Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 11 NOMINAL INDEX Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 3Dr Jenbagalakshmi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 4M. Nagappan v. The Management, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5C Kannaiyan and Others v Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 6K. Ezhilarasi v...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
NOMINAL INDEX
Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
Dr Jenbagalakshmi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
M. Nagappan v. The Management, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
C Kannaiyan and Others v Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
K. Ezhilarasi v The Senior Divisional Manager, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
K. Shiva Kumar v State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
S Muralidharan v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
P Bhaskar v The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
REPORT
Case Title: Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
The Madras High Court recently clarified that both the Faceless Assessment Officer and Jurisdictional Assessment Officer have concurrent jurisdiction as far as assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made it clear that for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction. The court added that the in matters of international taxation, central Circle charges and search and seizure cases also, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction and the FAO, in such cases, did not have jurisdiction to make assessment, re-assessment or re-computation.
Case Title: Dr Jenbagalakshmi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a Doctor does not have a responsibility to 'verify' or 'ascertain' the age of a victim brought in for abortion, for the purposes of reporting crime under POCSO Act.
Section 19 of the POCSO Act put a legal obligation on a person to inform the relevant authorities when he/she has knowledge that an offence under the Act had been committed. Section 21 deals with the punishment for failing to report or record a sexual offence.
The High Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in SR. Tessy Jose and others v State of Kerala which held that the 'knowledge' requirement foisted on the Doctor cannot be that they ought to have 'deduced' from circumstances that an offence has been committed. It thus quashed the case lodged against a Doctor for failing to report an incident.
Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Pass Injunctive Relief In Industrial Disputes: Madras HC
Case Title: M. Nagappan v. The Management
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
Madras High Court: A single judge bench consisting Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed a civil revision petition against a District Munsif's order that refused to pass an injunction against TAW Footwear Division. The Munsif had rejected the plaint holding that the matter was an industrial dispute and fell exclusively within the Labour Court's jurisdiction. However, the court ruled that civil courts have jurisdiction over matters not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. Following Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamalakar Shantharam Wadke, it held that since the labour courts were not empowered to grant interim injunctions under the Industrial Disputes Act, civil courts are the appropriate forum.
Case Title: C Kannaiyan and Others v Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
The Madras High Court has ordered the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewage Board to pay Rs 10 Lakh compensation to the family of a man who died while doing manual scavenging in 2000.
Citing the words of Mahatma Gandhi, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that it was easy to blame the authorities when we, as citizens were pushing everything into the drains indiscriminately. The court emphasised the need to maintain the sewers much like the arteries carrying the blood to our brains.
The court criticized the authorities for making the father approach the labour commissioner for compensation and remarked that the authorities should have immediately agreed to pay the compensation. The court also observed that the labour commissioner should have been alive to the facts of the case instead of dismissing the case for default. The court added that the authorities could have initiated proceedings against the contractor, who made Sridhar work without any protective gears.
Case Title: K. Ezhilarasi v The Senior Divisional Manager
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
The Madras High Court recently observed that merely suppressing the fact of taking a treatment or obtaining medical leave could not be a ground to reject the entire life insurance claim.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus came to the aid of a widow, whose claim was rejected by the Life Insurance Corporation after her husband's death. The court noted that the petitioner's husband had died due to a sudden cardiac arrest and thus she was entitled to the claim amount as per the policy. The court thus directed the LIC to disburse the policy amount with 6% interest.
The court further noted that while filling out the application forms, the insured was to only answer in yes or no which was also filled up by the agent in most cases, without getting any instructions from the insured. In the present case also, the court noted that the insured had not approached LIC for policy but was rather canvassed by the agent, who later himself filed out the application form and obtained the signatures. Thus, the court opined that the insured had not suppressed the fact of medical leave or admission in hospital.
What Constitutes Valid Service Of Notice U/S 169 Of CGST Act? Madras High Court Clarifies
Case Title: Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court interpreted Section 169 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and stated that Section 169 mandates a notice in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively and on a failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes, then the State can, in addition, make a publication of such notices/ summons/ orders in the portal/ newspaper through the concerned officials.
The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “when the Statute had also mandated issuance of notice in person/ registered post/ e-mail, etc., the Rules cannot be limited to only serving it through electronic modes.”
Case Title: K. Shiva Kumar v State and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
The Madras High Court recently observed that while granting approval for prosecuting a public officer under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the concerned authority should apply its mind not just to the complaint before it but also on other materials to throw light on the need for prosecution.
