Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 436 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 454 NOMINAL INDEX Balveer Singh v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 436 Vishal Krishna Reddy v. Lyca Productions, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 437 Suriya and Another v. Gandhi and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 438 S. Senthil v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 439 People for Cattle in India v. The Commissioner, GCC...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 436 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
NOMINAL INDEX
Balveer Singh v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 436
Vishal Krishna Reddy v. Lyca Productions, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 437
Suriya and Another v. Gandhi and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
S. Senthil v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 439
People for Cattle in India v. The Commissioner, GCC and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
Muthu Subramaniam v. The State Government of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 441
Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
Vallikannu v The District Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
Gokuleswaran v. The Regional Passport Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 444
Softgel Healthcare Private Limited v. Pfizer Inc., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
XX v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
S Palanivel Rajan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
The Sessions Judge v. Sathish, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
Chellathai v. The Joint Director and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
H.Sunil Kumar vs M Deepak Kumar Samdariya and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
M/S.Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S.E.C.Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Roopa Industries, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
REPORT
Madras High Court Stays Trial Against IPS Officer Balveer Singh In Custodial Violence Cases
Case Title: Balveer Singh v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 436
The Madras High Court has stayed the trial in four custodial torture cases against IPS Officer Balveer Singh.
Justice Shamim Ahmed granted interim stay in a plea filed by the officer seeking to set aside the Judicial Magistrate order framing charges against him in four custodial torture cases, while he was holding the post of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ambasamudram.
Madras High Court Stays Single Judge Order Asking Actor Vishal To Pay ₹30 Crore To Lyca Productions
Case Title: Vishal Krishna Reddy v. Lyca Productions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 437
The Madras High Court, on Monday, stayed a single judge order directing actor Vishal to pay Rs. 30 crore due to the entertainment company Lyca Productions.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq granted the interim relief in an appeal moved by the actor challenging the June 2025 order of the single judge.
The judges however asked the actor to deposit 10 crore towards the credit of the case and directed the registry to deposit the money into an interest-bearing account.
Case Title: Suriya and Another v. Gandhi and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
The Madras High Court recently noted that the police could not refuse to register FIR based on complaint made by members belonging to Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe communities alleging dispossession of land, by terming it as civil disputes.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that as per Section 18A of the Schedules castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the officers could not conduct a preliminary enquiry when an information disclosed offence under the Act. The court noted that the nature of the allegation did not dilute the duty of the police to register an FIR once the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence.
Madras High Court Orders New PAN For Assessee After Dept-Issued Duplicate PAN Ruins CIBIL Score
Case Title: S. Senthil v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 439
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a fresh PAN (Permanent Account Number) to the assessee, who suffered adverse consequences because the defaulter holding the same PAN had a bad CIBIL. The bench held that the assessee cannot be made to bear serious CIBIL consequences arising from the Income Tax Department's duplicate PAN allotment.
Justice C. Saravanan stated that the PAN that was allotted to the assessee on 18.05.2007 was also erroneously allotted to the said person, namely Subramaniyan Senthil S/o. Subramaniyan. Although the said person has been given a new identity, the mistakes committed by the said person have affected the assessee, as the identity of the assessee and his financial transactions are traceable to the PAN that was originally allotted to the assessee on 18.05.2007, which is in the cloud.
Case Title: People for Cattle in India v. The Commissioner, GCC and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
The Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC), on Tuesday (25th November), informed the Madras High Court that muzzling of pet dogs has not been made mandatory in the city and that no penalty would be imposed on the pet owners for not muzzling the dogs in public places.
Making submissions before Justice V Lakshminarayanan, Advocate Arun Babu submitted that the GCC had only issued an advisory asking pet owners to muzzle their dogs and that the same had not been made mandatory. The counsel, however, informed that pet dog owners need to leash their dogs in public places, and a fine of Rs 500 would be imposed if the same is not complied with.
Case Title: Muthu Subramaniam v. The State Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 441
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea for renaming the Tamil Valarchi Thurai (Tamil Development Department) to Tamil Membattu Thurai.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the naming and renaming of a public department was within the domain of the government, and the court could not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to do the same.
