Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501 NOMINAL INDEX Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 456 Rama Ravikumar v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 457 Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501
NOMINAL INDEX
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
Rama Ravikumar v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir Mukkaram Ali, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
M/s MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. v. M/s Vishnu Associates & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
A v. M and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
Suo Motu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
Nannir Water Sources LLP v. Syed Imran and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s. Sangeetham House of Veg, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
The Official Assignee v. S Arjunlal Sunderdas and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others v. Rama Ravikumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
M/s. Devaraj & Others v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
MRF Limited vs. Additional Director, DGGI, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
R Thirumurugan v. R Thennarasu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
C Kayalvizhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
A Affice Khan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
PVR Inox Ltd and Another v. Airports Authority of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
C Somasundaram v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
M/s China Datang Technologies and Engineering Company Limited v M/s NLC Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
Eros International Media Limited v. 14 Reels Entertainment Private Limited and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
Tamil Nadu Housing Board v M/s NCC Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
Kalanithimaran and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
Milan Textile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Initiating Officer and Anr., 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 485
Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v The Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. Director General of Police and Others (connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
Shri. Harigovind v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Non-corporate, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493
Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 494
The Government of India v. S Somasundaram and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 496
The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
K.M. Mammen v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 498
S Vijayakumar v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 499
A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501
REPORTS
Case Title: Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
The Madras High Court has held that payment for IPLC (International Private Leased Circuits) Services does not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan examined whether the payment made by the assessee for IPLC services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of a payment made to a foreign-based company.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
The Madras High Court has permitted the Tamil Nadu government to carry out its development works for the strengthening of ponds to store excess rainwater and the development of Eco Park in the land that was earlier leased out to the Madras Race Club.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that there was an urgent and compelling need for the State to undertake the projects, which would eventually improve the air quality, reduce pollution sources, and prevent the city from being inundated.
The court thus modified an earlier order of a single judge that had ordered status quo in the case, thereby preventing the state's development.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
The Madras High Court has permitted the lighting of lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills.
Justice GR Swaminathan primarily observed that the deepathoon was not located in the area that belonged to the Muslims and thus lighting the lamp would not affect the rights of the community. At the same time, the court added that not allowing the lighting of lamps would affect the rights of the temple and the devotees.
The court also criticised the conduct of the temple management in not taking steps to protect the rights of the temple or the devotees. The court further observed that the temple management had failed to discharge its duty.
Madras High Court Strikes Down Wrongful Copyright Entry Over 'Sagar Homeo Stores' Logo
Case Title: Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir Mukkaram Ali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
The Madras High Court has ordered the cancellation of a copyright entry that wrongly gave a rival businessman ownership of the artistic logo used by the long-established “Sagar Homeo Stores,” holding that the record had been incorrectly created despite the store's earlier trademark and copyright registrations.
A single bench of Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on November 28, 2025, ruling that the 2009 registration obtained by Mir Mukkaram Ali, a competing homeopathic businessman, was inconsistent with the store's prior statutory rights. The court directed that the entry be expunged from the Register of Copyrights.
Case Title: M/s MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. v. M/s Vishnu Associates & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
In a rejection of a challenge to an arbitral award, the Madras High Court has upheld the Sole Arbitrator's decision directing MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. to pay over 1.23 crores in relation to an agreement over the release of the film “Maatraan”.
Dissmissing a plethora of arguments contended by the Petitioner, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on 28th November 2025 ruled that a guarantee deed, claimed as “comfort letter” by the Petitioner, was not a mere formality but a “binding commitment” to cover financial loss, and in fact was enforceable.
The dispute arose out of a film distribution deal for the Tamil movie “Maatraan” entered into between Vishnu Associates and Eros International Media Ltd., wherein, Vishnu Associates paid ₹2 crore upfront to distribute the Tamil and Telugu versions of the film in Karnataka. When the Tamil version could not be released due to local unrest owing to the Cauvery water dispute, the distributor invoked force majeure.
Case Title: Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
The Madras High Court has refused to vacate its interim order restraining the makers of Ajith starrer "Good Bad Ugly" movie from using three songs of renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja.
Justice N Senthilkumar, on Wednesday, observed that Ilaiyaraaja is entitled to protect his work from distortion. The court thus dismissed the application filed by Mythri Movie Makers, producers of "Good Bad Ugly", seeking to vacate the interim order, noting that it did not have merit.
