Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 492 NOMINAL INDEX Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484 Milan Textile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Initiating Officer and Anr., 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 485 Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v The Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 486 Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v....
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
NOMINAL INDEX
Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
Milan Textile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Initiating Officer and Anr., 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 485
Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v The Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. Director General of Police and Others (connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
Shri. Harigovind v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Non-corporate, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
REPORT
Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order Against Accused In Anna University Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
The Madras High Court has quashed the detention order issued against Gnanasekar, accused in the Anna University Sexual Assault Case.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman was inclined to quash the detention order after noting that Gnansekaran was already convicted and sentenced in connection with the sexual assault case. The court thus disposed of a habeas corpus plea by Gnanasekar's mother, Gengadevi.
Gnanasekar was accused of sexually assaulting a 2nd year engineering student at the Anna University campus in Chennai in December 2024. The High Court had constituted a Special Investigation Team to investigate the incident after finding faults in the state police's investigation. On June 2, Gnansekaran was sentenced to life imprisonment of a minimum 30 years and a fine of Rs 90,000.
Case Title: Milan Textile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Initiating Officer and Anr.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 485
The Madras High Court has recently held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, authorities cannot proceed against any property standing in the name of a corporate debtor for offences committed before the insolvency process, even if such property is alleged to be held benami.
A single bench of Justice G R Swaminathan ruled that Section 32A(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, offers wide protection to the property of a corporate debtor after a successful resolution.
The court observed that the word “property” in the provision is unqualified and must therefore be given its widest meaning.
Case Title: Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v The Secretary to Government of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
The Madras High Court has directed the Government of India to formulate a comprehensive policy for providing legal assistance to Indian citizens outside its territory.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the Government had a constitutional duty, and the absence of any legislative framework should not come in the way of such inference.
The court noted that labour migration was a reality in the country, and through this migration of labour across continents, the Government was earning a huge foreign exchange through inward remittances. The court added that when the nation's exchequer was being benefitted, the Government had a correlative and corresponding duty to come to their rescue when there were issues from the overseas employment.
Case Title: Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
The Madras High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is valid if the original order is completely silent on the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to assess or reassess income that has escaped assessment.
Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar stated that the original order of assessment is wholly silent in regard to the claim under Section 80HHC. Normally, when an order of assessment is passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, there is a presumption that the issues raised for consideration in the return of income have been duly taken note of by the Assessing Officer.
Commercial Courts Act Bars Intra-Court Appeals In Patent Disputes: Madras High Court
Case Title: ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
The Madras High Court has held that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge while deciding a statutory patent appeal under the Patents Act. The court reiterated that the Commercial Courts Act does not permit a second appeal within the High Court.
A division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan passed the order on December 12, 2025, while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by Italian pharmaceutical company Italfarmaco SPA challenging an earlier decision of a Single Judge of the Madras High Court.
Case Title: Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
The Madras High Court recently remarked that the new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, transformed the criminal process and made it more victim-centric, citizen-responsive and justice-oriented.
Justice L Victoria Gowri added that the new code emphasised timeliness, transparency, accountability, and proportionality. The court added that the BNSS codified timelines for investigating agencies, ensuring that the agencies could not keep the matters pending uncertainly, making victims languish without closure.
The court also added that the BNSS embodied a shift from the punitive colonial framework to a justice-centric democratic framework. The court remarked that timely investigation was the first guarantee of fairness to both the victim and accused and added that the investigating agencies should strictly adhere to the statutory timelines.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. Director General of Police and Others (connected cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to take a call on the Standard Operating Procedures, which would be made applicable to all political parties for public meetings, by January 5, 2026.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a lot of suggestions and objections were placed before it. Having gone through the affidavits filed by the State and the submissions made by the parties concerned, the bench directed the State to take a decision considering the suggestions and objections made by the parties concerned.
The court added that if any party had objections to the SOP, they were at liberty to challenge the same by filing a separate case.
Madras High Court Rejects Jaipur Restaurant's Co-Ownership Claim To 'Dasaprakash' Trademark
Case Title: Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
The Madras High Court has refused to recognise a Jaipur-based company as a co-owner of the “Dasaprakash” trademark, holding that the brand is a jointly owned family mark that could not have been transferred by a single family member.
The original mark is commonly associated with a South Indian restaurant chain.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh, in a judgment dated December 16, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. and upheld a 2009 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting its request to be recorded as a co-proprietor of the registered trademark.
The court held that no valid assignment or transfer of trademark rights had ever taken place in favour of the company and that the “Dasaprakash” mark continued to be jointly owned by the successors of its founder, K. Seetharama Rao.