The petitioner, Muthu Subramaniam had approached the court after his request for the same was rejected by the Director of Tamil Nadu development. Subramaniam had argued that the word “development” could not be equated with the word “Valarchi”. He submitted that the word “valarchi” meant growth, increase, enrichment, etc whereas development had a different connotation meaning like upliftment, betterment etc. The petitioner thus sought to change the name of the department.
Madras High Court Allows Udaipur Salon To Use 'Bounce', Rejects South Indian Chain's Appeal
Case Title: Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
The Madras High Court has dismissed appeals filed by Spalon India Private Limited, operator of the “BOUNCE” salon chain in South India, against an order vacating the interim injunction earlier granted in its favour over the use of the word “Bounce” by an Udaipur-based salon, “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio.”
A Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, on November 21, 2025, upheld the Single Judge's finding that the rival marks and logos were sufficiently distinct and that the injunction could not be continued.
On examining the competing marks, the Single Judge noted significant visual differences, Spalon India uses only the word “BOUNCE,” whereas the Udaipur salon uses the expression “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio” along with a logo featuring a scissor graphic, eight stars in a semi-circle, and a circular seal carrying the full business name. The court also recorded that Spalon India operates in Chennai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad, while the Udaipur salon functions solely within Udaipur, Rajasthan.
Case Title: Vallikannu v The District Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a crime remains undetected due to the inaction of the investigating agency, it violates the victim's right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court added that the State, as the guardian of fundamental rights, must step in and provide monetary relief to the victims in such cases.
Justice B. Pugalendhi held that such compensation to the victims is to recognise the failure of the system as a whole and to impose corrective responsibility upon the State. The court added that such compensation is a reminder that justice delayed/denied at the stage of investigation is a grave violation.
Case Title: Gokuleswaran v. The Regional Passport Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 444
The Madras High Court recently observed that an adverse police report could not override the statutory right conferred under the Citizenship Act, when a person's citizenship by birth is proved by way of genuine documents.
Justice PT Asha thus came to the rescue of a man, born to Sri Lankan parents, whose passport application was rejected by the authorities. The court noted that the man was born in 1986, prior to the cutoff date provided under the Act. Thus, the court held that the man was a citizen of the country by birth.
Case Title: Softgel Healthcare Private Limited v. Pfizer Inc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
The Madras High Court has overturned a Single Judge's order that had permitted pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a United States court to obtain documents and testimony from Chennai-based Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Letters Rogatory are formal requests sent by a court in one country to a court in another country seeking assistance in gathering evidence for a legal proceeding
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar ruled on November 25 that the U.S. court's request amounted to pre-trial discovery, which is barred in India because the country has invoked its right under the Hague Convention to reject such requests.
Case Title: XX v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
The Madras High Court has commended the State of Tamil Nadu for implementing its earlier order to ensure the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (PoSH Act).
Justice RN Manjula observed that the government has shown tremendous interest in ensuring that the court orders are complied with and that the State emerges as a model for other States to follow.
The court added that each legislation brought in to prevent violence against women is not just a vow but an unspoken vow that the State has taken to see that such incidents are not repeated.
Case Title: S Palanivel Rajan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (connected cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (27th November), quashed the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against 28 advocates and 4 police officers in connection with the violence that broke out in the High Court campus on February 19, 2009.
Justice Nirmal Kumar was inclined to quash the criminal case, noting that a decade and a half had passed, and the parties had now buried the hatchet. The court also noted that continuing the proceedings would be a futile exercise.
The court noted that there was an inordinate delay as the FIR was registered in the year 2009 and the case was taken on file only in 2025, and the trial was also yet to proceed. Thus, noting the Supreme Court's directions on right to speedy trial being an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court was inclined to quash the proceedings.
Case Title: The Sessions Judge v. Sathish
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
The Madras High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man who pushed his former lover in front of a moving train after she refused to marry him.
While the bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman agreed that the commission of murder could not be justified, the court added that the act did not fall under the category of rarest of rare. The court also noted that the accused was not beyond redemption and there was a possibility of reformation.
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Makers Of "Dude" Movie From Using Songs Of Ilaiyaraaja
Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
The Madras High Court, on Friday (28th November), temporarily restrained the makers of the "Dude" movie from using the songs of renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja.
