Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 NOMINAL INDEX Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40 Anugraha Castings v. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 41 M.Murugan v. The District Secretary (and connected cases),...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
NOMINAL INDEX
Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
Anugraha Castings v. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
M.Murugan v. The District Secretary (and connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
R. Ramalingam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
TR Balu v R Kannan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
V Ramkumar and Others v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
Abbas Manthiri v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
M/s.Powergear Limited, Chennai. Vs. M/s.Anu Consultants, Hyderabad, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
Deepa v. S Vijayalakshmi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
Gopal Krishan Rathi vs. Dr. R. Palani, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited Vs Transtonnelstroy Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
Kajendran J v. Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
T Ramalakshmi v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
Mr VA. Pugazhendi v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
Jeyakumari v Stephen, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
M/s. Ultimate Computer Care v. M/s. S. M. K. Systems, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
A Rajendran v The Joint Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
CALEB SURESH MOTUPALLI v. CONT, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59
S Yuvaraj v The Commissioner of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
M/s. Ideaforge Technology Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
Suo Motu v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
V. R. Krishnakumar v. Commissioner of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
K. Shrish v The Controller Of Examination, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
M/s Janpriya Builders v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
XYZ v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
Sa. Sivasooryaa v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
Raji v Executive Magistrate/ The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
ST Sivagnanan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
Y Babu v The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Poongundran and Others v. The State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
S Gunasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
M/s.United Breweries Limited v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals II), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
Rajesh Anouar Mahimaidoss v Election Commission of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam v. Regional Officer, CBFC, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
Vendaraja v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
REPORTS
Case Title: Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
The Madras High Court has dismissed the writ petitions filed by Flipkart owners Sachin and Binny Bansal challenging the complaint made by the Deputy Director, ED, and the subsequent show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority for violating provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India, [TISPRO] Regulations 2000.
While doing so, Justice S Sounthar observed that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of raising their objections before the adjudicating authority. The court noted that as per the Act, the petitioners had remedy not just before the civil court but also had an option for a second appeal before the High Court under Section 35 of the Act. thus, the court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the plea.
Case Title: M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the issue of ineligibility of the arbitrator cannot be raised during the pendency of the execution proceedings. The court held that the Executing Courts cannot suo motu dismiss the Execution Petition(s) solely on the ground of unilateral appointment of an arbitrator.
The court held that the executing court cannot suo motu annul the award when a party to the agreement did not challenge the award on the ground of ineligibility of the arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “As long as there is no objection raised, it cannot be said that a mere unilateral appointment of arbitrator would vitiate the entire arbitral proceedings which culminated in an award”, the court stated.
Case Title: Anugraha Castings v. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High Court recently emphasized that courts should refrain from passing ex-parte orders in a routine manner and must only pass such orders when there is a real emergency which was shown through the plaint and averments.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that ex-parte orders can have disastrous consequences and could possibly bring a party's business to a halt. The court added that by the time the party is heard and the ex-party order is vacated, the party and its customers may have faced a huge loss.
Pointing to the Supreme Court's direction in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, in which the court enunciated the principles relating to granting or refusal of injunction, the High Court highlighted that the courts in the State should always bear the directions in mind and ensure that ex-parte orders are passed only in case of grave emergency.
Case Title: M.Murugan v. The District Secretary (and connected cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court has allowed the Hindu Munnani to carry out demonstrations against alleged encroachment in the Thiruparakundram Hills where a Kasivishwanathar temple and a Sikkandar dargah have been coexisting.
Noting that the entire issue could have been handled in a better way, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima allowed the protests to be conducted by the organization today (4th February 2025), at Palanganatham junction between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm. The court added that proper arrangements should be made for the protests and both the organisers and the police must ensure that no law and order issues arise due to the protests. The court also asked the organizers to ensure that only one megaphone be carried to the protest site and the entire protest be video graphed.
