religion was relinquished as per existing rites, there was no question of issuing a certificate. The court added that when there was no proof of relinquishing religion, it could not direct the authorities to issue a no caste no religion certificate.
Case Title: Vaiko v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (24th February) dismissed a plea filed by the General Secretary of Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) and former Rajya Sabha MP Vaiko, challenging a 2012 notification issued by the Central government banning the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar noted that the notification did not exist as on date and the court could not spend its judicial time on adjudicating an expired issue.
Case Title: B Shyam and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
The Madras High Court recently directed the Authorisation Committee of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to grant approval for the kidney transplant of a law student from his maternal aunt's husband's brother.
Justice PT Asha observed that not every third-party donor has to be seen through the eyes of suspicion, and the Authorisation Committee only had to scrutinise whether the donation was backed by any commercial interest.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust and another v. Government of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Thei District Collector, approved by the Principal District Judge, attaching the properties of an organisation that has been allegedly linked to the banned Popular Front of India (PFI).
Though the parties argued that they were not associated with PFI, the bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima noted that the PFI had used the premises of the petitioner to conduct Dawa work. The court also noted that the organisation's pamphlet and PFI's pamphlets contained the same contact number. Thus, the court opined that the notification, banning PFI and its member associations, would apply to the petitioner association also and it would be termed an unlawful association.
Case Title: Mrs Magitha Anna Christy v. State Human Rights Commission and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu directing as Sub Inspector of Police to pay Rs 5 Lakh as compensation for custodial torture committed by her against a woman.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar also took note of the “arrogance” of the officer in not filing counter affidavit before the SHRC despite being given sufficient opportunities.
Noting the serious allegations against the officer and her failure to produce any records, the court concluded that the officer was not entitled to any indulgence by the court.
Periodical Medical Checkup Is Right Of Every Prisoner Under Article 21: Madras High Court
Case Title: M Kalaiselvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
The Madras High Court recently observed that every prisoner has a right to periodical medical check-ups and the same forms part of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi observed that the prisoners are also persons whose care and custody is with the prison authorities and the State. The court noted that the State has a duty to care for the needs of persons with special disabilities.
The court thus directed the Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai, to holda master health check-up for all prisoners in the prison once in two years. The court took note of the Supreme Court's observation in Muruganantham's case, which emphasised that reasonable accommodation was not option but integral for any humane and just carceral system.
Case Title: C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
The Madras High Court has closed a case registered by the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women against Rajya Sabha MP C Ve Shanmugam for alleged derogatory comments made by him against women.
The woman's commission had initiated the case based on a complaint that in one of his speeches to the party cadres, Shanmugam had stated that the present Government may even announce one wife free to each citizen.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that the speech, by no stretch of imagination, could be seen as misogynistic or demeaning the womenfolk of the State, but was only a critique of the freebee policy of the State government. The court noted that it cannot be said that Shanmugan had compared women to commodities given by the State Government.
Case Title: MS Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
The Madras High Court recently criticised the State government for focusing on foreign investments while disregarding the local industries in the State.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Government was having a lackadaisical approach to local industries, but at the same time, extending subsidies and tax exemptions for the foreign investors. The court noted that such approach defeated the object of achieving sustainable development.
Case Title: VBR Menon v. The Chief Controller of Explosives and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
The Madras High Court has ordered a CBI probe into the alleged incident of issuing fake No Objection Certificates (NOC) for obtaining licenses to operate petrol pumps in the State.
Noting that the investigation being carried out by the State was not fair or independent, the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Arul Murugan thought it fit to transfer the investigation to an independent agency and ordered accordingly. The court added that, though it was usually slow in transferring the probe to another agency in the present case, despite orders from the court, the investigation was not being carried out in a proper direction.
Madras High Court Cancels Bail Granted To 12 Accused In Murder Case Of BSP Leader K Armstrong
Case Title: Porkodi v. Siva and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
The Madras High Court has cancelled the bail of 12 accused persons arrested in connection with the murder of BSP leader K Armstrong.
