Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 472 NOMINAL INDEX Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 456 Rama Ravikumar v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 457 Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
NOMINAL INDEX
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
Rama Ravikumar v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir Mukkaram Ali, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
M/s MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. v. M/s Vishnu Associates & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
A v. M and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
Suo Motu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
Nannir Water Sources LLP v. Syed Imran and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s. Sangeetham House of Veg, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
The Official Assignee v. S Arjunlal Sunderdas and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others v. Rama Ravikumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
M/s. Devaraj & Others v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
MRF Limited vs. Additional Director, DGGI, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
REPORT
Case Title: Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
The Madras High Court has held that payment for IPLC (International Private Leased Circuits) Services does not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan examined whether the payment made by the assessee for IPLC services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of a payment made to a foreign-based company.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
The Madras High Court has permitted the Tamil Nadu government to carry out its development works for the strengthening of ponds to store excess rainwater and the development of Eco Park in the land that was earlier leased out to the Madras Race Club.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that there was an urgent and compelling need for the State to undertake the projects, which would eventually improve the air quality, reduce pollution sources, and prevent the city from being inundated.
The court thus modified an earlier order of a single judge that had ordered status quo in the case, thereby preventing the state's development.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
The Madras High Court has permitted the lighting of lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills.
Justice GR Swaminathan primarily observed that the deepathoon was not located in the area that belonged to the Muslims and thus lighting the lamp would not affect the rights of the community. At the same time, the court added that not allowing the lighting of lamps would affect the rights of the temple and the devotees.
The court also criticised the conduct of the temple management in not taking steps to protect the rights of the temple or the devotees. The court further observed that the temple management had failed to discharge its duty.
Madras High Court Strikes Down Wrongful Copyright Entry Over 'Sagar Homeo Stores' Logo
Case Title: Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir Mukkaram Ali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
The Madras High Court has ordered the cancellation of a copyright entry that wrongly gave a rival businessman ownership of the artistic logo used by the long-established “Sagar Homeo Stores,” holding that the record had been incorrectly created despite the store's earlier trademark and copyright registrations.
A single bench of Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on November 28, 2025, ruling that the 2009 registration obtained by Mir Mukkaram Ali, a competing homeopathic businessman, was inconsistent with the store's prior statutory rights. The court directed that the entry be expunged from the Register of Copyrights.
Case Title: M/s MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. v. M/s Vishnu Associates & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
In a rejection of a challenge to an arbitral award, the Madras High Court has upheld the Sole Arbitrator's decision directing MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. to pay over 1.23 crores in relation to an agreement over the release of the film “Maatraan”.
Dissmissing a plethora of arguments contended by the Petitioner, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on 28th November 2025 ruled that a guarantee deed, claimed as “comfort letter” by the Petitioner, was not a mere formality but a “binding commitment” to cover financial loss, and in fact was enforceable.
The dispute arose out of a film distribution deal for the Tamil movie “Maatraan” entered into between Vishnu Associates and Eros International Media Ltd., wherein, Vishnu Associates paid ₹2 crore upfront to distribute the Tamil and Telugu versions of the film in Karnataka. When the Tamil version could not be released due to local unrest owing to the Cauvery water dispute, the distributor invoked force majeure.
Case Title: Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
The Madras High Court has refused to vacate its interim order restraining the makers of Ajith starrer "Good Bad Ugly" movie from using three songs of renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja.
Justice N Senthilkumar, on Wednesday, observed that Ilaiyaraaja is entitled to protect his work from distortion. The court thus dismissed the application filed by Mythri Movie Makers, producers of "Good Bad Ugly", seeking to vacate the interim order, noting that it did not have merit.
Case Title: A v. M and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
While setting aside a Non-Bailable Warrant issued against a husband for not paying maintenance arrears, the Madras High Court recently highlighted the importance of following procedure while issuing such orders.
Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that the object of Section 125 CrPC was social justice and the courts should ensure that the maintenance orders are implemented while safeguarding the liberty of individuals from arbitrary arrest. The court highlighted the balance between enforcement and fairness was the hallmark of criminal jurisprudence.
Noting the procedural irregularities involved in the case, the court observed that it underscored the need for trial courts to record the provisions under which the warrants are issued and to follow the statutory sequence before resorting to non bailable warrant.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
In an innovative approach, the Madras High Court has suggested the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority provide assistance to persons who have lost their cellphones or similar articles to get back the same without physically approaching the court.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was taking up a suo motu proceeding registered to implement the pilot project formulated by the Committee of the Supreme Court of India for the disposal of criminal cases.
