Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 169 NOMINAL INDEX The Managing Director v Mariyammal and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 Nethrodaya v The Chief Electoral Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 161 Raja v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 162 Tamanna Santhosh Bhatia v M/s. Power Soaps Limited and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 KVN...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 169
NOMINAL INDEX
The Managing Director v Mariyammal and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
Nethrodaya v The Chief Electoral Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
Raja v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
Tamanna Santhosh Bhatia v M/s. Power Soaps Limited and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
KVN Productions v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
Abdul Vahabudeen v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
Jesudass Cornelius v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
K Raveendran v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
Janata Party v The Chief Election Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
V. Marisamy vs The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 169
REPORT
Case Title: The Managing Director v Mariyammal and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
The Madras High Court recently upheld an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, fixing a contributory negligence of 7% on a deceased man who was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
Though the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation argued that it was the percentage of contributory negligence should have been enhanced on account of non-wearing of helmet, the bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that mere violation of a statutory provision does not give a right to the tort feasor to plead contributory negligence unless it is proved that the violation had a nexus with the accident.
Case Title: Nethrodaya v The Chief Electoral Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (15 April) dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to introduce audio-enabled Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) for visually impaired voters in the upcoming Tamil Nadu assembly elections.
While the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan appreciated the grounds raised in the petition, the court noted that it could not issue directions to the ECI to introduce a new system after the electoral process has begun.
When the petitioner organisation Nethrodaya insisted that the court direct the ECI to consider a representation submitted by it in this regard, the court pointed out that no provision allows it to ask election authorities to introduce a system in between the elections.
Trial Court Can't Order Impounding Of Passport As A Condition For Granting Bail: Madras High Court
Case Title: Raja v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
The Madras High Court recently observed that the trial court does not have power to order impounding of passport as a condition for granting bail.
Justice P Dhanabal held that under Section 109 of the BNSS (Section 104 of the CrPC), the court had power to impound any document, but not the passport. The court observed that the power to impound passport was only with the passport authorities under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act.
The court added that the power to impound passport was provided under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The court observed that the Passport Act was a special law while the criminal procedure was a general law and thus the special law would prevail over the general law. The court thus concluded that, as far as the passport is concerned, the passport authorities alone could impound the passport and the trial court cannot impose such a condition to deposit the passport.
Case Title: Tamanna Santhosh Bhatia v M/s. Power Soaps Limited and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Madras High Court on Thursday (April 16) dismissed an appeal filed by actress Tamanna Bhatia challenging an order of a single judge rejecting her plea seeking damages of Rs 1 Crore from Power soaps for 'unauthorisedly' using her images despite expiry of contract.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi upheld the order passed by the single judge in 2017.
In her original suit, Tamanna had stated that she had entered into an agreement with Power Soaps on October 7, 2008, agreeing the use of her pictures in the wrappers of soaps manufactured by the company.
Tamanna had argued that even after the expiry of the agreement, the company continued to use her pictures on their products, without her approval. She submitted that such continued usage had caused her loss, which she quantified at Rs 1 crore.
Madras High Court Prevents Illegal Broadcast of Vijay Starrer "Jana Nayagan" Movie
Case Title: KVN Productions v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (16 April) has granted an interim injunction restraining internet service providers (ISPs) and cable operators from illegally streaming “Jana Nayagan” movie, starring Actor Vijay.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted the interim relief in a suit moved by the movie's producers, KVN Productions. The production company had moved the court after noting that parts of the movie were being illegally streamed online, even before it was certified by the Central Bureau of Certification.
Case Title: Abdul Vahabudeen v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
The Madras High Court on Thursday (16 April) dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Chief Election Commissioner and the State Election Commissioner to permit postal ballots for college students studying in various parts of the State, away from their native places.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a similar issue was pending before the Supreme Court of India, in which the court had already issued notice. Thus, noting that the issue in the present petition was identical, the court closed the plea.
Case Title: Jesudass Cornelius v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea directing the Thiruvallur District Collector and the Commissioner of Thiruverkadu Municipality to maintain a land earmarked for public park by removing the alleged encroachments, including a temple.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the temple has existed in the land for almost 5 decades and could not be said to be an encroachment. The court noted that the temple was a place for the mental well-being of the people and could be treated as a part of the park. The court also made it clear that the belief and faith of the general public cannot be disturbed on mere allegations of encroachment.
