Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 435 NOMINAL INDEX Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 Sahirsha @ MS Sha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 422 S Prasanna and another v. Jothika, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 423 Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited. Versus ICMC Corporation Limited, 2025...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
NOMINAL INDEX
Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
Sahirsha @ MS Sha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 422
S Prasanna and another v. Jothika, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 423
Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited. Versus ICMC Corporation Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 424
AK, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
RK Sarathkumaran v. The Chairman and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 426
Rahul Surana v. The Assistant Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 427
Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
RS Infotainment v. Mini Studio LLP, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
Zubaitha Begum v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 430
State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Vijarani, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 431
Dr Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe Ashok Kumar, and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
Aadhav Arjuna v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
Sreedevi Video Corporation v. SaReGaMa India Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
M/s. Parry Enterprises India Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
REPORT
Case Title: Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
The Madras High Court has recently allowed an appeal by Ab Initio Technology LLC, a US-based company, against the Patent Office's refusal and directed that the patent application be allowed, holding that the claimed invention involved an 'inventive step' to satisfy Section 2(1)(j) requirement and is not excluded as a 'computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.
A single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the verdict on November 4, 2025, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Patent Office in July 2020.
On the objection of non-patentability, the Court observed that under Indian patent law, a computer-related invention is not automatically rejected under Section 3(k). If the invention offers a real technical improvement or produces a technical effect, it can still be patented even if it uses algorithms or computer programs. In this case, the Court found that the invention improved how quickly data queries are answered which gave the invention a clear technical character. Thus, the Court ruled that the invention was not barred by Section 3(k).
Case Title: Sahirsha @ MS Sha v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 422
The Madras High Court recently remarked that there has been an increase in misuse of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to settle personal scores, which ultimately undermines the true object of the Act.
Justice B. Pugalendhi thus directed the trial courts to make sure that cases are registered under Section 22 of the POCSO Act against adults giving false complaints under the Act.
Case Title: S Prasanna and another v. Jothika
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 423
The Madras High Court recently observed that while dealing with petitions filed under the Surrogacy (Regulations) Act seeking an order to have parentage and custody, the courts are expected to be sensitive, responsible, and compassionate without frustrating the beneficial objective of the legislation.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira observed that the Act is a beneficial legislation and its primary objective is to regulate surrogacy in India. The court added that an application filed under the Act should not be dealt with in a routine manner and the courts must keep in mind that these matters are touching upon the deepest aspirations of human life, to have a child.
Case Title: Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited. Versus ICMC Corporation Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 424
The Madras High Court held that multiple remand orders issued by courts under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) without disturbing or reversing the findings on merits recorded by earlier Single Judges were incapable of implementation. The court found the situation unprecedented and unusual holding that the statutory scheme of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does not permit a wholesale de novo remand unless the appellate court first reverses the findings on merits which the court observed did not happen in any of the connected cases.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “where the appellate court does not enter into the merits of the matter and orders re-trial the order of remand would be, apart from being wholly illegal, completely unworkable since the findings on merits would remain and is not vacated so as to allow the trial court to examine the issue afresh by way of a re-trial.”
Case Title: AK
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
The Madras High Court recently observed that when the parties have solemnised marriage in a Hindu temple as per the Hindu rites, the mutual divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act would be maintainable even though one of the parties had not converted to the Hindu religion.
Justice PB Balaji held that when the parties have, by their conduct, shown that they had converted to the Hindu religion and had also specifically stated in the mutual divorce petition that they are Hindu, it would be sufficient to establish conversion.
The court noted that the marriage between the parties was solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs. The court noted that the parties had invoked the provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act conscious of the fact that they are professing Hindu religion. The court observed that there was no necessity for the court to conduct any roving enquiry merely because the wife's name continued to be her original Muslim name.
Case Title: RK Sarathkumaran v. The Chairman and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 426
The Madras High Court recently ruled against colleges charging additional tuition fees in the name of a break fee/miscellaneous fee. The court also directed the Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (CARE) University to refund the deposit made by the students with interest of 6% per annum.
While doing so, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan remarked that education must not be merely viewed as a commercial venture but must remain a noble service to society. The court added that when educational institutions focus on profit-making, it undermines the very essence of the institutions and becomes counterproductive to the larger purpose they seek to serve.
Supplementary Complaint Under PMLA Doesn't Require Fresh Cognizance: Madras High Court
Case Title: Rahul Surana v. The Assistant Director
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 427
The Madras High Court recently observed that a supplementary complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not a fresh or independent complaint requiring the court to take cognisance.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that a supplementary complaint is a part and parcel of the main complaint for which cognisance has already been taken. The court added that taking multiple cognisance for the same offence would render the judicial process redundant and would result in a delay in the justice delivery process.
Case Title: Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
The Madras High Court has held that using the word 'Determined' in the show cause notice (SCN) betrays an element of pre-determination on the part of the authority. The bench highlighted that the show cause notice must clearly specify whether the assessee is being charged with fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to invoke section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The bench stated that the authority has used the word “determined”. There is an ocean of difference between specifying something and determining something. The word “determined” found in the show cause notice cannot be construed as “specified”.
Case Title: RS Infotainment v. Mini Studio LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the makers of the new Tamil movie “Aromaley” from using the scenes and background music from the 2010 Tamil movie “Vinnaithandi Varuvaya”.
Justice N Senthilkumar passed the interim orders on a plea moved by RS Infotainment, producers of Vinnaithandi Varuvaya.