Case Title: A v. M and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
While setting aside a Non-Bailable Warrant issued against a husband for not paying maintenance arrears, the Madras High Court recently highlighted the importance of following procedure while issuing such orders.
Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that the object of Section 125 CrPC was social justice and the courts should ensure that the maintenance orders are implemented while safeguarding the liberty of individuals from arbitrary arrest. The court highlighted the balance between enforcement and fairness was the hallmark of criminal jurisprudence.
Noting the procedural irregularities involved in the case, the court observed that it underscored the need for trial courts to record the provisions under which the warrants are issued and to follow the statutory sequence before resorting to non bailable warrant.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
In an innovative approach, the Madras High Court has suggested the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority provide assistance to persons who have lost their cellphones or similar articles to get back the same without physically approaching the court.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was taking up a suo motu proceeding registered to implement the pilot project formulated by the Committee of the Supreme Court of India for the disposal of criminal cases.
While disposing of the cases, the court noted that in many cases where mobile phones or similar articles were stolen, their value diminished significantly after the theft and recovery. The court noted that in many cases, after theft, the persons would move on and buy new phones, and did not appear before the Magistrate to apply for the return of the stolen properties. The court noted that to get back the stolen property, the parties usually had to spend more than its value, lose their wage, take leave, travel and spend, and wait for the whole day in court.
Thus, the redress such grievances, the court suggested that the Legal Service Authority could provide its assistance.
Case Title: PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
While granting relief to the Thengalai sect (Southern cult) to conduct the ceremonial worship at the Sri Devaraja Swamy temple in Kancheepuram, the Madras High Court recently observed that the fundamental right to freedom of religion cannot be expanded to affect the rights of the temple's office holders or to disturb the peaceful atmosphere of the temple.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar rejected the argument of the Vadagalai sect (Northern cult), which argued that giving ceremonial rights to the southern cult would infringe their rights under Article 25 and 26.
The bench noted that as per the earlier round of litigations, which started as early as in the 18th century, the southern cult was given the rights of official performance of certain services to the deity.
Case Title: Nannir Water Sources LLP v. Syed Imran and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
The Madras High Court recently granted interim relief to a water purifier company by restraining a YouTuber from making videos containing disparaging and defamatory statements about the company's product.
Justice N Senthilkumar observed that the false statements made by the YouTuber would put an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade guaranteed to the company under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The court added that the defamatory statements made by the YouTuber would not only affect the company's goodwill, but would also affect its business prospects and commercial standing.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
After noting that its earlier order, permitting the lighting of lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills was not complied with by the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, the Madras High Court today permitted devotees to go to the hill and light the deepam themselves.
Justice GR Swaminathan made the direction in a contempt petition moved by one of the petitioners in the earlier litigation. The court also directed the CISF commandant of High Court's Madurai bench to give protection to the devotees, allowing them to carry out the court order. The court also permitted the contempt petitioner to take ten other persons along with him.
Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
Renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja has settles the civil suits he had initiated against Mythri Movie Makers, producers of the movies “Dude” and “Good Bad Ugly”, over the alleged unauthorised usage of his copyrighted works.
Appearing before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, the parties informed the court that they had entered into negotiations and concluded a settlement. The parties also filed a joint memo of compromise, which was digitally signed by Ilaiyaraaja and representative of Mythri Movie Makers.
As per the terms of settlement, the production house has paid Rs. 50,00,000 to the musician, after deducting a TDS of 10%by way of RTGS. The parties have agreed that upon receipt of the money, the production company will be permitted to continue using the songs in “Dude” movie. With respect to the songs in the “Good Bad Ugly” movie, the production company agreed to desist from using the songs.
Noting the settlement, the court decreed the suit as per the terms of the compromise memo.
Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s. Sangeetham House of Veg
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “Sangeetham House of Veg” trademark held by a Thiruchendur-based restaurant, after finding that the registration was obtained in violation of an earlier court-recorded settlement that required the outlet to change its name.
The settlement had been reached in a trademark infringement suit filed by Chennai-based Sangeetha Veg Restaurant, which said the Thiruchendur restaurant's name and “S” logo were deceptively similar to its own “Sangeetha” brand.
Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on November 6, 2025, allowing the rectification petition filed by the Chennai restaurant. The court held that the Thiruchendur outlet had suppressed key facts while securing its trademark registration and that the mark could not remain on the register in light of the binding settlement.