While disposing of the cases, the court noted that in many cases where mobile phones or similar articles were stolen, their value diminished significantly after the theft and recovery. The court noted that in many cases, after theft, the persons would move on and buy new phones, and did not appear before the Magistrate to apply for the return of the stolen properties. The court noted that to get back the stolen property, the parties usually had to spend more than its value, lose their wage, take leave, travel and spend, and wait for the whole day in court.
Thus, the redress such grievances, the court suggested that the Legal Service Authority could provide its assistance.
Case Title: PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
While granting relief to the Thengalai sect (Southern cult) to conduct the ceremonial worship at the Sri Devaraja Swamy temple in Kancheepuram, the Madras High Court recently observed that the fundamental right to freedom of religion cannot be expanded to affect the rights of the temple's office holders or to disturb the peaceful atmosphere of the temple.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar rejected the argument of the Vadagalai sect (Northern cult), which argued that giving ceremonial rights to the southern cult would infringe their rights under Article 25 and 26.
The bench noted that as per the earlier round of litigations, which started as early as in the 18th century, the southern cult was given the rights of official performance of certain services to the deity.
Case Title: Nannir Water Sources LLP v. Syed Imran and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
The Madras High Court recently granted interim relief to a water purifier company by restraining a YouTuber from making videos containing disparaging and defamatory statements about the company's product.
Justice N Senthilkumar observed that the false statements made by the YouTuber would put an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade guaranteed to the company under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The court added that the defamatory statements made by the YouTuber would not only affect the company's goodwill, but would also affect its business prospects and commercial standing.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
After noting that its earlier order, permitting the lighting of lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills was not complied with by the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, the Madras High Court today permitted devotees to go to the hill and light the deepam themselves.
Justice GR Swaminathan made the direction in a contempt petition moved by one of the petitioners in the earlier litigation. The court also directed the CISF commandant of High Court's Madurai bench to give protection to the devotees, allowing them to carry out the court order. The court also permitted the contempt petitioner to take ten other persons along with him.
Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
Renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja has settles the civil suits he had initiated against Mythri Movie Makers, producers of the movies “Dude” and “Good Bad Ugly”, over the alleged unauthorised usage of his copyrighted works.
Appearing before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, the parties informed the court that they had entered into negotiations and concluded a settlement. The parties also filed a joint memo of compromise, which was digitally signed by Ilaiyaraaja and representative of Mythri Movie Makers.
As per the terms of settlement, the production house has paid Rs. 50,00,000 to the musician, after deducting a TDS of 10%by way of RTGS. The parties have agreed that upon receipt of the money, the production company will be permitted to continue using the songs in “Dude” movie. With respect to the songs in the “Good Bad Ugly” movie, the production company agreed to desist from using the songs.
Noting the settlement, the court decreed the suit as per the terms of the compromise memo.
Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s. Sangeetham House of Veg
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “Sangeetham House of Veg” trademark held by a Thiruchendur-based restaurant, after finding that the registration was obtained in violation of an earlier court-recorded settlement that required the outlet to change its name.
The settlement had been reached in a trademark infringement suit filed by Chennai-based Sangeetha Veg Restaurant, which said the Thiruchendur restaurant's name and “S” logo were deceptively similar to its own “Sangeetha” brand.
Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on November 6, 2025, allowing the rectification petition filed by the Chennai restaurant. The court held that the Thiruchendur outlet had suppressed key facts while securing its trademark registration and that the mark could not remain on the register in light of the binding settlement.
Case Title: The Official Assignee v. S Arjunlal Sunderdas and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the release of the latest Tamil film “Vaa Vathiyar” over alleged unpaid dues by the movie's producer, KE Gnanavel of Studio Greens.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan passed the interim direction in an execution petition filed by the official liquidator of the Madras High Court to deal with the estate of realtor and financier Arjunlal Sunderdas after he was declared insolvent. In 2019, the court had noted that Gnanavel owed Rs. 10,35,00,000 to Sunderdas and allowed a petition filed by the Official Assignee directing Studio Green to pay a sum of Rs. 10,35,00,000/- with an interest of 18% p.a.
Since this order has not been complied with completely, the official liquidator filed the execution petition seeking to prohibit the release of future movies of Studio Green. The present petition was to prohibit the release of the "Vaa Vaathiyar" movie, which was slated to be released on December 5, and to attach the proceeds of the movie towards the satisfaction of the decretal amount.