Armstrong was brutally attacked and murdered on July 5, 2024.
Justice K Rajasekar decided to cancel bail after taking note of the submission made by Additional Public Prosecutor R Muniapparaj, who informed the court that the case was still at the stage of framing of charges and that granting bail to the accused at this stage might result in tampering with witnesses and destruction of evidence.
The court has also directed the accused persons to surrender before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai on or before March 6.
Case Title: P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
The Madras High Court has dismissed pleas by more than 300 families challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the State government as part of upgrading the Madurai airport to an international airport.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the government had acted fairly and reasonably and had even granted additional compensation to the families, along with providing alternate housing.
The court noted that in the present case, the land acquisition was started in 2009, and thus, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 would not be applicable in the present case. Though the petitioners also claimed 2 acre of agricultural land, the court noted that there was nothing to show that they were involved in agriculture and thus, the demand could not be accepted.
Minister Ragupathy Gave Mischievous Political Spin To Thiruparankundram Issue: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
The Madras High Court, on Monday (March 2nd), remarked that Tamil Nadu Minister for Minerals and Mines S Regupathy had given a mischievous political spin to the Thiruparankundram issue when he made a statement that the Government would not permit lighting of the Karthigai deepam at the Deepathoon (Stone Pillar).
Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a sub-application filed for impleading the Minister in the ongoing contempt petition against the state authorities for failing to comply with the court order and not permitting lighting of the lamp.
It had been argued that as per a newspaper article on 7th January 2026, the Minister had allegedly stated that the prohibitory order was issued to frustrate the court order and that the government would not permit the lighting of lamp at the deepathoon.
Since the Collector had controverted the stand taken by the Minister, the court was not inclined to summon the Minister. The court also thought it fit to close the sub-application but made it clear that it would not hesitate from reopening the matter if occasion demands.
Case Title: Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Madras High Court has called for disciplinary action against the District Collector of Ramanathapuram for failing to appear in a case, which ultimately led to an ex parte order being passed against government property.
Justice N Senthilkumar remarked that when valuable government property was involved in litigation, the government could not remain a mute spectator. The court added that when responsible officers fail to conduct cases, it would affect the public interest.
The court has also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disatser Management Department, to issue comprehensive Government Order giving clear guidelines for all government pleaders and revenue officials specifying their duties and responsibilities in civil suits against the state, mandatory steps to be taken when government officials are set ex parte, time lines for filing written statements, applications to set aside the ex parte orders, appeals, and petitions for condonation of delay, and disciplinary consequences in case of dereliction of duty.
Case Title: The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, to conduct an appropriate enquiry into the delay on the State's part in pursuing appeals against orders on time.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that in a large number of cases, the court was observing that the State was filing appeals after a great delay and no satisfactory explanation was being given for the delay. The court noted that the delay seemed to be either due to negligence or due to connivance with the parties concerned. The court thus directed that a discreet vigilance enquiry can be conducted to unearth the truth.
Case Title: Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
The Madras High Court has clarified that when an addressee has died, the post that was addressed to him can be handed over to his/her family, without sending it back to the sender.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that there was confusion on the category of persons who could collect the article since it had not been defined under the regulations. The court thus directed the Ministry of Communications to make suitable amendments to the Post Office Regulations to clearly define the persons to whom items could be delivered, where the addressee is dead.
Till the regulations are suitably amended, the court clarified that the articles could be handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased, as they would undoubtedly fall within the category of persons to whom items could be delivered.
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Madras High Court has criticised the delay on the part of the state in complying with court orders and removing encroachment of around 507 acres of temple land.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice B Pugalendhi observed that constitutional governance should not be subordinate to electoral expediency. The court remarked that merely because a deity did not have voting rights, it should not be left remediless. The court added that it had a parens patiae jurisdiction, and when judicial orders are stalled by organised resistance, the rule of law itself stands tested.