Case Title: Shri. Harigovind v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Non-corporate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
The Madras High Court held that the notices under Section 153C are unsustainable where a search for 'other person' was initiated after 01.04.2021.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that the first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 153C is not only for the purpose of abatement but also for all other purposes, viz., initiation of search for other person in terms of Section 153C(3) of the Act. In such a case, the date of initiation of search for the assessee is the date on which the documents were handed over to the JAO of the assessee, i.e., 25.11.2022 is the date of initiation of search for the assessee.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah, challenging a single judge's order directing lighting of the lamp at the stone pillar in Thiruparakundram Hills, told the Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Monday (December 15) that the minority community was facing difficulty in enjoying their land given to them in 1920.
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan was hearing a batch of pleas, including those filed by the Dargah management, challenging a single judge's order directing the temple authorities to light the lamp at the stone pillar. For context, the single judge had said that the deepathoon(stone pillar) was not located in the area that belonged to the Muslims, and thus lighting the lamp would not affect the rights of the community.
Case Title: Akash Baskaran v The Joint Director and Others
Case No: Cont P 2708 of 2025
The Assistant Director of Enforcement, Vikas Kumar, issued an unconditional apology to the Madras High Court on Monday for having issued a show cause notice to film producer Akash Baskaran, despite a High Court stay.
The apology was made before a bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan. The court was hearing a contempt plea filed by Baskaran for continuing the probe in an alleged money laundering case despite a stay issued by the High Court. Taking note of his apology, the court purged him from further proceedings.
Opposing the single judge's order directing the lighting of a lamp at the stone pillar in Thiruparakundram Hills, Madurai district, and police authorities told the Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Tuesday (December 16) that the deepathoon (stone pillar) is a figment of the judge's imagination or devotees' imagination, which the judge had latched on to.
In doing so, the authorities told the court that even if there was deepathoon, the single judge could not have direct lighting of lamp there and at best could have asked the authorities to explore possibilities; however, instead the single judge had gone beyond which he could not have done.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar and Another v. KJ Praveen Kumar IAS and Others
Case No: CONT P(MD) Nos.3594 & 3657 of 2025 in W.P.(MD)Nos.32317 & 33197 of 2025
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday came down heavily on senior Tamil Nadu officials during the contempt proceedings linked to the Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue, asking the Chief Secretary whether the repeated disobedience of court directions was occurring “under instructions.”
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, who was hearing the contempt plea alleging continued non-compliance of court orders permitting lighting of the Karthigai Deepam atop the Thiruparankundram hill, directed the Chief Secretary to file a 'responsible' reply addressing the concern at the next hearing. The court expressed displeasure that authorities continued to cite “law and order” issues to justify their stance despite earlier orders and the quashing of prohibitory directions.
The court, in its order, said that unless an order was set aside or stayed, it had to be obeyed, and law and order could not be a ground for flouting the court's order. Such an attempt, the court said, would lead to paralysis of the constitutional machinery.
Opposing the appeal preferred by State and Madurai authorities against single judge's order directing lighting of a lamp at the stone pillar in Thiruparakundram Hills, the devotees urged the Madras High Court on Wednesday (December 17) not to relegate them to the authorities as they have "undisguised scorn and contempt towards" their faith.
The devotees submitted that the State authorities were trying to placate one set of rights instead of being secular and if relegated, the devotees did not feel that their rights would be safe in the authorities's hands.
The Madras High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in a batch of appeals preferred against a single judge order permitting lighting of Karthigai Deepam (lamp) at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) in the Thiruparankundram Hills, close to a dargah.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan reserved orders after a marathon hearing spanning 5 days. It heard the State, the Executive officer of the temple, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, the district and police authorities and the devotees who had approached the single judge.
The AG argued that as of now, there is no empirical data or proof available regarding the nature of the stone pillar, claimed to be a 'stone lamp pillar'.
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others
Case No: WP Crl. No. 472 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to accept a report submitted by the Director General of Police informing the court that the orderly system was completely abolished in the state of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan refused to accept the report in light of recent news reports, which suggested that the uniformed personnel continued to be made to work as orderlies. The court thus suo moto the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary of the State and sought an explanation from them. The court also directed the Advocate General to assist the bench and adjourned the case to January 7.
Case Title: S Devi v. The Principal Secretary to Government
Case No: W.P.No.36085 of 2025
The Madras High Court has decided to inspect the Marina Beach to have a clarity on the locations where vendors would be allowed and the facilities that would be provided as part of the Blue Flag Area Scheme.
Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira have decided to visit the beach on 22nd December. The court directed the stakeholders, including representatives from the State Government, Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation and his subordinates, Police Commissioner of Chennai or his subordinates and any other stakeholders of government agencies to be present for the inspection and give full assistance to the court.