Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 155 NOMINAL INDEX Ganesan Prabhu v. M/s. Dhanabakkiam Enterprises and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 144Jaffer Sadiq v. The Assistant Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 145J Vijayakumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 146Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 147V Kanagaraj v....
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
NOMINAL INDEX
Ganesan Prabhu v. M/s. Dhanabakkiam Enterprises and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
Jaffer Sadiq v. The Assistant Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
J Vijayakumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
V Kanagaraj v. Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited v. Commercial State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
Ramasamy and Another v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
Mrs Sarikathu Nisha v. The Superintendent of Prison and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
Dr. S. Gurushankar v. The Chief Secretary to Government of TN, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
Baskar Vincent v. Director of Municipal Administration and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
Tai Industries Ltd. v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
REPORT
Case Title: Ganesan Prabhu v. M/s. Dhanabakkiam Enterprises and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
The Madras High Court has raised attachment of property belonging to late actor Sivaji Ganesan that was attached by the court in March 2023 in a plea seeking execution of an arbitral award against his grandson Dushyanth Ramkumar and their production company Eshan Productions.
Justice Abdul Quddhose ordered lifting the attachment on a plea filed by Ganesan Prabhu, the actor's elder son, who argued that the property was wrongly attached and that he was the absolute owner of the property. Finding merit in his argument, the court allowed his application and raised the earlier attachment. The court permitted Prabhu to communicate the order to the concerned authorities who could then act accordingly.
Case Title: Jaffer Sadiq v. The Assistant Director
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
The Madras High Court has granted bail to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and his brother Mohammed Saleem who were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a PMLA case.
Considering that the trial was not likely to be completed in the near future, Justice Sunder Mohan opined that further incarceration would violate the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the court was inclined to grant bail on certain conditions to ensure that the duo would be available to face trial.
The court thus ordered them to be released on bail upon executing a bond for the sum of Rs. 5 lakh each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for CBI cases. The court also directed the parties to surrender their passport before the Special court if it is not already seized by the ED. The court directed the duo to appear before the trial judge regularly and gave liberty to the ED to seek cancellation of bail if their absence was not justified.
Case Title: J Vijayakumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
The Madras High Court has asked the police to take stern action against lawyers who are hand in gloves with litigants and are indulging in land grabbing activities.
Justice Sunder Mohan directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to extend full cooperation to the police. The court also asked the Bar Council to conduct an enquiry into the alleged involvement of lawyers in the land grabbing cases
Noting that junior lawyers often engaged in these kind of activities due to financial constraints, the court asked the junior lawyers who had no bad antecedents and were engaged by the administrators of the WhatsApp groups to appear before the disciplinary committee of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu omnce a month for an year and file monthly report detailing their professional work. The court also directed the Bar Council to assist the lawyers if they wish to join a senior's office and asked senior lawyers to consider training the young lawyers by accommodating them in their office.
Madras High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging ED Search Of TASMAC Headquarters
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (April 23) dismissed pleas by State Government and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation challenging the recent searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the TASMAC headquarters on March 6 and March 8.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar while pronouncing the verdict observed that in money laundering cases, a few inconvenience in the procedure when equated against the economic justice, the latter prevails. The court also gave liberty to the ED to proceed with the investigation.
Also rejecting State's contention that the searches were politically motivated, in view of the upcoming assembly elections, the Court said it cannot examine such allegations.
Will Register FIRs Against Those Unauthorisedly Sub-Letting Property: DGP Informs Madras High Court
Case Title: V Kanagaraj v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
The Director General of Police has informed the Madras High Court that FIRs will be registered against persons who fraudulently sublet property without the authorisation or consent of the house owner and thus cheat the house owner and third parties.
The submission was made before Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, who had asked the police authorities to bring in awareness about the issue. The DGP informed the court that circulars have been issued to register FIRs in such cases and to give utmost priority to such cases.
The DGP also informed the court that Deputy Commissioners of Police in cities and Superintendents of Police in Districts have been directed to monitor investigations in these cases and to conduct quarterly review meetings to review the progress in the investigation. The court was also informed that all unit officers have been directed to sensitise the public by posting awareness videos online. The court was told that for this purpose, an awareness video had also been made.
The court noted the submissions and asked the video containing the alert message to be circulated in all social media and news channels so that it reaches the entire public and would deter them from falling prey to such fraudulent persons.
Case Title: M/s. Poomika Infra Developers v. State Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that service of notices and orders through Common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 149 of the GST Act.
The bench rejected the argument that the GST portal is not a “designated computer resource of the assessee” and hence as per Sec. 13 (2) (a) (ii) of the Information Technology Act, receipt occurs only when the communication is retrieved.
