Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 409 NOMINAL INDEX The State of Tamil Nadu v. R Ramanathan Chettiar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394 D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 395 Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 396 M/s. Cethar Hospital v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2025...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
NOMINAL INDEX
The State of Tamil Nadu v. R Ramanathan Chettiar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
M/s. Cethar Hospital v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
I v. DM, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
G Sampathkumar IPS v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
Light Roofings Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
M/s. Stellar Developer v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
Manikandan Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
Sivestar Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
Abdul Kadar and Others v. Commissioner of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
D. Mohammed Nadeem v. The National Testing Agency and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
Thillai Lokanathan v. The Deputy Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
Selvaraj v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
M/s. Lucky Footwear Components v. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
REPORT
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. R Ramanathan Chettiar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
Condoning 32-year delay by Tamil Nadu government in filing an appeal in a land dispute case, the Madras High Court said that public interest is paramount and if it shown that the public interest has suffered due to fraud, the court could use its discretionary power to condone delay.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the court must always march towards safeguarding public interest and avoid miscarriage of justice. The court noted that when the delay was properly explained, and there was bona fide in the explanation for the delay, it could be condoned.
Case Title: D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
The Madras High Court has held that under the new regime, approval from a higher authority, such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General, is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after the expiry of a three-year limitation period.
Justice C. Saravanan stated that …….three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, to issue Section 148 Notice under the new regime had already expired on 31.03.2020, 31.03.2021 and 31.03.2022. However, Section 148 Notices were issued for these Assessment Years only on 29.07.2022 with approval from the Principal Commissioner instead of approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner in terms of amended provisions as in force for the period in dispute were in time…….
Madras High Court Lets Udaipur Salon Keep 'Bounce,' Lifts Earlier Ban
Case Title: Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
The Madras High Court has recently lifted an interim injunction that had previously restrained an Udaipur-based salon from using the name “Bounce,” noting that the term is common in the beauty and haircare industry.
In a ruling delivered on October 25, A Single Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, vacated the injunction that had been granted in favor of Spalon India Pvt. Ltd., the operator of the well-known “Bounce” salon chain in South India.
The Court also referred to Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, explaining that registration of a composite mark grants exclusive rights over the mark as a whole and not over individual generic words within it.
Case Title: M/s. Cethar Hospital v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, cancelling the license of Cethar Hospital in Tiruchirappalli for its alleged involvement in a kidney racket, without following due procedure.
When the Additional Advocate General submitted that the public would not be welcoming of such a development and might view it negatively, Justice GR Swaminathan said that judges should remain insulated to such probabilities. The judge remarked that a judge is on oath to uphold the law and must do that without being bothered about the consequences.
Case Title: I v. DM
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
The Madras High Court recently set aside the acquittal of an octogenarian man for an offence under Section 498A (cruelty towards wife) of the IPC.
While doing so, Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that men must understand that marriage does not give them unquestioned authority over the wife and that the comfort, safety and dignity of their wives is not a secondary duty but an obligation of the marital bond.
The court also observed that the Indian marriage system must evolve from the shadow of male chauvinism into the light of equality and mutual respect. The court added that the endurance of women, especially the elderly, should not be seen as consent or silent acceptance.
Case Title: G Sampathkumar IPS v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed by retired IPS Officer G Sampath Kumar, challenging an order of the court appointing an advocate commissioner for recording the evidence of cricketer MS Dhoni in connection with a defamation suit filed by him against the former.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq remarked that Dhoni is a national-level cricketer and his presence in the court during trial might create security issues and may cause inconvenience to the court proceedings. The court also wondered how appointing an advocate commissioner for ensuring expeditious trial, would prejudice Kumar.
TNGST Act | Purchase Tax Cannot Be Levied on Buyer for Seller's Tax Default: Madras High Court
Case Title: Light Roofings Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
The Madras High Court on Monday held that purchase tax cannot be levied under Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act) on the purchaser merely because the seller failed to pay tax.
