Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 26 NOMINAL INDEX A Karthik v. Mrs Rashmi Siddharth Zagade and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6 I Periyasamy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 7 The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 8 Freshtohome Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad)...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
NOMINAL INDEX
A Karthik v. Mrs Rashmi Siddharth Zagade and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
I Periyasamy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
Freshtohome Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
Amman Try Trading Company Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy v. Raj Television Network Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
Origin Nutrition Private Limited v. Ms Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
Elizabeth F. Santhi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
P Naveenprasad v/s Homes Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. v. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
A Radhakrishnan v The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Gemini Communication Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
S Devi v. The Principal Secretary to the Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
T Rangaraj v. Ms Joy Crizildaa, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
Commissioner of Income-tax Coimbatore v. M/s Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
REPORT
Case Title: A Karthik v. Mrs Rashmi Siddharth Zagade and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
The Madras High Court recently remarked that that God or an Idol will never harm any person and the authorities cannot act on superstitions to remove idols from a person's house alleging that it has caused unnatural deaths in the locality.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ordered that a person can keep any idol in his own premises and worship peacefully by even inviting his friends or neighbors. The court added that the public cannot take law into their hands as a majority might and remove the idols.
Case Title: I Periyasamy v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Tamil Nadu Minister for Rural Development I Periyasamy and his family members challenging an ECIR registered against them by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the parties had filed the plea without approaching the adjudicating authority first. The bench thus directed them to approach the adjudicating authority as per law. The court added that if the parties were aggrieved by the orders of the adjudicating authority, they can file necessary pleas at such point of time.
Case Title: The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Tuesday (January 6) upheld a single judge's order directing lighting of the lamp at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparakundram hills near a dargah.
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan, while pronouncing the order, held that the order of single judge is not hit by res judicata as the issue was not decided in earlier litigations.
The bench said that the appellants–including the state authorities, Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah– had failed to produce formidable evidence to show that agama shastra prevented the lighting of the lamp at the site.
ALSO READ: Thiruparankundram Hill Row : Madras High Court Rejects Argument That 'Deepathoon' Was A Survey Stone
Madras High Court Upholds Trade Marks Registry Order Rejecting “Fresh Not Frozen” Mark
Case Title: Freshtohome Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Freshtohome Foods Private Limited, a Bangalore-based online grocery delivery platform against a 2019 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting its trademark application for the brand “FRESH NOT FROZEN”.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025.
The court held that the proposed mark was deceptively similar to an existing registered trademark, “FRESH N FROZEN”, which covers similar food-related retail services. The court said customers were likely to be confused at first glance.
Madras High Court Sets Aside GST Demand For Not Considering CBIC Circulars Cited By Taxpayer
Case Name: Amman Try Trading Company Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
The Madras High Court has set aside a GST demand on a corporate guarantee after finding that the tax department failed to consider CBIC circulars relied upon by the taxpayer while raising the assessment.
Allowing the writ petition, Justice G R Swaminathan held that an assessment order cannot survive if the tax department fails to consider the defence raised by the taxpayer.
The court held, “When a defense raised by the noticee is not considered in the final order, the order is vulnerable on that ground. On the ground of non-consideration of the contentions raised by the assessee, the impugned order is set aside.”
Case Title: Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy v. Raj Television Network Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The Madras High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction against a YouTuber accused of illegally streaming Tamil films claimed by Raj Television Network Limited.
The case centres on the Tamil films 16 Vayathinile, Kalangarai Vilakkam and Kudiyirundha Kovil. Raj Television says it holds exclusive copyright over these films, including their digital and streaming rights.
Justice N Senthilkumar, in an order passed on December 12, 2025, rejected Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy's plea to lift an ex parte injunction granted earlier this year in Raj Television's copyright infringement suit.
Case Title: Origin Nutrition Private Limited v. Ms Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
The Madras High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Origin Nutrition Private Limited, a maker of vegan protein products, in its trademark infrigment dispute with Tech7 Phyll Private Limited over the use of the name “ORIGIN/ORIGIN FRESH” for selling fruits and vegetables.
In an order dated December 19, 2025, Justice N Senthilkumar said that “ORIGIN” is a common, generic word and cannot be claimed as an exclusive trademark.