Case Title: The Official Assignee v. S Arjunlal Sunderdas and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the release of the latest Tamil film “Vaa Vathiyar” over alleged unpaid dues by the movie's producer, KE Gnanavel of Studio Greens.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan passed the interim direction in an execution petition filed by the official liquidator of the Madras High Court to deal with the estate of realtor and financier Arjunlal Sunderdas after he was declared insolvent. In 2019, the court had noted that Gnanavel owed Rs. 10,35,00,000 to Sunderdas and allowed a petition filed by the Official Assignee directing Studio Green to pay a sum of Rs. 10,35,00,000/- with an interest of 18% p.a.
Since this order has not been complied with completely, the official liquidator filed the execution petition seeking to prohibit the release of future movies of Studio Green. The present petition was to prohibit the release of the "Vaa Vaathiyar" movie, which was slated to be released on December 5, and to attach the proceeds of the movie towards the satisfaction of the decretal amount.
The court has now passed an interim order prohibiting the release of the movie till 5th December.
Case Title: KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others v. Rama Ravikumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
The Madras High Court today dismissed a letter patent appeal against the order of a single judge in a contempt petition, permitting devotees of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills, which is located close to a dargah.
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that devotees were permitted to light the lamp since single judge's initial order was not complied with by the temple administration. Such modification in the initial order, the division bench said, was sustainable.
The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by the Madurai's District Collector, city Police Commissioner and Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple against a single judge's order yesterday, permitting devotees to light lamps at the hilltop. State's HR&CE (Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments) Department also entered appearance.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
The Madras High Court has quashed the prohibitory order issued by the Madurai District Collector under Section 144 CrPC(Section 163 BNSS) in the Thiruparakundram region, following the clashes that broke out while implementing a court order passed yesterday, allowing devotees to go to the temple and light lamps at the stone pillar.
Justice GR Swaminathan quashed the order, observing that the same was promulgated only to circumvent the implementation of the court order. The court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city to give police protection to the devotees allowing them to light the lamps at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) situated at the lower hilltop on the Thiruparankundram hills.
Case Title: M/s. Devaraj & Others v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
The Madras High Court has held that the rectification power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is akin to the review power under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and is limited to rectifying any mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal cannot re-adjudicate issues or modify its original order under the guise of rectification.
Section 254(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, grants the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) the authority to amend its orders to rectify any mistake apparent from the record.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan stated that when the power under section 254(2) is akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the scope and ambit of rectification/review could be only within the contours provided under the provision. When the provision only allows for rectification for any errors apparent on the face of the record, the mistake should be discernible on the face of the record without requiring any elaborate enquiry or reasoning. In the garb of rectification, the issue cannot be re-adjudicated, and a fresh order cannot be passed effacing the original order, which is clearly impermissible.
Case Name: MRF Limited vs. Additional Director, DGGI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 472
The Madras High Court has quashed Show Cause Notices issued to Apollo Tyres Limited and MRF Limited alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the composite supply of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps (TFF) since tax difference was paid voluntarily.
In twin judgments dated November 28,2025, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy examined if Show Cause Notice had fulfilled the ingredients of Section 74 to hold that payment deferred due to confusion prevailing confusion in the industry regarding tax treatment of TFF is not attributable to tax evasion.
The High Court dismissed grounds for invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act together with Respondent's stance that payment subsequent to initiation of investigation was invalid. The High Court observed that there was 'no criminal motive' attributable to the Petitioner.
Case Title: R Thirumurugan v. R Thennarasu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
The Madras High Court recently held that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department can inquire into alleged maladministration in a temple. The court added that when a temple accepts public contributions, it assumes the nature of a public institution, and the State can intervene even if it is not a notified public religious institution.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal observed as under,
“When public contributions/donations have been accepted, temple assumes the character of a public institution. If public contributions are involved, State can intervene in case of maladministration or misappropriation of funds, following the procedure as outlined in the Act and Rules, and take necessary actions. Right to administer the temple would not include maladministration. Therefore, power of State is not confined only in respect of notified public religious institutions, since the definition of temple would include temple used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, and Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is empowered to decide issues relating to characteristic of a religious institution,” the court said.
Case Title: C Kayalvizhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
The Madras High Court recently observed that sexual offences against a minor is a heinous crime against society and even a single incident could be considered for detaining such an accused.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima rejected a detenu's argument that the detaining authority could not invoke the provisions for a solitary incident.
Madras High Court Orders Fresh Review of TVS Motor's Patent Plea For Scooter Frame Design
Case Title: TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
The Madras High Court has overturned a decision by the Patent Office that had denied TVS Motor Company a patent for its "vehicle frame assembly" invention. The court said the Patent Office did not properly examine how the design worked or whether it was truly obvious from earlier technologies.