The bench, comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq, clarified the scope of Section 7A in transactions where the vendor has defaulted on tax payments
The bench after analysing Section 7A of the TNGST Act noted that for levy of purchase tax to get attracted, purchase must be made “in circumstance which no tax is payable”. The expression no tax is payable would not take with in its fold a transaction of sale on which tax is payable but not paid by the vendor.
Case Title: M/s. Stellar Developer v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
The Madras High Court recently ordered exhumation of bodies buried in a land belonging to the Church of South India Trust Association after noting that the authorities had failed to follow the statutory provisions while granting license for burial ground.
Justice N Mala began the judgment with a quote by Khushwant Singh that said “When the struggle for space over shadows even the breath of life, death too presses its silent claim upon the earth”.
The court noted that the authorities had acted with undue haste and had granted the license without proper application of mind, resulting in arbitrary exercise of power.
Case Title: Manikandan Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on bar associations engaging in collective boycotts and preventing a party from being represented in the court.
Justice B Pugalendhi emphasised that the Bar Associations or any collective of lawyers did not have any moral or legal authority to dictate who may or may not be defended in a court of law. The court stressed that the right to be represented before a court of law was not a privilege but a constitutional guarantee and any action preventing the same would strike at the very root of rule of law.
The court observed that it cannot turn a blind eye when the right to a fair trial is being compromised under the pretext of professional unity. The court reiterated that the bar was not a trade union and any attempt to convert it into a pressure group would be contempt of the rule of law.
Case Title: Sivestar Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
The Madras High Court held that delay in filing Form 10B required under Section 44AB for the purpose of Section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not a ground to deny legitimate exemption tax exemptions.
Justice C. Saravanan observed that the assessee was registered as a “Trust” in the year 2017. Effectively, the assessee would have carried on operation as a “Trust” from 01.04.2017 onwards, which would fall under the Assessment Year 2018-2019.
Case Title: Abdul Kadar and Others v. Commissioner of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
The Madras High Court has criticised the practice of police officers conducting a “current paper enquiry” without any statutory backing.
Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that such informal proceedings have no statutory recognition and the individuals could not be compelled to appear before the police unless a cognisable offence had been disclosed and recorded in accordance with Section 173 of BNSS.
The court reiterated that police could not conduct inquiries into disputes that were civil in nature unless some criminality was shown. The court added that allowing such practices would convert the police station into an informal forum for resolving private civil grievances.
Case Title: D. Mohammed Nadeem v. The National Testing Agency and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
The Madras High Court has directed the jurisdiction police to investigate into a case of alleged fabrication and forgery of the NEET-UG mark list for obtaining admission into the BSMS/BAMS/BUMS/BHMS courses.
Justice Anand Venkatesh held that the issue "cannot be lightly dealt with" and an investigation has to be necessarily conducted. Apart from disqualifying and debarring the candidate, the court also opined that a police investigation was necessary and stringent action had to be taken to prevent its recurrence in the future.
Case Title: Thillai Lokanathan v. The Deputy Secretary and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a divorced daughter, who was in an impoverished circumstance, would also be a dependent to claim the Freedom Fighters Pension.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan adopted the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Khajani Devi, where the Supreme Court had held that the special family pension and the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme were intended to honour the valour of uniformed people who laid down their lives or suffered for the cause of the country. The Supreme Court had held that any demeaning interpretation of the scheme to deprive the unsung heroes of the country of benefits meant to ensure a life of dignity to their dependents.
'Faith Can't Be Fenced By Caste': Madras High Court Allows Temple Car Route Through Dalit Colony
Case Title: Selvaraj v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
The Madras High Court recently paved the way for a temple car to pass through a Dalit colony.
Justice PB Balaji remarked that God never discriminates and no street was unworthy of the chariot or the god it carried.
The court added that through Article 17 of the Constitution, untouchability was abolished not just in physical form but in letter and spirit also. The court added that no one could dictate who could or could not stand before the deity and worship and there was no bar for any person to enter any temple and worship.