The production company had submitted that it had produced the 2010 movie in collaboration with Escape Artists Motion Pictures, under a Joint Venture Agreement dated February 16th, 2009 and as the producer, the company held all rights, including reproduction, adaptation, and public communication, under Sections 14 and 17 of the Copyright Act. The company also argued that it had moral rights under Section 57, to protect the integrity of the work from any distortion, mutilation, or modification that could harm the company's reputation or honour.
Case Title: Zubaitha Begum v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 430
The Madras High Court recently held that the high courts could not exercise their power under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant interim bail to a convict while their request for premature release was pending consideration before the appropriate government.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman held that once the sentencing part is over, the convict is not in the custody of the court and cannot be granted interim bail using the court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench added that the convicts would be entitled to suspension of sentence as provided under Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Vijarani
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 431
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Superintendent of Police could not be held responsible for the negligence shown by investigating officers in not filing final reports or closure reports before the court on time.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman held that though the Superintendent of Police had the responsibility to monitor the investigation, he could not be made responsible for the negligence. The court thus set aside an order of the single judge calling for disciplinary action against 5 SPs for not verifying the filing of the final report in a case since 2015.
Madras High Court Protects Personality Rights Of Musician Ilaiyaraaja
Case Title: Dr Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe Ashok Kumar, and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
The Madras High Court, on friday, passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja against unauthorised usage of his name, images, and other works by third parties.
Justice N Senthilkumar found a prima facie case in favour of the musician and granted interim relief in a suit moved by Ilaiyaraaja seeking to protect his personality rights. The court has also directed the respondents to file their counter.
Senior Advocate S. Prabakaran, appearing for Ilaiyaraaja, submitted that the suit was being filed against misappropriating and fabricating his identity in any form on the public platform. He submitted that various media and YouTube channels were using Ilaiyaraaja's images and name for commercial purposes to gain traction and generate revenue for exploitation.
Case Title: Aadhav Arjuna v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 433
The Madras High Court has quashed the FIR registered against Aadhav Arjuna, General Secretary of Election Campaign Movement of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party for his social media posts allegedly inciting violence.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira observed that Arjuna's tweet did not target any groups, and though it spoke about violence, it did not call for violence or hatred. The court observed that the tweets, though politically provocative and critical of police excess, did not cross any Lakshman Rekha, to fall under hate speech.
The court added that the tweet's essence was a political expression, which was a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Arjuna has been accused of inciting violence through his social media post and for allegedly calling for a revolution similar to that initiated by Gen Z in Nepal and Srilanka, in the State. Following this, an FIR was registered against Arjuna for offences under Sections 192 [wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot], 196(1)(b) [promoting enmity between different groups], 197(1)(d) ]imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integrity], 353(1)(b), and 353 (2) [statements conducing to public mischief] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita BNS 2023.
Case Title: Sreedevi Video Corporation v. SaReGaMa India Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
The Madras High Court has revived a copyright dispute over the audio rights to iconic Telegu and Tamil films including Sagara Sangamam, Salangai Oli, Shankarabharanam and Sitara, holding that Sreedevi Video Corporation's claim seeking a permanent injunction against Saregama India Ltd must be examined on merits even though its request for a declaration of ownership is time-barred.
On November 19, 2025, a Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar partly set aside a 2022 decision of a Single Judge who had dismissed the entire suit as barred by limitation.
The bench held that the court below had erred in treating the injunction prayer as merely consequential to the declaration relief.
Case Title: M/s. Parry Enterprises India Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
The Madras High Court has held that once CESTAT has classified wheat gluten as eligible for DFIA (Duty-Free Import Authorisation) exemption, Customs authorities are bound by those findings and cannot independently deny the exemption benefits.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh stated that the impugned orders have been passed only on the ground that Wheat Gluten is not covered under the DFIA Licence and, therefore, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption. If the CESTAT has already taken a view that Wheat flour and Wheat Gluten fall under the same classification, the entire proceedings of the respondent cannot be sustained, since all the other findings hinge upon only this issue.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Manithaneya Makkal Katchi v. The Election Commission of India and Another
Case No: WP 42811 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the Election Commission of India to respond to a plea by the Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK), challenging the ECI's order delisting the party.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed ECI to file its counter within 4 weeks.
The party had approached the court challenging the order passed by the ECI Secretary on August 11, 2025, wherein 474 registered unrecognised political parties across India were delisted. The party argued that it has been actively involved in raising voices for public issues and has frequently participated in all elections from 2009 to 2022.
Case Title: Lakshmi Raja v. Ministry of Social Welfare and Women Empowerment and Others
Case No: WP 16419 of 2025
The Madras High Court has asked the State to respond to a plea seeking the distribution of sanitary napkins at subsidised rates through the public distribution system in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the Secretary to the Ministry of Social Welfare and Women Empowerment, the Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department to respond to the plea by December 16.
Case Title: A Thirukumaran and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu (connected cases)
Case no: WP (MD) 28971 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Friday, directed the Tamil Nadu government to share the draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be followed when granting permissions for political parties to conduct public meetings.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the state to share the SOP with the political parties that are part of the ongoing litigation in connection with the SOP, ie, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), and Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK).
In the previous hearing, the court had extended the time granted to the State government to formulate the draft SOP, after Additional Advocate General J Ravindran informed the court that the draft SOP was ready and suggestions from other political parties were being awaited. When the matter was taken up today, Ravindran informed the court that the draft SOP had been filed in accordance with the court's instructions.