Case Title: R. Ramalingam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
The Madras High Court recently observed that prisoners have a right to access minimal facilities that are required to deal with their physical condition and the government could not shirk its responsibility for providing better facilities to prisoners.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima noted that in some cases a prisoner's physical or medical condition may require certain facilities which should be provided to him. The court added that a prisoner, either convicted or undertrial did not cease to become a human being and continued to enjoy all fundamental rights including the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.
The court thus observed that prison justice could not be confined to a rigid framework and must be expanded taking into consideration the physical or medical condition of the prisoner.
Case Title: TR Balu v R Kannan and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
The Madras High Court has ordered the Editor, Publisher and the Printer of Tamil Weekly 'Junior Vikatan', to pay Rs. 25,00,000 as damages to DMK's TR Balu for having published malicious and defamatory content against him without verifying the same.
Justice AA Nakkiran remarked that the freedom of press was to be used for publishing news to the people backed by solid proof and could not be used to tarnish the image and reputation of a person without verifying the veracity of the news. The court added that Junior Vikatan, being a renowned magazine should have been more cautious before publishing the news.
Case Title: V Ramkumar and Others v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (February 4th) slammed the Special Investigation Team probing the sexual assault of a 2nd Year Engineering Student at Anna University in Chennai in December last year.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan questioned the SIT for sending summons repeatedly to the journalists grilling them with questions touching upon their personal lives and even seizing their electronic devices alleging that the journalists had shared the FIR containing details of the victim girl. The court asked the SIT why it had selectively questioned the journalists when it had not made attempts to question the officers who were responsible for the FIR leak.
Case Title: Abbas Manthiri v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court has issued guidelines to be followed during the transit of cattle from one place to another. The court emphasized that the rules should be strictly followed to ensure the safety and well-being of the cattle during transportation.
Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that transporting cattle was a careful process that required strict adherence to the Animal Welfare Regulations, proper vehicle equipment, and ensuring the cattle's health and safety during the journey.
The court directed the transporters to ensure that there is adequate space to stand, lie down and turn around. The court also stated that the safety of the cattle should be ensured while loading and unloading the cattle, in order to prevent injury and stress. For this, the court said that the ramps and loading docks should be designed to prevent the cattle from slipping or falling
Case Title: Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
The Madras High Court has recently criticised a Seizing Officer attached to the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs for seizing a gold “Mangalya Thali Kodi” (necklace) from a Srilankan citizen alleging that the same was against the Baggage Rules 2016.
The court observed that the quantity of jewellery worn by the petitioner was normal for a newly married person and that the officers, while conducting searches should respect the customs of every religion in the country. The court also noted that it was unfair on the part of the officer to remove the petitioner's thali and such act was intolerable.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy further noted that the officer had seized the thali without even considering its importance and the officer's acts amounted to annihilation of the customs of the Hindu religion and the culture of the country. The court also went on to state that the officer seemed to have worked with an ulterior motive to distract the attention of the other officials for the benefit of someone else and thus directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs (Tamil Nadu and Puducherry) to conduct an inquiry against the officer and take appropriate action as per law.
No Bar On Court To Entertain More Than One Application U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Powergear Limited, Chennai. Vs. M/s.Anu Consultants, Hyderabad
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that there is no prohibition for the Court to entertain more than one application under Section 29A of the Act seeking extension of time for the arbitrator to pronounce arbitral award provided sufficient cause is demonstrated.
The court noted that 'section 29A' of the Arbitration Act does not prohibit multiple applications for extending the mandate of the Arbitrator. The only requirement is that sufficient cause must be demonstrated for seeking extension of the mandate of the tribunal.
It further added that when there are no restrictions as to the number of times an application seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal can be filed, the court cannot prohibit parties from filing such applications provided sufficient cause is demonstrated.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court recently observed that the procedure adopted by the Family Courts in the State insisting on the personal appearance of the parties in a family case for every hearing resulted in procedural delays and inefficiency. The court noted that such insistence often lead to significant delays and affected the performance of the court.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan also pointed out that it was inhuman to expect that the litigant was available at every beck and call of the court. The court emphasized that Family Courts were expected to approach family matters in a humane and reasonable manner. The court added that the courts had to be more empathetic to the physical, emotional, and financial distress of the litigants.