Madras High Court Strikes Down 'Original Choice' Trademark, Rules in Favor of 'Officer's Choice'
Case Title: Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court on Friday ruled in favour of Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. (ABD), the maker of Officer's Choice whisky, and ordered the removal of John Distillers Ltd.'s (JDL) 'Original Choice' trademark from the register of trademarks.
A Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar in an order held that Original Choice was deceptively similar to Officer's Choice and that its registration violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court also confirmed that ABD's registration for Officer's Choice remains valid.
The court found that the now-defunct Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had erred in its 2013 order by comparing only the word elements of the rival marks instead of assessing the labels as a whole. Considering the long pendency of the case and the abolition of the IPAB, the Court decided to examine the marks itself instead of sending the matter back.
Case Title: M/s. Lucky Footwear Components v. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
The Madras High Court held that an auction under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) Act, 1957, is valid when the property is valued by a valuer and registered under Section 34AB of the Wealth-Tax Act.
Section 34AB of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957, provides the process for individuals to become officially recognised valuers under the Act.
Chief Justice Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan opined that out of the two valuation reports placed before the Tribunal, if the Tribunal has accepted the valuation made by approved valuer, registered under the provision of Wealth-Tax Act, it cannot be said to be patently illegal or perverse so as to interfere in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: CR Vinayagam v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Case No: WP 40129 of 2025
The Election Commission of India (ECI), on Monday (November 3) informed the Madras High Court that a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was different from a Special Summary Revision (SSR) being carried out by the ECI annually for adding/deleting new voters.
ECI submitted that unlike SSR, in the SIR all existing voters were required to submit the enumeration form and through this process the ECI seeks to ensure that no one was left out of the electoral rolls and that no ineligible person was included in the list.
The submissions were made before a bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan which was hearing petitions seeking directions to the State Election Commission to remove disqualified, duplicate names, names of deceased or migrated persons from the electoral roll in T. Nagar and Tambaram constituencies before the 2026 General Elections.
A group of lawyers from Madras High Court have written to the President of India, Vice President of India, CJI BR Gavai, Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal raising strong objection to Justice Nisha Banu not joining the Kerala High Court despite her transfer.
The collegium had recommended her transfer from the Madras High Court to the Kerala High Court on August 27 this year. On October 14, the Centre had notified the transfer.
Case Title: Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja and Others
Case No: A 4570 of 2025
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on an application filed by Mythri Movie Makers, producers of the Ajith starrer “Good Bad Ugly” movie, seeking to set aside an interim injunction order issued against them in a copyright suit by musician Ilaiyaraaja.
Justice N Senthilkumar reserved the orders on a Thursday (November 6) after hearing the arguments for Mythri Movie Makers, Ilaiyaraaja and the music labels from which Mythri had allegedly obtained rights for using the songs.
It may be noted that in September 8, 2025, the court had temporarily restrained the makers from using three songs of Ilaiyaraaja.
Madras High Court Refuses To Halt Re-Release Of Kamal Haasan Starrer "Nayagan" Movie
Case Title: SR Film Factory v. ATM Production and others
Case No: OA 1051/2025 and CS (Comm Div) 280/2025
The Madras High Court, on Friday refused to halt the re-release of Kamal Haasan starrer “Nayagan” movie. The movie is hitting the screen again to celebrate the actor's birthday.
Justice N Senthilkumar refused to grant an interim injunction on a plea filed by Karnataka based SR Film factory. The court remarked that there was no prima facie infringement and refused to grant the interim relief.
The company had approached the court claiming that acquired the rights for the movie including its re-release and digital formatting rights from June 30, 2023 till November 17, 2035 by an agreement dated October 11,2023.
Case Title: Aadhav Arjuna v. State
Case No: Crl OP 28737 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Friday (November 7) reserved its verdict on a plea filed by Aadhav Arjuna, General Secretary of Election Campaign Movement of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for his social media post allegedly inciting violence.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira reserved orders after hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Arjuna, and Senior Advocate NR Elango, for the State Police. Arjuna was also represented by Senior Advocate PV Balasubramaniam and Adv Arivazhagan.
The court had, on Wednesday, asked the State police not to file the final report against Arjuna till Friday (today).