Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500 NOMINAL INDEX P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493 Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 494 The Government of India v. S Somasundaram and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 495 Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents, 2025 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
NOMINAL INDEX
P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493
Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 494
The Government of India v. S Somasundaram and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 496
The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
K.M. Mammen v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 498
S Vijayakumar v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 499
A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
REPORT
Case Title: P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493
The Madras High Court has recently observed that it was time that an audit be conducted regarding payment of fee to the law officers in the State.
Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation on noting that Additional Advocate Generals were appearing even in small matters where their presence was not required. The court added that while it could not enquire into the quantum of fee to be paid to senior counsels and additional advocate generals, good governance was required to ensure that public money was not given away to a favoured few.
Case Title: Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 494
While setting aside the Central Government's order refusing registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 to a trust engaged in the teaching of yoga, the Madras High Court recently remarked that Bhagavad Gita is not a religious book, but more about moral science.
Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a petition filed by Arsha Vidya Parampara trust against an order filed by the Director, FCRA Wing, Ministry of Home Affairs rejecting an application for registration under the Act.
The court also noted that the reason why organisation was termed religious was because it taught Bhagavad Gita. The court observed that Bhagavad Gita was not a religious book and speaks about internal and eternal trust. The court also remarked that the Gita had inspired some national leaders during the freedom struggle and under Article 51A(b) it was the duty of citizens to cherish and follow the noble ideas which inspired our national struggle for freedom.
The court also noted that the trust taught Vedanta and Yoga, which also could not be termed as religious. The court remarked that Yoga was universal and could not be viewed through the prism of religion.
Case Title: The Government of India v. S Somasundaram and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
The Madras High Court recently held that the grant of a state pension to a freedom fighter would not automatically result in the extension of a central pension to the pensioner. The court added that for granting the Central Government Pension Scheme, the conditions stipulated in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (SSS Scheme) had to be followed.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan set aside an order of the single judge, which held that once the state government has extended the benefit of the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, the central government has to extend the same, and that the eligibility criteria fixed by the central government need not be followed strictly.
Case Title: Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 496
The Madras High Court has directed the Patent Office to grant an inventor one opportunity to demonstrate the working of his invention, holding that a potentially viable invention should not be rejected without adequate consideration.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenging the rejection of his patent review application relating to an invention titled “Solar Supplemental Power Source.”
The invention is described as an electro-mechanical device intended to generate electricity even when solar energy is unavailable.The court noted that the petitioner was only seeking an opportunity to demonstrate his invention.
Case Title: The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Ciaion: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
The Madras High Court held that the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee under a government rehabilitation scheme is a capital receipt and is not taxable as revenue.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan examined whether the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee from the Government under the rehabilitation scheme should be treated as a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee or as a capital receipt, taking it out of the purview of the taxable income.
Case Title: K.M. Mammen v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 498
The Madras High Court held that once the assessee's entitlement to compounding had attained finality through earlier orders, then the Income Tax Department could not apply the revised Compounding Guidelines.
Justice C. Saravanan referred to the Explanation to Section 279(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and noted that the new compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 bearing reference F.No.285/08/2014-IT (Inv.V) would apply, only if a new application is/was filed in terms of paragraph 3.2 of the said guidelines.
Case Title: S Vijayakumar v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 499
The Madras High Court recently asked the central government to consider bringing in a law, similar to that in Australia, to monitor internet usage by children.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan made the suggestion after noting that pornographic content is widely available to children using the internet. The court observed that the end users had to be made aware of the menace of child pornography, and till such legislation was passed, it was the duty of the authorities to create awareness campaigns.
Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
The Madras High Court, on Friday, granted interim bail to YouTuber and journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar. Shankar was arrested on December 13 on allegations of assault and extortion by a film producer.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal noted that Shankar had serious health issues and needed treatment. The court also noted that the authorities had been filing cases against Shankar, curtailing his personal liberty. The court was thus inclined to grant interim bail to Shankar from 26th December 2025 to 25th March 2026.
While hearing the case on Friday, the vacation court also criticised the state police for targeting Shankar, who was exercising his fundamental right to dissent. The court criticised the authorities for running behind journalists whenever there was dissent.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Plea In Madras High Court Challenges Recent HC Collegium Recommendations, Alleges Favouritism & Bias
Case Title: A Prem Kumar v The Union of India and Others
Case No: WP No. 50487/2025
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the recent recommendations made by the High Court Collegium.
The public interest litigation filed by Advocate A Prem Kumar, an advocate practising in Thiruvannamalai, alleges that the collegium has recommended candidates having strong political affiliations or favouring one specific political party ruling the Centre. It has been alleged that the recommendation is overshadowed by favouritism and bias and would affect the independence and credibility of the judiciary.
Case Title: K V Rajendran Alias Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others
Case No: OA No. 1222 of 2025
The Madras High Court has asked the South Indian Film Writers Association (SWAN) to examine a complaint alleging that the story of the upcoming movie “Parasakthi” starring Sivakarthikeyan was stolen.
Justice SM Subramaniam has also issued notice to director Sudha Kongara, writer Arjun Nadesan, screenwriter Pugazhendi Mathimaran, Dawn Pictures Private Ltd production company, and the South Indian Film Writers Association (SWAN).