Case Title: The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
The Madras High Court recently held that the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Marriage Assistance Scheme [Marriage Assistance Scheme] of the Tamil Nadu government cannot be extended to every person who earns minimum wages.
Interfering with an observation made by a single judge, the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the single judge could not substitute one executive policy for another. The bench noted that when there was no law that extended the scheme to persons with minimum wages, such a benefit could not be ordered by the court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Mahesh v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a boy convicted and sentenced under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl.
Noting that the couple, both of whom were minors at the time, were having a consensual relationship, Justice N Mala noted that in such kinds of relationships, it was often the young boys who ended up bearing the consequences.
The court further noted that if wide publicity is given about the provisions of the POCSO Act and its stringency, as provided under Section 43 of the POCSO Act, this menace could be controlled to an extent. The court highlighted that lack of knowledge about the stringency of the provisions is one of the reasons that the law was being misused.
The court thus directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to take immediate positive steps to comply with Section 43 of the POCSO Act, to create awareness among the general public, children and parents about the act. The court also directed the Chief Secretary to consider organising camps in Government and private schools and colleges for creating awareness about the act and its dire consequences.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and another v. V Shunmugam
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
The Madras High Court recently held that the High Courts, exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot conduct an enquiry into pay parity.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that when the state had issued clear directives that its prior approval was necessary for upgrading the pay scale of workers of Arasu Rubber Corporation, a public sector undertaking of the Tamil Nadu government, the court could not rule otherwise.
Case Title: E Hariharan v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary of Puducherry to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for sensitizing public officials for dealing with persons with disabilities.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (now retired) and Justice G Arul Murugan highlighted that persons with disabilities had to be treated equally without discrimination and attitudinal barriers, and with sensitivity. The court thus directed the Chief Secretary to bring in an SOP for conducting sensitization programmes for public officials periodically.
The bench added that the right to access to justice and right to quality and equal treatment was basic human rights. However, the court added that while these principles found place in the constitution and the statute, the ground reality was different due to the attitude of the officials.
Case Title: B Shajimon v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Madras High Court recently lamented that education was being prioritised only for admission to medical or engineering seats, and the parents were making their kids run a rat race.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that parents were making kids choose easier subjects, so that the child could focus on three subjects alone, making it easier to clear the NEET examination. The court added that in high schools, even the mother tongue was being sacrificed so that the child could focus on NEET preparation.
Case Title: The Deputy Director v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
The Madras High Court directed the transfer of a money laundering case lodged under the PMLA to the Special Court of CBI cases which is hearing the predicate offence under Prevention of Corruption Act in the matter, after noting that the Special Court under PC Act is a designated court under the PMLA as well.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (now retired) and Justice G Arul Murugan was considering a situation where the predicate offence is an offence under a special enactment being tried by a special court constituted under the special enactment, i.e., the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Special Court under the PMLA is not a designated Special Court under the PC Act.
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
The Madras High Court has asked the government to take appropriate action against District Collectors and police officials, if they do not act in accordance with the Government's policy to abolish the orderly system in the State.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender noted that the orderly system had been abolished in the state and the government was duty-bound to work out modalities for enforcing its policy decision. For this, the court added that suitable actions could be taken against the officials who were not functioning in tune with government policies.
Case Title: Nandhini v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a woman for allegedly murdering her husband due to repeated quarrels and throwing his body in the nearby well.
While doing so, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal noted that in homicidal death cases, the primary fact that had to be proved was the identity of the deceased, which was not done in the present case. The court added that unless the identity of the deceased is proved, the court could not go into other materials relied upon by the prosecution.
Registering Authority Cannot Usurp Powers Of Civil Court To Cancel Sale Deed: Madras High Court
Case Title: Gurumurthi and Another v. The District Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the registering authority does not have the power to go into the civil rights of parties.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender held that the registering authority cannot usurp the powers of the civil court and can only interfere if there is any apparent error. The court added that if there is any doubt regarding the civil rights of the parties, the registering authority should relegate the matter to the civil court.
