Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 410 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 420 NOMINAL INDEX M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 410 M Divya vs The Senior Revenue Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 411 R Gurusamy v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 412 S.Chandraprakash Jain v. M/s. GOD Pictures and...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 410 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
M Divya vs The Senior Revenue Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
R Gurusamy v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
S.Chandraprakash Jain v. M/s. GOD Pictures and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
S v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
Saravanan C v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
P Kulanthaisamy v. K Murugan and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 416
Marico Limited v. Prahalad Rai Kedia, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
Shilpa Suresh v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
Minor v. P, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 419
The State of Tamil Nadu v Shilpa Suresh, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
REPORT
Case Title: M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
The Madras High Court has held that depreciation on payment to State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) for infrastructure development is not allowed, but the assessee is eligible for 5% annual revenue deduction.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan were addressing the appeal pertaining to the claim of depreciation on the sum paid to the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) for the development of infrastructural facilities.
Case Title: M Divya vs The Senior Revenue Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that hostels providing accommodation to working men and women are residential properties and, therefore, property tax, water tax, and electricity charges cannot be levied at commercial rates.
The ruling came in response to petitions filed by hostel owners in Chennai and Coimbatore challenging Chennai municipal authorities and the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) for reclassifying their hostels from residential to commercial premises and demanding significantly higher taxes.
A single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, in an order passed on November 7, observed that tax should be levied not from the perspective of the service provider but the service recipient.
Case Title: R Gurusamy v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court has referred to a larger bench the question whether the community certificate of an employee can be verified after retirement from service.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan thought it fit to refer the issue to a larger bench after noting the conflicting views taken by the co ordinate benches of the court.
Thus, the court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to place the matter before the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, for constituting a larger bench to address the following issues:
a) Whether verification into the genuineness of community certificate or caste status of an employee is permissible after retirement from service?
b) Whether verification into the genuineness of community certificate or caste status of an employee is permissible in cases where the employee was issued community certificate or granted employment prior to 1995?
c) Whether verification into the genuineness of community certificate or caste status, which was initiated prior to retirement, could be continued after retirement of the employee?
Madras High Court Stays Release Of “Kumki 2” Movie Amidst Money Dispute
Case Title: S.Chandraprakash Jain v. M/s. GOD Pictures and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
The Madras High Court has temporarily stayed the release of the Tamil movie “Kumki 2” amidst money disputes between a financier and the producers of the movie.
Justice Anand Venkatesh passed the interim orders on a petition filed by S.Chandraprakash Jain under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the distribution and release of the movie. The court ordered a stay till December 3, after noting that there was a prima facie case in favour of the financier.
Case Title: S v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of a man for sexually harassing his two minor daughters.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman commented that it was a peculiar case and it was painful to see that the father, who was expected to be the protector, had in turn become the cause of suffering for the kids.
Noting that the father was a drunkard and the heinous acts were done in an inebriated state, the court added that the case was an example of how alcohol addiction destroys the harmony of a family and erodes moral values. The court added that the evils of alcohol not only affect the individual's health but also destroy the peace and sanctity of a family.
Case Title: Saravanan C v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
The Madras High Court recently quashed a case against a man for alleged rape on false promise to marry. While doing so, the court noted that the growing trend of invoking criminal process in private relationships must be checked.
Justice B Pugalendhi noted that recently, there was an increase in complaints of rape under false promise to marry, where the relationship was voluntarily entered into and was subsequently projected as deception or breach of promise. The court added that such personal matters do not warrant criminal prosecution.
S.138 NI Act Not Attracted On Dishonour Of Cheque Issued To Return Bribe Amount: Madras High Court
Case Title: P Kulanthaisamy v. K Murugan and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 416
The Madras High Court recently observed that dishonour of a cheque issued for returning a bribe amount could not be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as it was not towards repayment of a legally enforceable debt.
Justice K Murali Shankar observed that the agreement to secure a job in exchange of money is an agreement that is void ab initio and would fall under the Illustration to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The court thus noted that when a cheque is issued for discharging a debt which was not legally enforceable, the offence under Section 138 would not be attracted.
Case Title: Marico Limited v. Prahalad Rai Kedia
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed by Marico Limited, the manufacturer of Parachute Coconut Oil, seeking cancellation of the copyright registration granted to Kedia Industries for the label of Everest Coconut Oil.
A single bench of Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on November 11, holding that the two labels were clearly distinguishable and that Marico had failed to prove infringement.
Case Title: Shilpa Suresh v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 418
The Madras High Court has come to the rescue of a candidate who was not permitted to join the allotted Medical College after failing to pay the fee on time.
Justice Anand Venkatesh invoked the court's extraordinary jurisdiction and took into account the circumstances that prevented the candidate from paying the fee on time. The court noted that the candidate had obtained a good score in the NEET UG exam, and her parents had struggled to arrange the fee amount. However, unfortunately, the last date to pay the fee was on a Second Saturday, and the fee could not be paid within the time.
The court took into account the attendant circumstances and was inclined to permit the candidate to join the course. The court added that instead of the seat going to less meritorious student, it would be appropriate if it was given to the candidate ensuring that there was no compromise on merit.
Case Title: Minor v. P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 419
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a revision petition filed by a father-in-law seeking maintenance for his minor grandson from his former daughter-in-law.
