Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 483 NOMINAL INDEX R Thirumurugan v. R Thennarasu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473 C Kayalvizhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 474 TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475 A Affice Khan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 476 PVR...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
NOMINAL INDEX
R Thirumurugan v. R Thennarasu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
C Kayalvizhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
A Affice Khan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
PVR Inox Ltd and Another v. Airports Authority of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
C Somasundaram v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
M/s China Datang Technologies and Engineering Company Limited v M/s NLC Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
Eros International Media Limited v. 14 Reels Entertainment Private Limited and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
Tamil Nadu Housing Board v M/s NCC Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
Kalanithimaran and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
REPORT
Case Title: R Thirumurugan v. R Thennarasu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
The Madras High Court recently held that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department can inquire into alleged maladministration in a temple. The court added that when a temple accepts public contributions, it assumes the nature of a public institution, and the State can intervene even if it is not a notified public religious institution.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal observed as under,
“When public contributions/donations have been accepted, temple assumes the character of a public institution. If public contributions are involved, State can intervene in case of maladministration or misappropriation of funds, following the procedure as outlined in the Act and Rules, and take necessary actions. Right to administer the temple would not include maladministration. Therefore, power of State is not confined only in respect of notified public religious institutions, since the definition of temple would include temple used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, and Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is empowered to decide issues relating to characteristic of a religious institution,” the court said.
Case Title: C Kayalvizhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
The Madras High Court recently observed that sexual offences against a minor is a heinous crime against society and even a single incident could be considered for detaining such an accused.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima rejected a detenu's argument that the detaining authority could not invoke the provisions for a solitary incident.
Madras High Court Orders Fresh Review of TVS Motor's Patent Plea For Scooter Frame Design
Case Title: TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
The Madras High Court has overturned a decision by the Patent Office that had denied TVS Motor Company a patent for its "vehicle frame assembly" invention. The court said the Patent Office did not properly examine how the design worked or whether it was truly obvious from earlier technologies.
In its ruling dated November 28, 2025, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said the refusal order did not provide enough reasoning to conclude that TVS Motor's invention lacked originality. Because the analysis was incomplete, the court sent the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh review.
Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Charged Under NDPS Act
Case Title: A Affice Khan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a man booked under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The Supreme Court had recently orally observation that "Anticipatory bail is never granted in NDPS case". The Top Court had made the observation while refusing to interfere with Punjab and Haryana High Court's denial of anticipatory bail to an accused booked under the Act.
In the present case however, Justice K Rajasekar noted that the conditions under Section 37 of the Act were satisfied for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail and ordered accordingly.
Case Title: PVR Inox Ltd and Another v. Airports Authority of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Civil Aviation to take a policy decision on allowing cinema multiplexes within the airport premises.
In doing so, Justice M Dhandapani also gave relief to PVR INOX, which was asked to close down its cinema hall functioning in the Multi-Level Car Parking Complex near the Chennai Airport. The court ordered that till a policy decision was taken by the Union Government, the Airport Authority of India could not ask PVR to shut down its theatre.
The court made the orders on a plea moved by PVR INOX challenging an order of the Airports Authority of India, asking PVR to shut down its operations in the complex near the Chennai Airport.
Case Title: C Somasundaram v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
The Madras High Court has asked the Chief Secretary of the Tamil Nadu state to issue a necessary circular to all State Government Departments to ensure that all representations submitted by Persons with Disabilities should be considered at the earliest.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the authorities should act with a greater degree of sensitivity and empathy while dealing with applications/appeals by persons with disabilities. The court added that when a constitutional and statutory obligation is put on the State to work for the welfare of persons with disabilities, such petitions should not be kept pending for a long time.
Case Title: M/s China Datang Technologies and Engineering Company Limited v M/s NLC Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that appointment of arbitrator by a high court in case of an international commercial arbitration renders the award a nullity. Sections 4 and 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) are non -derogable and it is only the Apex Court which can appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration.
The Court further observed that a conjoint reading of Section 11(6) and Section 11(12)(a), ACA makes it abundantly clear that the power to appoint an arbitrator in an ICA lies exclusively with the Supreme Court. The Court further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration and such power is in the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court. The aforesaid provisions are non-derogable and any order passed by the High Court appointing an arbitrator in ICA suffers from complete lack of jurisdiction and is a nullity in law.