The court also pointed out that the two companies are in very different lines of business and serve different kinds of customers, leaving little room for any real confusion.
Buried Body Can't Be Exhumed Based On Sentiments Alone: Madras High Court Rejects Widow's Plea
Case Title: Elizabeth F. Santhi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
The Madras High Court recently rejected a woman's plea to exhume her deceased husband's body from the church cemetery.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that the wife had not shown any compelling reasons to exhume the body and as such the exhumation could not be ordered on mere sentiments.
The court highlighted that the right to decent burial was encompassed within the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court also highlighted that the disinterment or exhumation of the bodily remains stands on a different footing.
Case title: P Naveenprasad v/s Homes Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
While hearing an urgent petition challenging the publication of a book allegedly making personal attacks against Justice GR Swaminathan, the Madras High Court on Wednesday (January 7) directed the police to seize copies of such publication and also asked the authorities to ensure such scandalous publication does not take place.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan has also initiated suo moto contempt action against the publisher.
This comes, in the wake of the decision delivered on Tuesday by the division bench at Madurai, which has upheld Justice GR Swaminathan's order directing lighting of a lamp on a at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparakundram hills near a dargah.
Madras High Court Quashes CESTAT Chennai Order For Deciding Issues Not Under Appeal
Case Title: Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. v. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
The Madras High Court has pulled up the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai for overstepping its mandate, quashing its order and holding that the Tribunal cannot decide issues that were never appealed before it.
A Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi said that although Section 129-B of the Customs Act, 1962 confers wide powers on the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, those powers are not unbridled.
Madras High Court Allows US Inventor's Late Patent Examination Request Despite Indian Agent's Error
Case Title: Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
The Madras High Court has directed the Indian Patent Office to accept and process a request for examination filed by a US-based inventor, holding that a patent application cannot be treated as abandoned due to an inadvertent mistake by a patent agent.
The court ruled that in the absence of any intention to give up the invention, such procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Smythe challenging the Patent Office's refusal to accept his request for examination in relation to an invention titled “Prediction, Visualisation and Remediation of Satellite Conjunctions.”
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (January 07) directed the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary to constitute district-level monitoring committees to ensure that the orderly system is completely abolished in the state.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan directed the committee to be formulated within 2 weeks.
The committee shall be headed by the respective District Collectors and will have one revenue officer not below the rank of District Revenue Officer. It will further have two police officials not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police, who are to be directly nominated by the District Collector.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Gemini Communication Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court has held that from May 14, 2007, companies had to file their income tax returns electronically, and that paper returns filed after that date carry no legal validity
A bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar rejected a claim for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, holding that electronic filing of returns was a mandatory requirement for availing the benefit.
Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Relief To 93 Chennai Port Spillage Workers
Case Title: The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by the Chennai Port Authority, refusing to set aside an arbitral award that directed the port to reinstate spillage-handling workers and grant back wages, gratuity and other service benefits to 93 workers.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that the award did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality and did not conflict with public policy.
The court observed that the Port Trust, as a State instrumentality, is “is expected to act with a higher degree of fairness than ordinary employers”.
Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Wipro's 'PREMIO' Trademark On Crompton Greaves Plea
Case Title: Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “PREMIO” trademark registered in favour of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited. The Court found that the mark had not been put to genuine commercial use for more than five years.
Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on December 16, 2025. He allowed a rectification plea filed by Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, a Mumbai-based consumer electricals manufacturer.
The court held that the disputed mark was liable to be removed from the Register of Trademarks. It observed that “the petitioner has made out a case that after registering their trademark, the 1st respondent has not done anything to carry out the trade by using the trademark for a period of more than five years.”
Case Title: S Devi v. The Principal Secretary to the Government
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, directed the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) to permit only 300 shops at Marina Beach in Chennai.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira said that the shops would be selling three categories of items – (i) Eatables, (ii) Toys and related goods, and (iii) Fancy goods or souvenirs. The bench added that 100 shops could be allotted to each category, but also gave liberty to the GCC to make alterations in the number of shops in each category
The bench also directed that the shops should be allocated through draw of lots and the entire process must be conducted under the supervision of a retired high court judge. The court said that it would pass further orders for appointing a retired high court judge to supervise the allotment procedure.