With respect to fraud, the court noted that there were threefold actions that could be taken in case of fraud. First, the aggrieved person may file a complaint and prosecute the persons under the criminal law. Second, the person can approach the civil court for establishing the civil rights. Third, the person can approach the competent authorities for cancelling the registered documents. The court, however, made it clear that the definition of fraud could not be expanded for adjudicating civil rights through administrative action.
Case Title: Selvi v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
The Madras High Court recently acquitted a woman convicted of the murder of her husband.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal noted that the woman was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. The court noted that while convicting the wife, the trial court had noted that she had not discharged the burden to prove that she was not inside the house when the husband was killed.
The court ruled that merely because the parties were husband and wife, it could not be presumed that they would always be seen together. The court noted that the prosecution had not let in any evidence to show that the couple was last seen together and, in such circumstances, Section 106 of the Evidence Act would not apply to shift the burden to the accused.
Case Title: St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu government to allot land to St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School in Cuddalore District in exchange for the land that the school had returned to a temple.
Noting that the land initially allotted for the school was sand dunes, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the state had acted recklessly and given away sand dunes for development without considering its ecological impact. The court observed that the sand dunes were also an incarnation of God and without realising it, the state had given away God itself to protect the sentiments of the devotees.
Case Title: V Ponramu and Another v. The Registrar, SHRC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court has quashed an order of the State Human Rights Commission recommending Rs. 2 Lakh compensation to Lois Sofia and disciplinary action against police officers who arrested her for raising slogans against former Telangana Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the SHRC had made its recommendations, noting that there were discrepancies in the time of arrest and that the charge under Section 505(1)(b) [statement conducing to public mischief] was inserted by hand in the printed FIR.
The court held that such discrepancies should have been a matter of trial and it was not for the SHRC to decide the issues. The court observed that the Commission had conducted a parallel trial and its findings were per se illegal. The court was thus inclined to quash the commission's order.
Case Title: V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court recently lamented the misuse of the benevolent provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Justice M Dhandpani observed that the Act was a beneficial legislation intended to protect the interests of the members belonging to the communities and should not be used as a tool against the citizens of the country.
The Court added that before entertaining complaints under the Act, the SC/ST Commission should ensure that no innocent common man is unnecessarily dragged to go through the rigours of the Act.
Case Title: P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
The Madras High Court recently noted that one person cannot claim two dearness allowances.
Justice C Kumarappan made the observations while dealing with the plea of a woman who claimed dearness allowance on her regular pension in addition to the dearness allowance on her family pension. The court noted that the principle behind Rule 20A(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Provident Fund was to ensure that a person cannot have two dearness allowances.
Case Title: M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man for allegedly murdering his wife over their strained relationship.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal held that merely because the couple had a strained relationship and the husband was a drunkard, it could not lead to a presumption that he killed the wife, in the absence of any evidence to prove the last seen theory or any other evidence.
Case Title: Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a group of men for allegedly attempting to damage public property using combustible material near the Central Bus Stand, Udhagamandalam.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that when there was nothing to show that the men had lit the combustible material, it could not be said that mischief had been committed.
Case Title: AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
The Madras High Court has held that continued residence in the forest area and reliance on the forest, by doing cultivation for livelihood, are essential for being declared as a forest dweller under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender noted that the object of the act was to protect the livelihood of forest dwellers. The court thus dismissed the petitions filed by a group of persons claiming “forest dweller” status. The court noted that the parties had not produced anything to show that they were entirely dependent on the forest for their survival.
Madras High Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Over Thiruparankundram Deepam Row
Case Title: KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (17th March), stayed the contempt proceedings pending before a single judge of the Madurai bench over non-compliance of its order directing the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram Hills.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman has issued the interim stay on an appeal filed by the State authorities. The Court also remarked that such issues could have been avoided if the temple management itself had taken steps to light the lamp as per the order.
If Wife Elopes With Another Man, Habeas Corpus Petition No Remedy: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
The Madras High Court recently observed that no remedy under a habeas corpus petition would lie for the disappearance of a wife, who actually eloped with another man.