Madras High Court Paves Way For Release Of Film 'Akhanda 2' After Parties Agree To Settle Dispute
Case Title: Eros International Media Limited v. 14 Reels Entertainment Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
The Madras High Court has paved the way for release of Nandamuri Balakrishna starrer Akhanda 2, after its producers agreed to settle pending payments towards Eros International.
Justice Anand Venkatesh vacated an earlier interim order granted by a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan restraining the release of the movie till the petition filed by Eros against the producers of the movie was disposed of. The film is set to release tomorrow (December 12).
The judge decided to vacate the interim stay after recording the joint memo filed by the parties and noting that the producers had transferred an amount of Rs. 5 Crore as part payment.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Housing Board v M/s NCC Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award of ₹51.48 lakhs passed in favour of the contractor, M/s. N.C.C. Ltd., on the ground of an inexplicable and excessive seven-year delay in its decision.
On December 8th, 2025, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh ruled that such a delay, which is "explicit and adversely reflects on the findings," renders the award in conflict with the public policy of India and is vitiated by patent illegality, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
The Madras High Court has refused to grant bail to Saravanan, Sub Inspector of Police, accused of in the honour killing of Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.
While dismissing Saravanan's appeal against the District Court's refusal to grant bail, Justice K Murali Shankar observed that honour killing continued to plague Indian society despite the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and freedom of marriage. Reiterating the Supreme Court's observation that “bail not jail” does not apply to heinous crimes like honour killing, the court added that in such cases, bail should be a carefully guarded exception balancing liberty with societal order.
Case Title: Kalanithimaran and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
The Madras High Court has recently quashed a case registered against members of the Hindu Munnani for participating in an alleged unlawful protest.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the FIR did not disclose any specific act against the members and merely alleged that they had participated in a protest organised by their political organisation. The court observed that criminal law cannot be invoked on vague allegations, especially when it is to criminalise peaceful expression.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Case No: CONT P(MD) No.3594 of 2025
While hearing a contempt petition concerning lighting of lamps at stone pillar in Thiruparakundram hills, the Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Tuesday (December 9) directed the state's Chief Secretary and Additional Director General of Police (L&O) to appear before the court next week. The court also impleaded the Union Home Secretary and issued a statutory notice to Deputy Commissioner of Police Inigo Divyan
Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a contempt petition against non-compliance of its earlier order permitting lighting of lamps at the stone pillar in Thiruparakundram region.
Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram v, The Joint Director
Case No: CMA No. 3642 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (December 9) issued notice to the ED in Karti P Chidambaram's plea challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT ACT, dismissing his appeal against a provisional attachment order in connection with the Aircel-Maxis case.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notice to the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, returnable by 3 weeks.
It may be noted that Karti Chidambaram has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on June 5, 2025, dismissing his appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA against the order of the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA, which had confirmed the provisional attachment of his property worth Rs. 1.16 Crore. The properties were attached by the Directorate in connection with the Aircel-Maxis cases.
The Tamil Nadu authorities told the Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Friday (December 12) that devotees who moved the single judge seeking lighting of the lamp at Thiruparakundram Hills could not have claimed the same as a legal right, and Article 226 powers cannot be used to change a custom in existence for a long time.
The division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan were hearing a batch of pleas challenging a single judge's order directing the temple authorities to light the lamp at the stone pillar.
The State authorities also filed an appeal challenging the single judge's order in contempt plea on December 4th, wherein the judge quashed the prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC. Another set of Appeals also came up before the court challenging the single judge's order of December 9 in the contempt plea directing the appearance of Chief Secretary, ADGP, DCP and impleading the Union Home Secretary.
The President has directed Justice Nisha Banu to assume charge at the Kerala High Court on or before December 20, 2025. It may be noted that the Centre had notified her transfer from the Madras High Court to the Kerala High Court on October 14, 2025.
In a notification issued on December 12, the centre said
"The President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased to direct Smt. Justice J. Nisha Banu, Judge, Madras High Court to assume charge of her office in the Kerala High Court on or before 20.12.2025".