The court noted that the petition was filed with a malafide intention to cause a communal riot and decided to dismiss it with costs. The court thus directed the petitioner to pay Rs 1 Lakh to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority within a period of 4 weeks.
Case Title: K Raveendran v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
The Madras High Court, on Friday (April 17), disposed of a plea seeking an inquiry into the alleged distribution of cash tokens by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) candidate R Manohar in the Harbour assembly constituency for the 2026 Tamil Nadu assembly elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan disposed the plea after taking note of the submissions made by the standing counsel for the Election Commission of India, Niranjan Rajagopal.
The ECI informed the court that after receiving complaints, the flying squad visited the area but did not find any materials. It was also submitted that the investigation is ongoing and an FIR has also been registered in this regard. The ECI also informed the court that the issue is being monitored and a positive action will be taken.
Case Title: Janata Party v The Chief Election Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Janata Party alleging the use of a deceptively similar symbol by Naam Tamilar Katchi.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after noting that the petitioner party had not produced any document to substantiate their claim. The court also noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. The Election Commission of India (2008), had dealt with a similar issue regarding the party's right to seek a symbol. Thus, the court was inclined to dismiss the plea.
The party had approached the court seeking direction to the Chief Election Officer to consider the party's representation and immediately intervene to take appropriate action and prevent misuse of the party's symbol by NTK.
Case title: V. Marisamy vs The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 169
Observing that normally poor victims rarely get justice in the current system, the Madras High Court recently transferred the probe into the unnatural death of a 5-year-old UKG Student inside her school campus in March this year.
Stressing that the victims have a right to a fair investigation, which is an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, a bench of Justice B Pugalendhi directed the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, to withdraw the case from the local police and hand it over for probe to a sincere senior police officer.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: R Kumaravel v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others
Case No: WP 14645 of 2026
The Madras High Court has called for a report from the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in a plea seeking a probe into the assets declared by Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister, Udayanidhi Stalin, in his election affidavit for the Tamil Nadu Assembly Election 2026.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the authorities to file a status report and adjourned the case to Monday (April 20). It may be noted that the assembly elections in the State is to be conducted on April 23rd.
Case Title: BR Aravindakshan v Union of India and Others
Case No: WP 36311/2026 (Filing Number)
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking probe into alleged donations sought by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) through NaMo App and website.
The petition, filed by BR Aravindakshan, a resident of Chennai, alleged that the party has cheated countless members of the public to make donations through the app for the Union Government's schemes, when in reality the funds were collected for the party.
Action has also been sought against party's former National President JP Nadda and the Chief Complaints Officer of the Namo App, Amit Malviya.
Case Title: G Devarajan v The Returning Officer and Another
Case No: WP 66596/2026 (filing no)
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the acceptance of the nomination of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate Aadhav Arjuna, alleging that he concealed material information in nomination papers.
The petitioner, Devarajan from Chennai, alleges that Arjuna has concealed material information in his nomination papers and the returning officer for the Vilivakkam Assembly Constituency should not have accepted his nomination. The plea thus seeks to quash his nomination.
Centre Notifies Permanent Appointments For 3 Additional Judges Of Madras High Court
The Central Government has recently notified permanent appointments for three additional judges of Madras High Court.
The additional judges appointed as permanent judges are: Justice R. Poornima, Justice M. Jothiraman and Dr. Justice Augustine Devadoss Maria Clete.
Case Title: V Vignesh v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others
Case No: WP 68415 of 2026 (Filing no.)
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking a probe into alleged inconsistencies in the assets declared by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) Chief Vijay for the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections.
The petition has been filed by V Vignesh from Chennai. In his plea, Vignesh submitted that there are inconsistencies in the affidavits filed by Vijay before the returning officer in Trichy (East) constituency and one filed before the returning officer in Perambur constituency. He submits that the materials disclose multiple layers of inconsistencies which raises serious concerns and makes out a prima facie case warranting investigation by the Director General of Income Tax.
The petitioner submits that while Vijay had disclosed assets of Rs 115,13,63,000/- before the Returning Officer for Perambur constituency, he disclosed assets of Rs. 220,15,62,010/- before the Returning Officer of Trichy constituency. The petitioner further submits that this transition is neither explained nor supported by any documents.