In its ruling dated November 28, 2025, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said the refusal order did not provide enough reasoning to conclude that TVS Motor's invention lacked originality. Because the analysis was incomplete, the court sent the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh review.
Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Charged Under NDPS Act
Case Title: A Affice Khan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a man booked under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The Supreme Court had recently orally observation that "Anticipatory bail is never granted in NDPS case". The Top Court had made the observation while refusing to interfere with Punjab and Haryana High Court's denial of anticipatory bail to an accused booked under the Act.
In the present case however, Justice K Rajasekar noted that the conditions under Section 37 of the Act were satisfied for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail and ordered accordingly.
Case Title: PVR Inox Ltd and Another v. Airports Authority of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Civil Aviation to take a policy decision on allowing cinema multiplexes within the airport premises.
In doing so, Justice M Dhandapani also gave relief to PVR INOX, which was asked to close down its cinema hall functioning in the Multi-Level Car Parking Complex near the Chennai Airport. The court ordered that till a policy decision was taken by the Union Government, the Airport Authority of India could not ask PVR to shut down its theatre.
The court made the orders on a plea moved by PVR INOX challenging an order of the Airports Authority of India, asking PVR to shut down its operations in the complex near the Chennai Airport.
Case Title: C Somasundaram v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
The Madras High Court has asked the Chief Secretary of the Tamil Nadu state to issue a necessary circular to all State Government Departments to ensure that all representations submitted by Persons with Disabilities should be considered at the earliest.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the authorities should act with a greater degree of sensitivity and empathy while dealing with applications/appeals by persons with disabilities. The court added that when a constitutional and statutory obligation is put on the State to work for the welfare of persons with disabilities, such petitions should not be kept pending for a long time.
Case Title: M/s China Datang Technologies and Engineering Company Limited v M/s NLC Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that appointment of arbitrator by a high court in case of an international commercial arbitration renders the award a nullity. Sections 4 and 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) are non -derogable and it is only the Apex Court which can appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration.
The Court further observed that a conjoint reading of Section 11(6) and Section 11(12)(a), ACA makes it abundantly clear that the power to appoint an arbitrator in an ICA lies exclusively with the Supreme Court. The Court further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration and such power is in the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court. The aforesaid provisions are non-derogable and any order passed by the High Court appointing an arbitrator in ICA suffers from complete lack of jurisdiction and is a nullity in law.
Madras High Court Paves Way For Release Of Film 'Akhanda 2' After Parties Agree To Settle Dispute
Case Title: Eros International Media Limited v. 14 Reels Entertainment Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
The Madras High Court has paved the way for release of Nandamuri Balakrishna starrer Akhanda 2, after its producers agreed to settle pending payments towards Eros International.
Justice Anand Venkatesh vacated an earlier interim order granted by a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan restraining the release of the movie till the petition filed by Eros against the producers of the movie was disposed of. The film is set to release tomorrow (December 12).
The judge decided to vacate the interim stay after recording the joint memo filed by the parties and noting that the producers had transferred an amount of Rs. 5 Crore as part payment.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Housing Board v M/s NCC Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award of ₹51.48 lakhs passed in favour of the contractor, M/s. N.C.C. Ltd., on the ground of an inexplicable and excessive seven-year delay in its decision.
On December 8th, 2025, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh ruled that such a delay, which is "explicit and adversely reflects on the findings," renders the award in conflict with the public policy of India and is vitiated by patent illegality, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
The Madras High Court has refused to grant bail to Saravanan, Sub Inspector of Police, accused of in the honour killing of Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.
While dismissing Saravanan's appeal against the District Court's refusal to grant bail, Justice K Murali Shankar observed that honour killing continued to plague Indian society despite the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and freedom of marriage. Reiterating the Supreme Court's observation that “bail not jail” does not apply to heinous crimes like honour killing, the court added that in such cases, bail should be a carefully guarded exception balancing liberty with societal order.
Case Title: Kalanithimaran and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
The Madras High Court has recently quashed a case registered against members of the Hindu Munnani for participating in an alleged unlawful protest.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the FIR did not disclose any specific act against the members and merely alleged that they had participated in a protest organised by their political organisation. The court observed that criminal law cannot be invoked on vague allegations, especially when it is to criminalise peaceful expression.
Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order Against Accused In Anna University Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
The Madras High Court has quashed the detention order issued against Gnanasekar, accused in the Anna University Sexual Assault Case.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman was inclined to quash the detention order after noting that Gnansekaran was already convicted and sentenced in connection with the sexual assault case. The court thus disposed of a habeas corpus plea by Gnanasekar's mother, Gengadevi.
Gnanasekar was accused of sexually assaulting a 2nd year engineering student at the Anna University campus in Chennai in December 2024. The High Court had constituted a Special Investigation Team to investigate the incident after finding faults in the state police's investigation. On June 2, Gnansekaran was sentenced to life imprisonment of a minimum 30 years and a fine of Rs 90,000.
Case Title: Milan Textile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Initiating Officer and Anr.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 485
The Madras High Court has recently held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, authorities cannot proceed against any property standing in the name of a corporate debtor for offences committed before the insolvency process, even if such property is alleged to be held benami.
A single bench of Justice G R Swaminathan ruled that Section 32A(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, offers wide protection to the property of a corporate debtor after a successful resolution.
The court observed that the word “property” in the provision is unqualified and must therefore be given its widest meaning.
Case Title: Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v The Secretary to Government of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
The Madras High Court has directed the Government of India to formulate a comprehensive policy for providing legal assistance to Indian citizens outside its territory.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the Government had a constitutional duty, and the absence of any legislative framework should not come in the way of such inference.
The court noted that labour migration was a reality in the country, and through this migration of labour across continents, the Government was earning a huge foreign exchange through inward remittances. The court added that when the nation's exchequer was being benefitted, the Government had a correlative and corresponding duty to come to their rescue when there were issues from the overseas employment.
Case Title: Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
The Madras High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is valid if the original order is completely silent on the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to assess or reassess income that has escaped assessment.
Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar stated that the original order of assessment is wholly silent in regard to the claim under Section 80HHC. Normally, when an order of assessment is passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, there is a presumption that the issues raised for consideration in the return of income have been duly taken note of by the Assessing Officer.
Commercial Courts Act Bars Intra-Court Appeals In Patent Disputes: Madras High Court
Case Title: ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
The Madras High Court has held that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge while deciding a statutory patent appeal under the Patents Act. The court reiterated that the Commercial Courts Act does not permit a second appeal within the High Court.
A division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan passed the order on December 12, 2025, while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by Italian pharmaceutical company Italfarmaco SPA challenging an earlier decision of a Single Judge of the Madras High Court.
Case Title: Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
The Madras High Court recently remarked that the new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, transformed the criminal process and made it more victim-centric, citizen-responsive and justice-oriented.
Justice L Victoria Gowri added that the new code emphasised timeliness, transparency, accountability, and proportionality. The court added that the BNSS codified timelines for investigating agencies, ensuring that the agencies could not keep the matters pending uncertainly, making victims languish without closure.
The court also added that the BNSS embodied a shift from the punitive colonial framework to a justice-centric democratic framework. The court remarked that timely investigation was the first guarantee of fairness to both the victim and accused and added that the investigating agencies should strictly adhere to the statutory timelines.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. Director General of Police and Others (connected cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to take a call on the Standard Operating Procedures, which would be made applicable to all political parties for public meetings, by January 5, 2026.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a lot of suggestions and objections were placed before it. Having gone through the affidavits filed by the State and the submissions made by the parties concerned, the bench directed the State to take a decision considering the suggestions and objections made by the parties concerned.
The court added that if any party had objections to the SOP, they were at liberty to challenge the same by filing a separate case.
Madras High Court Rejects Jaipur Restaurant's Co-Ownership Claim To 'Dasaprakash' Trademark
Case Title: Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
The Madras High Court has refused to recognise a Jaipur-based company as a co-owner of the “Dasaprakash” trademark, holding that the brand is a jointly owned family mark that could not have been transferred by a single family member.
The original mark is commonly associated with a South Indian restaurant chain.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh, in a judgment dated December 16, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. and upheld a 2009 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting its request to be recorded as a co-proprietor of the registered trademark.
The court held that no valid assignment or transfer of trademark rights had ever taken place in favour of the company and that the “Dasaprakash” mark continued to be jointly owned by the successors of its founder, K. Seetharama Rao.