In the order passed before his retirement, Justice N Seshasayee observed that while the authority granting approval need not examine all the materials and evidence before it, the authority still had to apply its mind and satisfy itself as to whether the nature of decision taken or recommendation made leads to a bonafide suspicion.
The court also noted that while the order granting approval under Section 17A is an administrative order which is not justiciable, a collateral argument could be placed before the court while challenging the FIR and it is always open to the Court to consider the quality of approval granted. While considering the materials, if the court has reason to believe that the FIR is vexatious, motivated, or triggered by malafide or that the decision taken by the public servant is Bonafide, the approval under Section 17A would become critical for the case.
Case Title: S Muralidharan v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
The Madras High Court on Friday, constituted a Special Investigation Team comprising of two IPS officers to enquire into large levels of illegal mining that has been happening near the reserve forests of Western Ghats.
The specially constituted forest bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy transferred all the pending investigations into the batch of cases to the newly constituted SIT comprising G.Nagajothi, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, State Crime Records Bureau and G.Shashank Sai, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, Organised Crime, Intelligence Unit. The SIT, apart from investigating the ongoing cases was also given liberty to register fresh cases with respect to any illegal quarrying that may be unearthed during the course of the investigation. The court also directed the SIT to look into the possibility of a larger conspiracy and not leave out any "big fishes" who might have been part of the devastation.
Case Title: P Bhaskar v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The Madras High Court recently restrained the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department from constructing a shopping complex in a land belong to the Arulmighu Nandeeswaram Thirukoil using the surplus temple fund.
Commenting that temples should be kept out of litigation as much as possible, the bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that if the commercial complexes are permitted, there was a possibility that it could lead to further complications like return of investments, eviction of licensees/ tenants, recovery of unpaid rents, and preventing further encroachments.
More importantly, the court noted that as per the HR & CE Act, the surplus temple funds could be used only for the purposes specified in Section 66(1) or under Section 36A or Section 36B of the Act and for no other purpose. Noting that the purpose for which the shopping complex sought to be constructed by the HR & CE did not fall under any of the categories, the court observed that the decision had to be quashed and set aside.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry has written to the Chief Justice of India and other judges of the Supreme Court Collegium calling for inclusive representation while appointing judges to the Madras High Court.
It must be noted that Madras High Court is currently working with a strength of 66 judges against the sanctioned strength of 75 judges. With a few senior judges attaining superannuation this year, a large vacancy is expected prompting the Bar Council to voice its concerns to the collegium.
The letter signed by PS Amalraj, Chairman and Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran and V Karyhikeyan, Vice Chairmen of the council requested the collegium take into consideration all the eligible and suitable aspirants for elevation as the Judges and to include all sections of advocates from different sects of society, to maintain an essential balance.
Case Title: M Gokila v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others (Payment of wages plea) AND Urmila v State of Tamil Nadu (Anticipatory bail plea)
Case No: WP 38413 of 2024 AND Crl OP (MD) 23061 of 2024
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to take strict action, including suspension against prison officials who have been involved in misappropriation of public funds to the tune of Rs. 14.25 crores.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman was hearing a petition filed by Gokila, wife of Murugaiyan, who was confined in the Puzhal Central Prison seeing 60 days remission and 4 months of wages to her husband.
During the previous hearing, the bench was informed that as per the report of the Auditor and Accountant General of India, funds to the tune of Rs. 14.25 crores had been misappropriated and an inquiry had been initiated for the same. The court had however expressed its displeasure on the fact that though the preliminary inquiry had commenced in 2022, not much progress had been made even after 2 years. The court had remarked that the DVAC was expected to be more sensitive and use its powers to initiate all appropriate action including search, seizure, and in the event of identifying the offense, register an FIR and arrest the officials.
Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v The Election Commission of India and Others
Case No: WP 252 of 2025
The Madras High Court on Thursday stayed all proceedings initiated by the Election Commission of India on the basis of representations filed by individuals in connection with the AIADMK “two leaves” symbol dispute.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan passed the interim orders on a plea by AIADMK General Secretary Edappadi Palaniswami seeking to forbear the ECI from conducting quasi-judicial proceedings into the party's leadership dispute based on the representations made by Mr. Ravindranath, Mr Palanisamy, Mur. Pugazhendi, B Ramkumar Adityan, P Gandhi and MG Ramachandran.