The court further added that Section 13 of the Family Courts Act and Rule 41 of the Family Court Rules do not prevent the litigants from being represented by advocates but only state that the parties are not entitled to be represented as a right. The court added that the intention behind bringing such provisions was to ensure that the procedure does not become adversarial. The court added that the legal provisions did not intent to affect the rights of the parties.
Case Title: Deepa v. S Vijayalakshmi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
The Madras High Court recently observed that Section 46(4) of CrPC and Section 43(5) of the BNSS Act which prevents the arrest of a woman after sunset and before sunrise is directory and not mandatory.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice M Jothiraman explained that the provisions did not provide the consequences of non-compliance of the requirement. The court observed that if the legislature intended the provision to be mandatory, it would have set out the consequences for non-compliance. The court also added that while effecting arrest, the police officer was performing a public duty and the victim could not be allowed to suffer for the neglect of duty by the police officer.
The bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dattatraya Moreshwar Vs The State of Bombay, in which it was held that a statute creating a public duty was directory and those conferring private rights were imperative. The court noted that holding the acts done in neglect of duty as null would cause serious inconvenience to the persons who are have no control over those entrusted with duty and would be against the main object of the Act.
Case Title: Gopal Krishan Rathi vs. Dr. R. Palani
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice K. .R. Shriram (Chief Justice) and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy have observed that an arbitral award does not have to follow any specific format; just as every judge writes their judgment in a particular style, arbitrators also write in different styles.
The court also held that any ground which was not raised in a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be raised at the stage of appeal under Section 37 of the Act. The court further observed that reasoning of the award must be 'proper', 'intelligible' and 'adequate'.
Case Title:M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited Vs Transtonnelstroy Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that when the view taken by the Arbitrator is not even a plausible view, an award passed by such an arbitrator can be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration act on the ground of patent illegality.
The court noted that a plain reading of clause 13.16.5 shows that when price variation formula in CPA 32 is adopted, then the respondents cannot be entitled to claim any additional costs, unless there is a claim falling under the three exceptions, namely customs duty, excise duty and output TN VAT which also is again subject to the rider that it will be paid to the extent that it is not covered by the price variation formula.
Case Title: Kajendran J v. Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court has asked the courts across the state of Tamil Nadu not to insist on conducting potency tests on accused persons in a routine manner. The court also directed the Director General of Police to issue circulars to the departments asking the officers to refrain from sending the accused for potency test in a mechanical manner.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan, which was constituted to monitor the implementation of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice Act on the judicial side, made the observations after being informed that while there was awareness against Two-Finger tests in the state, instances of male potency tests still continued.
The bench also noted that despite previous orders and a circular issued by the DGP, minor boys who were involved in romantic relationships with minor girls were mechanically arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Boards, which then sent the minor boys to the observation homes. The court noted that such procedure ran counter to the earlier circulars and the orders of the court and thus directed the DGP to re-familiarise the police officials regarding the circular, making them aware of the procedure to be followed in such cases.
Case Title: T Ramalakshmi v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
The Madras High Court has recently clarified that a prisoner could be granted ordinary or emergency leave while an appeal is pending before the High Court or a Special Leave petition is pending before the Apex Court.
The full bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice TV Thamilselvi, and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that as per Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982, the prison authority was empowered to grant ordinary leave. The court however clarified that if the prisoner is facing trial in any other case, the prison authorities.
Siding with an observation of a division bench of Madras High Court in Latha v. State, the court observed that Rule 35 states that no prisoner, on whom a trial was pending, could not be granted leave. The court noted that the language used in the Rules is “pending trial” and not “pending appeal”. Thus, the court said that the rules would not bar a prisoner who had an appeal pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court.s could reject his leave application in limine.