Case Title: Shri. Harigovind v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Non-corporate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
The Madras High Court held that the notices under Section 153C are unsustainable where a search for 'other person' was initiated after 01.04.2021.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that the first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 153C is not only for the purpose of abatement but also for all other purposes, viz., initiation of search for other person in terms of Section 153C(3) of the Act. In such a case, the date of initiation of search for the assessee is the date on which the documents were handed over to the JAO of the assessee, i.e., 25.11.2022 is the date of initiation of search for the assessee.
Case Title: P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493
The Madras High Court has recently observed that it was time that an audit be conducted regarding payment of fee to the law officers in the State.
Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation on noting that Additional Advocate Generals were appearing even in small matters where their presence was not required. The court added that while it could not enquire into the quantum of fee to be paid to senior counsels and additional advocate generals, good governance was required to ensure that public money was not given away to a favoured few.
Case Title: Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 494
While setting aside the Central Government's order refusing registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 to a trust engaged in the teaching of yoga, the Madras High Court recently remarked that Bhagavad Gita is not a religious book, but more about moral science.
Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a petition filed by Arsha Vidya Parampara trust against an order filed by the Director, FCRA Wing, Ministry of Home Affairs rejecting an application for registration under the Act.
The court also noted that the reason why organisation was termed religious was because it taught Bhagavad Gita. The court observed that Bhagavad Gita was not a religious book and speaks about internal and eternal trust. The court also remarked that the Gita had inspired some national leaders during the freedom struggle and under Article 51A(b) it was the duty of citizens to cherish and follow the noble ideas which inspired our national struggle for freedom.
The court also noted that the trust taught Vedanta and Yoga, which also could not be termed as religious. The court remarked that Yoga was universal and could not be viewed through the prism of religion.
Case Title: The Government of India v. S Somasundaram and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
The Madras High Court recently held that the grant of a state pension to a freedom fighter would not automatically result in the extension of a central pension to the pensioner. The court added that for granting the Central Government Pension Scheme, the conditions stipulated in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (SSS Scheme) had to be followed.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan set aside an order of the single judge, which held that once the state government has extended the benefit of the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, the central government has to extend the same, and that the eligibility criteria fixed by the central government need not be followed strictly.
Case Title: Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 496
The Madras High Court has directed the Patent Office to grant an inventor one opportunity to demonstrate the working of his invention, holding that a potentially viable invention should not be rejected without adequate consideration.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenging the rejection of his patent review application relating to an invention titled “Solar Supplemental Power Source.”
The invention is described as an electro-mechanical device intended to generate electricity even when solar energy is unavailable.The court noted that the petitioner was only seeking an opportunity to demonstrate his invention.
Case Title: The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Ciaion: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
The Madras High Court held that the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee under a government rehabilitation scheme is a capital receipt and is not taxable as revenue.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan examined whether the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee from the Government under the rehabilitation scheme should be treated as a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee or as a capital receipt, taking it out of the purview of the taxable income.
Case Title: K.M. Mammen v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 498
The Madras High Court held that once the assessee's entitlement to compounding had attained finality through earlier orders, then the Income Tax Department could not apply the revised Compounding Guidelines.
Justice C. Saravanan referred to the Explanation to Section 279(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and noted that the new compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 bearing reference F.No.285/08/2014-IT (Inv.V) would apply, only if a new application is/was filed in terms of paragraph 3.2 of the said guidelines.
Case Title: S Vijayakumar v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 499
The Madras High Court recently asked the central government to consider bringing in a law, similar to that in Australia, to monitor internet usage by children.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan made the suggestion after noting that pornographic content is widely available to children using the internet. The court observed that the end users had to be made aware of the menace of child pornography, and till such legislation was passed, it was the duty of the authorities to create awareness campaigns.
Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
The Madras High Court, on Friday, granted interim bail to YouTuber and journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar. Shankar was arrested on December 13 on allegations of assault and extortion by a film producer.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal noted that Shankar had serious health issues and needed treatment. The court also noted that the authorities had been filing cases against Shankar, curtailing his personal liberty. The court was thus inclined to grant interim bail to Shankar from 26th December 2025 to 25th March 2026.
While hearing the case on Friday, the vacation court also criticised the state police for targeting Shankar, who was exercising his fundamental right to dissent. The court criticised the authorities for running behind journalists whenever there was dissent.
Case Title: Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501
The Madras High Court recently held that special honours in a temple cannot be claimed as an absolute right and that the first honour in the temple was always to the deity. The court thus dismissed the plea of an ashramam that sought first special honour for its head at the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kanchipuram.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted though there was an existing practice of honouring the heads, whether it could be claimed as a right or not was an issue that was to be determined by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.