Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 NOMINAL INDEX Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54 Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 Mr....
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
NOMINAL INDEX
Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
REPORT
Case Title: Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the accused booked under the POCSO Act after finding that the name of the survivor/victim was explicitly mentioned by their counsel in the cause title of the criminal petition.
A bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri strongly condemned the conduct of the petitioners' counsel and further directed that the said amount be paid to the survivor.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By Actor Vijay Challenging 1.5 Crore Income Tax Penalty
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Actor Vijay challenging the Rs. 1.5 crore penalty imposed on him by the Income Tax Department for undisclosed income of Rs 15 crore in the financial year 2015-16.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the show cause notice had been issued within the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
As the court found no infirmity in the issuance of the notice, it refrained from examining the other aspects of the matter.
At the same time, the court granted liberty to Vijay to assail the notice and the consequential order before the appellate tribunal on grounds other than limitation.
Case Title: Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
The Madras High Court has observed that Kumbabishekam festivals in a temple cannot be conducted by an individual, especially when there are multiple communities residing in a village.
Justice S Srimathy thus directed the fit person appointed to the Sri Muniyandi Swamy temple, Sri Ayyanar Swamy temple, Sri Karuppa Swamy temple and Sri Muthumariamman Swamy Temple to form a committee consisting of persons from each community for conducting the Kumbabishekam festival at the temples.
The court remarked that first honour should not be given to any community and there should not be any discrimination.
Case Title: Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
The Madras High Court recently observed that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act would not come into play with respect to the acceptance of bond for appearance.
Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that Section 37 comes into play only when the liberty of a person from custody is sought and not when the accused is merely securing appearance pursuant to the summons.
Case Title: Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that resignation from service, even if for medical reasons, would result in forfeiture of past service and such a person would not be entitled to pensionary benefits.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice C Kumarappan held as under,
“'Resignation' from a service or post as per Rule 23 of The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 entails forfeiture of past service. Therefore, resignation from service even on medical or health grounds entails forfeiture of past service. The grounds based on which resignation is sought is immaterial and resignation shall only mean forfeiture of past service,” the court said.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Madras High Court Seeks ECI's Response On Plea By PMK's Ramadoss Regarding Allotment of Mango Symbol
Case Title: M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. The Election Commission of India and Another
Case No: WP 3418 of 2026
The Madras High Court has directed the Election Commission of India to respond to a plea filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi founder Dr. S Ramadoss, alleging that the ECI's communication regarding allotment of “Mango “ symbol to the party was wrongly communicated to the party's former President Anbumani, who was no longer in the party.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the ECI and the Chief Electoral Officer of the State of Tamil Nadu to respond to the plea within 3 weeks. Though Senior Advocate NL Rajah, appearing for Anbumani, informed the bench that his client should also be heard in the case, the court refused citing that Anbumani had not been made a party in the case.
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 District Collector of Madurai on Monday (February 2), told the Madras High Court that the prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC concerning the lighting of the lamp atop the Thiruparankundram Hills was passed not to prevent implementation of court orders but to ensure that "no law and order situation" arises.
The submission was made before Justice GR Swaminathan, who was hearing a contempt petition initiated by the court over non-compliance of an earlier order directing the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram Hills. The officers also tendered their unconditional apology and requested that the contempt proceedings be dropped.
Madras High Court Mulls Setting Up SIT To Probe Fake Certificate IssuedFor Petrol Bunk
Case Title: VBR Menon v. The Chief Controller Of Explosives
Case No: WP No.19983 of 2023
The Madras High Court is considering setting up a Special Investigation Team to investigate into issuance of fake No-Objection Certificate for obtaining petrol bunk license.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan has also directed the Additional Director General of Police CB-CID to appear before it.
Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police
Case No: WP Crl. 1791/2025
The Madras High Court has called for objections to the report filed by the Medical Board which assessed the health condition of YouTuber-Journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman directed the Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel representing Shankar's mother Kamala to file their response/objection to the Medical Board's report.
Chennai School Moves Madras High Court Against Notice To Host Seva Bharati Camp
Case Title: Sri Saraswathi Vidyalaya v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another
Case No: WP/3368/2026
Sri Saraswati Vidyalaya has approached the Madras High Court challenging a show cause notice issued by the Directorate of School Education (Private Schools) for allowing the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct their Seva Bharati camp in the school premises.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy has ordered notice in the plea.
The plea states that during December 2025, the school gave its playground to the party for conducting the Seva Bharati camp on 24th December and 30th December. The school stated that the camp was being conducted when the school was not functioning and the children were at home for the holidays.
While so, on the day of commencement of the camp, the local police approached the school and asked them to send out the participants. The police also asked the school not to permit such camps in the future.
Following this, the Directorate of School Education (Private Schools) sent a show cause notice to the school.