Case Title: Mr VA. Pugazhendi v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
The Madras High Court has vacated a stay on the proceedings initiated by the Election Commission of India on the basis of representations filed by individuals in connection with the AIADMK “two leaves” symbol dispute and party leadership row.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan asked the ECI to inquire into the issue within the parameters of its powers under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. The bench asked the ECI to first satisfy itself about the existence of a party dispute, its jurisdiction and then proceed with the inquiry.
Case Title: Jeyakumari v Stephen
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
The Madras High Court has observed that a marriage between a Hindu and a person belonging to any other religion cannot be celebrated under the Hindu Marriage Act as the Act requires both the parties to the marriage to belong to the Hindu faith.
The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice N Senthilkumar also noted that often a Hindu person was marrying a foreigner, a non-Hindu belonging to a different faith as per Hindu customs. The court noted that while choosing a life partner was a personal choice, the legality of the marriage, performed as per Hindu customs would be under cloud. Thus, the court held that if a Hindu person wished to marry a non-Hindu, the marriage should be registered as per the Special Marriage Act to avoid any illegality and challenge to the subsequent legal marital status. The court also added that there must be an awareness in this regard, among prospective brides and grooms.
Madras High Court Issues Directions To Clear Backlog Of Cheque Bounce Cases In Magistrate Courts
Case Title: M/s. Ultimate Computer Care v. M/s. S. M. K. Systems
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
Noting the pendency of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions for speedy of disposal of cases.
“Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are clogging the Magistrate Courts for years on account of various reasons. The very purpose of the introduction of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would be defeated on account of the delay involved in the disposal of such matters,” the court said.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the pendency of cases defeats the purpose for the introduction of Chapter XVII of the Act. The court added that though the Constitutional Courts had issued directions in this regard, lack of effective oversight mechanisms have resulted in the directions remaining mere paper directives.
Case Title: A Rajendran v The Joint Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
While dismissing a plea seeking to frame a scheme of administration in Arulmighu Varatharaja Perumal and Senraya Perumal Temple by appointing non-hereditary trustees from a particular caste, the Madras High Court observed that the very prayer is opposed to public policy and constitutional goals.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy lamented that despite 75 years of the Constitution, sections of the society was yet to shed the unwanted baggage. The court added that if such prayers are allowed, the very operation of the Constitutional Scheme would get frustrated. The court added that any prayer which has the effect of perpetuating caste is not only unconstitutional but also opposed to public policy.
Madras High Court Upholds Rejection Of AI-Human Integration Patent Claim
Case Title: CALEB SURESH MOTUPALLI v. CONT
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court bench dismissed an appeal seeking a review of a patent claim for a product designed to integrate human and AI capabilities. The appeal was filed by Caleb Suresh Motupalli before the single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, challenging the order of the Controller of Patents. Upon review, the court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the Controller's decision and accordingly rejected the appeal.
The court concurred with the defendant's submission that the claims were too vague, and lacked a clear technical feature. The court found that the invention did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act due to its ambiguity and failure to properly base the claims on the details provided in the complete specification. It held that the invention did not offer any clear method to achieve the intended result. Additionally, it determined that the invention had no real technical effect and failed to deliver the promised super-augmentation of the user.
The court held that The Controller erred by dealing with the review application as an original application for a patent grant, conducting a second full-fledged hearing, and issuing an order in the nature of an order-in-original under Section 15 of the Patents Act.The court noted that the Controller should have rejected the review application as the original order did not suffer from any procedural defect or sufficient reason.The court did not accept the submissions of the applicant and dismissed the appeal filed by Caleb, upholding the Controller's decision to reject the patent application.
Case Title: S Yuvaraj v The Commissioner of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed an application for permitting a procession condemning the recent events at Thiruparakundram, Madurai.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that for the incidents that happened in Thiruparakundram, resolutions had already been passed between the concerned parties before the RDO and there was no need to conduct another procession, in Chennai to condemn the incidents. The court highlighted that the State could not permit any form of protest which disrupted the public peace and harmony. The court highlighted that Unity in Diversity was the strength of the country and government had to maintain the harmony among the different religions.