The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking to produce the body of his wife and two kids, aged 3.5 years and 2 years, who were missing since March 6, 2026.
While the court noted that it could not do anything about the eloping of the wife and the husband had to work out his remedies against her before the appropriate court, the court expressed concern regarding the two kids.
Madras High Court Closes Plea Challenging Provisions Of Centre's New Law Replacing MGNREGA
Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (18th March) closed a public interest litigation challenging the provisions of the Centre's new law replacing the MGREGA, the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act [VB-G-RAM G].
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the case after the petitioner informed the bench that he would withdraw the case.
The plea, filed by Advocate T Sivagnanasambandan, alleges that the provisions of the new Act, which is replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), are anti-federal and ultra vires to Article 245 and Article 246 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Ban Pre-Poll Alliance Between Political Parties
Case Title: R Viswanathan @ MGR Viswanathan v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to ban pre-poll alliances between political parties.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan remarked that a direction could not be issued to the ECI to restrict parties from forming pre-poll alliances. The bench also noted that its Madurai bench had earlier dismissed a similar plea seeking identical relief. Thus, finding no merits, the court dismissed the plea.
The petitioner, R Viswanathan, argued that pre-poll alliances were often formed, not in the interest of democracy but with selfish motives to defeat a common political enemy. It has been submitted that pre-poll alliances are formed to gain political power by hook or crook without any ideology, and the parties are not bothered about the welfare of the people.
Case Title: Vaiko and Others v. The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
The Madras High Court has issued extensive directions for the removal of Seemai Karuvelam (Prosopis Juliflora) in the State including setting up of a special committee consisting of two retired judges of the Madras High Court (Justice A Selvam in the South and Justice V Bharathidasan in the North) to supervise the action taken by the District Collectors.
The specially constituted bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy lamented that even though 11 years had passed since the first order of the court for removing Seemai Karuvelam, no substantial progress had been made. In such a situation, the court said it was left with only two options – either to initiate contempt against the officers or to issue further directions. Since the first option would not yield the desired result of removing the invasive species, the court decided to go ahead with the latter.
Case Title: S Kumarasamy v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
The Madras High Court recently lamented that instead of focusing on real and tangible things in life, people are focusing on non-existent things like caste, which do not have any existence than in the minds of people.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observations while noting that the state authorities in Ramanathapuram District had denied permission for installing a statue of freedom fighter Veerapandiya Kattabomman on the ground that the people were seeking the erection of a statue for caste consolidation
The court noted that everyone had duty under constitution to create a casteless egalitarian society which cannot be forgotten and when the authorities had passed this order keeping in mind this duty, it cannot be interfered with.
“Not A Shortcut”: Madras High Court Cautions Against Routine Use Of Detention Orders
Case Title: R Vembu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The Madras High Court recently observed that the detention law cannot be used as a substitute for regular criminal law procedure.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal added that the authorities can not resort to passing detention orders in every case of murder. The court added that instructions should be given to the Government to ensure that detention orders are not passed in a mechanical manner in all cases involving a solitary incident, which could be dealt with under the normal criminal law. The court added that if such cases are found in the future, costs would be imposed on the same.
Case Title: Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court has recently observed that obtaining an environment clearance certificate is not compulsory during the acquisition of land for projects for National Highways.
As per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated September 14, 2016, obtaining an environment clearance was mandatory for all projects and activities in the nature of expansion of National Highways greater than 100 kms.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the clearance was mandatory for all construction activities. The court noted that the construction would happen only after the land is entrusted to the National Highways Authority of India and not at the time of acquisition. The court added that at the time of land acquisition, the land would only be vested with the Government. The court thus concluded that the clearance was not necessary at the time of acquisition but during the commencement of development activities.
Case Title: MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
The Madras High Court has held that provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 would be applicable only to property transfers made after the commencement of the Act.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made it clear that the act cannot be given a retrospective application. The bench noted that Section 23 of the Act clearly states that the property transfer will be void in certain circumstances, which is transferred by any senior citizen after the commencement of the Act.