Justice N Senthilkumar granted an interim injunction in a plea moved by the musician seeking to restrain Mythri Movie Makers, producers of the "Dude" movie, from using his songs unauthorisedly. The court had reserved orders on November 26, after hearing the parties.
Ilaiyaraaja had approached the court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the producers of the Dude movie from using his copyrighted works unauthorizedly and a mandatory injunction asking them to remove such infringing content from the movie. Ilaiyaraaja has also sought disclosure of profits and gains received by the production house from the unauthorised exploitation of his copyrighted works.
Case Title: Chellathai v. The Joint Director and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
The Madras High Court recently ordered the Directorate of Pension and other officials to grant family pension to the second wife of a deceased man, even though the marriage was void.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that even though the marriage was void, since it was solemnized during subsistence of the first marriage, the deceased employee had nominated the second wife, and not any other person, to receive the family pension. The court also noted that even during his lifetime, the deceased employee was living with his second wife, which would substantiate the nomination.
Case Title: H.Sunil Kumar vs M Deepak Kumar Samdariya and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
The Madras High Court has recently observed that although arbitral tribunals are not bound by the Evidence Act, they must still follow its foundational principles when assessing evidence to avoid judicial scrutiny.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh stated that “the fundamental principles of the Evidence Act which provides the basis for dealing with the case must be satisfied failing which the Arbitral Award will infract the fundamental policy of Indian law. It can also lead to perverse finding and suffer from patent illegality.”
Case Title: M/S.Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S.E.C.Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
The Madras High Court partially set aside an arbitral award holding that arbitrator cannot pierce a corporate veil or treat a non-signatory as an alter ego to fasten liability, while modifying the award to direct repayment of a loan of Rs. 2.5 crore with interest.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the arbitrator exceeded its jurisdiction by treating a third party as the petitioner's sister concern and concluding breach of contract based on that inference.
Madras High Court Jails Contemnor For Repeated Breach Of HUL's 'WHEEL' Trademark Injunction
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Roopa Industries
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
The Madras High Court has sentenced the proprietor of Roopa Industries to three months civil imprisonment and attached the company's property for repeatedly breaching an injunction protecting HUL's 'WHEEL' and 'ACTIVE WHEEL' trademarks.
In an order passed on November 26, 2025, Justice N Senthilkumar found that Roopa Industries had continued using deceptively similar marks despite a subsisting injunction, and held that its conduct warranted action under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes consequences for disobedience or breach of injunction.
Case Title: Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a Patent Office order that refused Hi Tech Chemicals' challenge to an anti-stick coating patent owned by Allied Metallurgical Products, after finding that the authority failed to properly examine the objections raised.
The court said that “the quality of obviousness analysis leaves much to be desired” and directed a fresh hearing before a different officer.
A single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, delivering the judgment on November 18, said the Patent Office did not explain why it rejected key arguments about whether the invention was new, inventive or offered any technical advantage.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v Joy Crizildaa
Case No: OA 904 of 2025
The Madras High Court has refused to restrain celebrity stylist Joy Crizildaa from tagging the names of Madhampatty Catering Company in her social media posts.
Justice N Senthil Kumar dismissed the application for interim injunction moved by the catering company seeking to restrain Crizildaa and any person claiming through her, from tagging, hashtag, marking, writing, uploading, printing, publishing, broadcasting, distributing, posting, circulating or disseminating any false or malicious material, statements, video reels, captions, photographs, etc of the catering company which may affect its good will and reputation.
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 Thursday, commented that the State should bring in a different Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for religious events.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a batch of pleas seeking the framing of SOPs to be followed while granting permission for political meetings.
In the previous hearing, the State had submitted the draft SOP, which was to be shared with the political parties in the ongoing litigation, ie, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), and the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK) party.
Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Pleas To Formulate SOP For Conducting Political Rallies
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 (28th November), reserved orders on a batch of pleas seeking to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be followed while granting permission for political parties to conduct public meetings.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan reserved orders after hearing the political parties involved in the litigation and the state of Tamil Nadu. Though Additional Advocate General J Ravindran informed the court that the State will come up with the final notification within 10 days, and that any aggrieved party can challenge the same, the court decided to pass orders in the pleas.