“Service by making it available in the common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 169 of the GST Act. Service is complete when it enters the common portal i.e., when it is made available in the common portal,” stated the bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.
The bench further opined that the common portal is a designated computer resource for both Department as well as taxable person inasmuch as the taxable person is given a unique login ID and password to enable them to have access to the portal. The common portal would thus constitute a “designated computer resource” for the taxable person as well.
Case Title: M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited v. Commercial State Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
The Madras High Court stated that if the taxpayer is not at all participating in the proceedings, even after repeated uploading of notices and reminders in GST portal, the Department should have resorted to other mode of service, viz., Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), so that considerable time of officers, assessee and the Court could be saved.
The court extensively referred to the provisions of the Information Technology Act and concluded, while service through portal is “sufficient” service, it is not “effective" service”.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “once if no response was received for the notices, viz., ASMT-10, DRC-01A, DRC-01, etc., which were uploaded in the common portal by the department, atleast they have to send the subsequent reminders by way of RPAD. If anyone notice is received by the assessee, he cannot make a plea that they were unaware of the notices, which were uploaded in the common portal.”
Case Title: Ramasamy and Another v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
While refusing to set aside the conviction of a man and his mother under Section 498A of the IPC, the Madras High Court noted that the Section was not limited to dowry harassment and included any cruelty meted out to the wife by the husband and his family.
Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup noted that in the present case, the husband and his mother had forcibly administered some medicine to the wife to abort the child in her womb. The court also noted that the husband and the mother-in-law did not allow the wife to enter the matrimonial house when she came with the child. Thus, the court noted that the facts attracted the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
Case Title: Mrs Sarikathu Nisha v. The Superintendent of Prison and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
The Madras High Court has asked the State and the Prisons Department to grant temporary leave to undertrial prisoners, allowing them to attend the cremation/funeral of their relatives without forcing them to approach the High Court to get interim bail.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar asked the Principal Secretary to issue necessary circulars to all prison authorities communicating the order, enabling them to act accordingly. The court said that the temporary permission could be granted by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services or the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services or the Superintendent of Police as the case may be.
The court passed the directions after noting that the judicial process was causing great hardship to the undertrial prisoners, especially those belonging to economically weaker sections who often found it difficult to arrange for interim bail or secure permission from the High Court in a short time to attend the funeral of their close ones.
Case Title: Dr. S. Gurushankar v. The Chief Secretary to Government of TN
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
While directing the State Government to make Bone Marrow Facilities available in the Government Hospitals, the Madras High Court recently observed that the government had a constitutional obligation to ensure that medical facilities are available in government hospitals and they reach the poor, downtrodden, and underprivileged citizens of the country.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that when the constitutional obligation was neglected, the court was within its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue positive directions.
Case Title: Baskar Vincent v. Director of Municipal Administration and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 75,000 on a litigant for misusing the jurisdiction of public interest litigation and approaching the court for stalling a revenue collection process by the Kodaikanal municipality.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice S Srimathy noted that the litigant had attempted to project his private interest as a public interest and attempted to stall the collection of revenue.
Case Title: Tai Industries Ltd. v. The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
The Madras High Court stated that Article 304 of the Constitution applies only to goods imported from other states or union territories and not to goods imported from outside India.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq looked into the case of State of Kerala and others v. Fr. William Fernandez and other, (2021) 11 SCC 705 and observed that the goods imported after having been released from customs barriers are not immune from any kind of State taxation. The States are free to levy taxes on goods imported into the State.
Article 304 of the Constitution empowers states to impose taxes on goods imported from other states, provided similar goods within the state are also taxed.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Saravanakumar v. The State
Case No: CRL A NO. 25 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.268 of 2023
The Madras High Court is in the process of bringing in a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for dealing with children who have undergone trauma by witnessing crimes.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar has asked the Central and the State governments to look into the issue. The State government on Monday informed the court that after the court's previous order, the State was in the process of bringing in an SOP. The counsel, however, sought time to bring the details before the court. The court allowed the request and adjourned the case.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (April 23) initiated suo motu proceedings against Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi for his recent remarks on Vaishnavism and Saivism.
Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the Registry to initiate suo motu writ proceedings against the Minister and place the matter before the Chief Justice for further actions. The court opined that the speech made by the Minister prima facie appeared to be hate speech.
The court also said that the statements made by the Minister were derogatory to women and wounds the religious feelings of Vaishnavites and Saivites- the two main sects of Hinduism in the State.
The court also criticised the state police for remaining"motionless" and not taking any action against the Minister even after the previous order of the court. The court said that it was its duty to ensure that the State police follows the orders of the Supreme Court regarding hate speech. The court also underlined that there would be zero tolerance to hate speech.