The court has now passed an interim order prohibiting the release of the movie till 5th December.
Case Title: KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others v. Rama Ravikumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
The Madras High Court today dismissed a letter patent appeal against the order of a single judge in a contempt petition, permitting devotees of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills, which is located close to a dargah.
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that devotees were permitted to light the lamp since single judge's initial order was not complied with by the temple administration. Such modification in the initial order, the division bench said, was sustainable.
The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by the Madurai's District Collector, city Police Commissioner and Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple against a single judge's order yesterday, permitting devotees to light lamps at the hilltop. State's HR&CE (Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments) Department also entered appearance.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
The Madras High Court has quashed the prohibitory order issued by the Madurai District Collector under Section 144 CrPC(Section 163 BNSS) in the Thiruparakundram region, following the clashes that broke out while implementing a court order passed yesterday, allowing devotees to go to the temple and light lamps at the stone pillar.
Justice GR Swaminathan quashed the order, observing that the same was promulgated only to circumvent the implementation of the court order. The court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city to give police protection to the devotees allowing them to light the lamps at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) situated at the lower hilltop on the Thiruparankundram hills.
Case Title: M/s. Devaraj & Others v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
The Madras High Court has held that the rectification power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is akin to the review power under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and is limited to rectifying any mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal cannot re-adjudicate issues or modify its original order under the guise of rectification.
Section 254(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, grants the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) the authority to amend its orders to rectify any mistake apparent from the record.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan stated that when the power under section 254(2) is akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the scope and ambit of rectification/review could be only within the contours provided under the provision. When the provision only allows for rectification for any errors apparent on the face of the record, the mistake should be discernible on the face of the record without requiring any elaborate enquiry or reasoning. In the garb of rectification, the issue cannot be re-adjudicated, and a fresh order cannot be passed effacing the original order, which is clearly impermissible.
Case Name: MRF Limited vs. Additional Director, DGGI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
The Madras High Court has quashed Show Cause Notices issued to Apollo Tyres Limited and MRF Limited alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the composite supply of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps (TFF) since tax difference was paid voluntarily.
In twin judgments dated November 28,2025, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy examined if Show Cause Notice had fulfilled the ingredients of Section 74 to hold that payment deferred due to confusion prevailing confusion in the industry regarding tax treatment of TFF is not attributable to tax evasion.
The High Court dismissed grounds for invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act together with Respondent's stance that payment subsequent to initiation of investigation was invalid. The High Court observed that there was 'no criminal motive' attributable to the Petitioner.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court on Thursday orally remarked that communal harmony can be achieved only when communities co-exist and not when a particular community is restrained from performing their religious acts.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan made the oral comments during the hearing of an appeal against the single judge's order yesterday, permitting devotees to light lamps at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparankundram Hills near a dargah.
"Communal harmony cannot be achieved by preventing one party from doing their religious function. It can be achieved only by co-existence. Once in a year, if they are lighting without affecting anyone, is there any difficulty in allowing them? 100 years ago, the ways were different, understanding was different. Now it's different. We don't even know if these will continue after 100 years," the court said.
Case Title: The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others
Case No: WA (MD) 3188 of 2025
The Madras High Court has adjourned the appeal preferred against a single bench decision permitting lighting of lamp (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills, which is located close to a dargah.
The division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan said it will take up the matter next Friday (December 12), after all the parties already involved in the case have filed their appeals.
The present appeal has been preferred by the Madurai's District Collector, city Police Commissioner and Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple.
The Court was however told that State's HR&CE (Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments) Department as well as the Dargah will also be moving appeals. Following which the Court said it intends to take up all appeals together.
While dealing with the Thiruparankundram lamp lighting row, the Madras High Court on Friday remarked that it would not tolerate any comments against the judiciary.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan said just because judges cannot react openly, persons should not keep on provoking the court and that strict action would be taken if limits exceed.
The judges made the oral remarks while hearing the appeal against a single judge order asking the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp at 6 pm on December 3rd. The court has decided to hear all appeals against the single judge's order on December 12 (Friday).
Case Title: RS Tamilvendan v. The Secretary and Others
Case No: WP No. 46210 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Friday (December 5) issued notice on a plea seeking an enquiry into children being used for begging.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan admitted a plea by an advocate and issued notice to the Secretary (Department of Public Health), Corporation Commissioner, Commissioner of Police (Vepery), Child Welfare Board, the Secretary (Department of Health), and the Traffic Police Commissioner's Office.