Justice Victoria Gowri said that the father-in-law had made a misconceived attempt to disturb the life of his former daughter-in-law, who was now remarried and living a peaceful life. The court added that parents, who have lawfully chosen new paths, must be permitted to live in peace.
The court also took note of the vulnerabilities being faced by women in the country, who, even after remarriage, were dragged into marital disputes. The court underlined that it was vigilant to uphold the dignity, autonomy, and peace of womanhood, which was essential to protect the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v Shilpa Suresh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
The Madras High Court, on Friday, set aside a single judge order, allowing a meritorious candidate to join a medical college, after she failed to pay the fee within the prescribed time due to financial difficulties.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, while setting aside the order of the single judge, noted that the time scheme specified in the prospectus had to be followed by the candidates. The bench also noted that there may be many students who, like the candidate, could not join the allotted college in time.
Though the court set aside the order of the single judge, it talked to the candidate after pronouncing the order, advising her to take up another course and flourish in life, and not be disheartened that she could not pursue the MBBS course.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v S Vimala IPS
Case No: Cont P 2012 of 2025
The Madras High Court has called for an explanation from the Tamil Nadu DVAC for the delay in obtaining sanctions for prosecuting three IAS officers in the tender irregularities case involving former Minister SP Velumani.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that even though all the papers in connection with the case were ready by January 2024, no steps had been taken till October 2024 for obtaining the sanction, by which time the Union Government had issued a new checklist mandating translated copies to be filed along with the application.
The court also remarked that the people of the country were voting for the government and imposing their faith on the executive, thinking that they would fight against corruption, however, even after having all the necessary documents, the government had no interest in fighting the corruption cases.
Case Title: B Shama v. Union of India and Others
Case No: WP No. 4794 of 2024
The Madras High Court has asked the central Government why the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) guidelines have not been amended till now to include adoption by transgender persons.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the Union Government to explain why amendments had not been brought into the CARA Guidelines and the Juvenile Justice Act as per Section 8 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Shama challenging the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and the CARA guidelines framed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 for discriminating against adoption by transgender persons.
Case Title: U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP (Crl) No 1296 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the State government to respond to a plea by retired IAS officer U Sagayam for the restoration of police protection.
It may be noted that in 2014, the Madras High Court had appointed Sagayam as a commission to probe into the alleged mining irregularities across the State. Since Sagayam started getting threats following this, the court had ordered protection for him. As this protection was withdrawn in December 2023, Sagayam had approached the court seeking to restore the same.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira directed the State to file its counter within two weeks and adjourned the case.
Case Title: A Thirukumaran and Another and batch pleas
Case No: WP (MD) 28971 of 2025
The Madras High Court has extended the time granted to the State government to formulate a 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 took note of the submissions of Additional Advocate General J Ravindran, who informed the court that the State had prepared a draft SOP and had called for suggestions from the recognised and registered political parties in the State towards the same.
The AAG submitted that on 6th November 2025, a meeting had been convened with all recognised political parties in the State. He added that 20 parties had participated in the meeting, and their suggestions/objections towards the draft SOP were sought. He also informed that an email had been sent to all the registered political parties, and their suggestions were also sought. He submitted that all these suggestions/objections would be considered at the time of framing the final SOP and sought time to complete the process.
Case Title: A Hari Nadar v. The State Government Of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP No. 43258 of 2025
A political party has approached the Madras High Court seeking to ban the “Desiya Thalaivar” movie, alleging that it defames former Chief Minister K Kamarajar.
Desiya Thalaivar is the biopic of politician and freedom fighter Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar.
When the matter was taken up by the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, it adjourned the plea by a week.
Case Title: Balveer Singh v. The State
Case No: Crl RC(MD) 1427 of 2025
IPS officer Balveer Singh has approached the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court 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.
When the matter came up before Justice Shamim Ahmed, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stay application, along with the application, could not be filed due to a bona fide mistake and thus sought three days for filing the stay application. He also sought time to file a translated copy of the impugned orders.
Since the state counsel did not object to the request, the court granted time.
Case Title: R Kathiravan v. The Divisional Engineer and Others
Case No: W.P.(MD)Nos.29035, 29217 & 30354 of 2024
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, warned that it would initiate contempt proceedings if political parties continued to erect unauthorised flag poles on the road, despite the court ruling against the same.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan remarked that, though the court had prohibited flagpoles at public places, it was still being erected in the middle of the road, and no action was being taken against the political parties. The judge also commented that he had personally seen party flags of the ruling party on the Anna flyover in Chennai and had even recorded a video of the same.
When the government advocate informed the court that no orders have been passed allowing the installation of flagpoles and that they were being set up without permission. He also assured the court that action would be taken against those responsible for erecting the flagpoles.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case no: WP No.16154 of 2020
The Madras High Court has directed the trial courts in the State to expedite trial in the criminal cases pending against sitting and former MPs and MLAs in the State.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan also directed the trial courts not to grant unnecessary adjournments in cases where the trial was pending for more than five years. The court also directed the expedited trial in cases where the higher courts had granted no stay.
The court was taking up a suo motu case to monitor the progress of cases pending in the Special Courts against MPs and MLAs in the state. The suo motu case was registered in furtherance of the Supreme Court's direction in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and Others v Union of India.