The bench also noted that a full bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Subhashini v. District Collector had held that the provision of the Act was intended to be only prospective in nature. The court also noted that the Delhi High Court, in the case of Charanjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. Unionof India, had concurred with this view, and the challenge against the same was also dismissed. Thus, the court concluded that the act was not retrospective.
Case Title: M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal by Director Gautham Vasudev Menon and his company Photon Factory, challenging a single judge's order directing them to repay Rs. 4.25 Crore along with 12% interest to production company RS Infotainment for failure to make a movie as agreed between the parties.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed an appeal filed by the director and his company after noting that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the single judge.
Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (March 24) dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Kamala, the mother of YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar, challenging his solitary confinement in prison during his incarceration in December 2025 in connection with an alleged extortion case.
Significant to note that Shankar is currently out on interim bail in the matter.
The court also disposed of a petition filed by her seeking specialised medical treatment for him in prison.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman also dismissed as infructuous an application filed by Shankar seeking review of the additional bail conditions imposed on him.
Though the Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that the interim bail granted to Shankar would expire on 25th March (tomorrow), and he may be directed to surrender before the police, the court made it clear that it could not issue such directions, and it was for the police to take steps against him if he did not surrender.
Case Title: S. Selvaganesh v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
The Madras High Court recently directed the Dindigul Taluk Police Station to register an FIR against a man, for allegedly forging the signature of his adopted mother in an attempt to loot her properties.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima also dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by the man against alleged illegal detention of the mother by a care home, after noting that the mother was willingly staying at the Home, after facing life threat at the hand of the adopted son. The bench also imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the man.
Case Title: XXX v The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (24 March), directed the Special Court for trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to conduct a day-to-day trial in connection with the sexual assault of a 10-year-old in Chennai's Anna Nagar area.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman directed the court to expedite the trial and dispose of it at the earliest. The court also ordered adequate police protection for the victim and her family for a fair trial.
Case Title: S Prabhu v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a man's plea seeking permission to conduct daily protests till the end of World War.
Justice Victoria Gowri also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the man for filing frivolous petitions for his eccentric needs. The court noted that constitutional rights were meant to enlarge participation and could not be used to assert a right in total disregard of public order.
The court also criticised the manner in which the man had refused to hold the protest at an alternative site suggested by the State administration, near statues of Dr. BR Ambedkar and Muthuramalinga Thevar Statue, solely because he saw them as icons of casteism. The court noted that both the leaders were historical figures and the petitioner could not be justified in making such remarks against them.
Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (26 March), temporarily stayed all further proceedings in a case registered against former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi for his comments against Saivism, Vaishnavism and women.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira allowed a plea filed by the former minister seeking a stay of the proceedings till the disposal of a plea filed by him challenging the Magistrate's order, taking cognisance of the complaint filed by BJP's Uma Anandan against Ponmudi. The court also allowed a plea dispensing with his further appearance before the Magistrate.
Ponmudi had filed the plea against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, through which the Magistrate took cognisance of a complaint filed by a BJP Councillor, Uma Anandan, against a speech made by Ponmudi.
Case Title: C Selvakumar v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
The Madras High Court recently expressed anguish over the body of 26-year-old Akash, who died due to alleged custodial violence in Manamadurai, being used as a "means of protest".
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman said that providing a decent burial is also a facet of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also noted that neither the state nor the officials were preventing the conduct of the last rites, and it was for the family members of the deceased to proceed with his rites.
Case Title: M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
The Madras High Court recently observed that unless there was a dedication or declaration of property for public charitable purpose, mere usage of the words “Waqf” or “Mosque” in a settlement deed would not mean that a property has been declared as public waqf.
Justice PB Balaji observed,
“At the risk of repetition, mere use of the words ' Waqf ' and 'Mosque' will not imply that there has been creation of a public waqf under the deed,”.