Case Title: T Rangaraj v. Ms Joy Crizildaa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
The Madras High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of celebrity chef Madhampatty Rangaraj restraining celebrity stylist Joy Crizildaa from making social media posts against the former.
Justice N Sentilkumar noted that there could not be a blanket order restricting a person from exercising their right to express their views. The court noted that if Rangaraj wanted to restrain posts against him, he had to establish that there was commercial exploitation of his personality rights.
Case Title: Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
The Madras High Court has dismissed a patent revocation plea filed by Maya Appliances Private Limited, a Chennai-based company, seeking to revoke a food processor patent held by Versuni Holding B.V., a Netherlands-based home appliances company.
In an order passed on December 19, 2025, Justice N. Senthilkumar allowed Versuni's application seeking rejection of the revocation proceedings, holding that the challenge was not maintainable since the very same issue had already been raised in a pending patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Alloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra, the Court reiterated that, “once a defence available to the first respondent herein has been exercised, the same cannot be re-agitated before any other forum or in any other manner.”
Case Title: M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 9) directed the Central Board of Film Certification to forthwith grant U/A certificate to upcoming Tamil movie "Jana Nayagan" starring Vijay.
Justice PT Asha while pronouncing the order said: "After examining materials, it is crystal clear that the complainant's grievance appears to be an after thought".
The court said that entertaining such complaints would give rise to "dangerous trend".
The Court said that the action was without jurisdiction and once the modifications recommended by the examining committee is carried out, the certificate for the film would automatically follow.
Case Title: Commissioner of Income-tax Coimbatore v. M/s Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
The Madras High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke its revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by proceeding on an incorrect assumption about the nature of a transaction. The court ruled that such powers cannot be exercised where a demerger is wrongly treated as an amalgamation.
Dismissing the revenue's appeal, a bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar said the Commissioner had failed to first establish any error in the assessment order before ordering a revision.
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 9) temporarily stayed the single judge's order delivered earlier today directing CBFC to forthwith grant U/A Certificate for Tamil film 'Jana Nayagan' starring Vijay.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan in its order dictated:
"Respondent Union of India was not given sufficient time..one main grievance of UoI was that they were not given time to reply. Another grievance is that letter dated January 6 was not challenged, but court (single judge) quashed it. Respondents argue that there was no urgency... All said and done there was no certificate granted to respondents".
Thereafter the bench stayed the single judge's order.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Madras High Court Advocates Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP 49871 of 2025
The Madras High Court Advocates Association and other bar bodies have approached the Madras High Court challenging a recent notification mandating e-filing in the district judiciary.
Remarking that a solution has to be found for the issue, the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan adjourned the plea to January 19th.
The bar bodies have challenged the notification issued by the Registrar General of the High Court, on September 24, 2025, introducing mandatory e-filing of cases in all types of cases in the District Judiciary through the e-filing portal developed by the E-Committee of the Supreme Court of India.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A Kamala
Case No: WPMP Crl 14 of 2026
The Tamil Nadu police have approached the Madras High Court seeking to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber and journalist A. Shankar, alias Savukku Shankar, by a vacation court in December 2025 in connection with an extortion case.
When the matter came up before a bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman on Thursday, the bench directed Shankar's side to file their counters and decided to take up the case post the Pongal holidays on January 19.
It may be noted that Shankar was arrested on 13th December in connection with an offence under Sections 296(b), 353(lxc), 308(5), 61(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was alleged that Shankar had extorted money from a film producer.
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 Madras High Court, on Friday, asked the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple in Thiruparankundram why a complaint was not lodged against the dargah management for trespassing into the property belonging to the Devasthanam, purportedly for hoisting a flag in connection with the Dargah's santhanakoodu festival.
Justice GR Swaminathan questioned the temple management on how they could permit the Dargah to hoist the flag at the deepathoon area, which was declared as temple land by the recent order of the division bench.
The EO conceded that no permission had been obtained by the Dargah for hoisting the flag. He also informed the Court that he would lodge a complaint for trespass before the jurisdictional police.