Case Title: M/s. Ideaforge Technology Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Drone Manufacturing company – Ideaforge, seeking to quash a cheating case registered against it by Garuda Aerospace Pvt Ltd.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that the grounds taken by Ideaforge to quash the case was in the nature of defence which could be decided only at the time of trial. The court also noted that there was prima facie material to proceed with the case. Thus, the court was not inclined to quash the case and dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Suo Motu v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court has ordered a CBI probe into the large-scale illegal mining of beach sand that has caused a huge loss to the Tamil Nadu state exchequer to the tune of ₹5,832 Crore.
The division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman held that the facts of the issue- granting mining lease/approvals, permitting illegal inclusion of monazite in mining lease, lack of efficient monitoring, arbitrary royalty settlement, lack of initiation of appropriate actions, etc suggested that there was a scheme of collusion, corruption and connivance among political, executive, and private mining companies.
The court thus opined that a thorough enquiry was necessary to unearth the involvement of government officials and the illegalities perpetuated by them. The court added that a political nexus to the massive scam also could not be ruled out and directed the CBI to probe into the same.
Case Title: V. R. Krishnakumar v. Commissioner of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
The Madras High Court has recently transferred pending cases against a whistleblower journalist to the Crime Brance – Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) citing that the Commissioner of Police (Vepery) and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central Crime Branch) seemed to have foisted false cases with malicious intention.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that though it was a settled law that the accused could not choose the investigation agency to investigate the case against him/her, in exceptional circumstances, the court could exercise its extraordinary power when the situation demands credibility and instill confidence in the investigation.
The court was hearing a plea by Krishnakumar @ Varaaki who had approached the court to transfer the pending investigation against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other investigation agency. Varaaki informed the court that he was an activist, journalist, and whistleblower who was involved in exposing the corruption and misconduct in public offices.
Case Title: K. Shrish v The Controller Of Examination
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court recently refused relief to a student who had approached the court seeking condonation of deficiency of attendance.
Calling him an “unfortunate student who wanted to ride two horses” the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan noted that if the court chose to sympathize with the student, it would only be misplaced sympathy and amount to mocking students who attend the classes regularly. The court also added that the courts could not interfere in academic matters and had to leave such matters to the wisdom of academicians.
Case Title: M/s Janpriya Builders v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
The Madras High Court has recently observed that regularisation of unauthorized construction cannot be claimed as an absolute right and the government was not expected to regularise such unauthorized buildings in a routine manner by invoking the exemption under the Town and Country Planning Act.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that if such routine regularisation is allowed, the very purpose of building plan permission would be defeated. The court added that illegal constructions not only caused environmental damage but also posed a threat to the safety and security of the neighbors and citizens living nearby. The court thus added that the government could not be a mute spectator in such cases which are causing inconvenience to the people.
The court also added that merely because the builder had invested an amount in the property, the court could not show any leniency of misplaced sympathy. The court added that due to the large-scale collusion on the part of CMDA, the Corporation and other competent authorities, the builders are emboldened to commit such crimes at the cost of the people with the hope that they can escape the clutches of proceedings by submitting regularisation applications.
Case Title: XYZ v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
The Madras High Court recently asked the Ministry of External Affairs and the Consulate General of India in Houston, USA to renew the passport of a 10th-grade minor girl living in the USA with her father. The application for renewal was rejected by the consulate for want of the mother's signature.
Justice S Sounthar noted that the relationship between the father and the mother had become strained and they had been living separately since 2021. The court remarked that the misunderstanding between the parents should not affect the education of the child.
The court noted that if the passport of the child was allowed to expire without renewal, there was a danger that the child may acquire illegal migrant status and the same may adversely affect the child's education. The court observed that merely because the passport manual prescribed consent of both parents at the time of renewal, the right of the child to pursue education could not be denied on technical grounds.
Case Title: Sa. Sivasooryaa v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
The Madras High Court has recommended the Ministry of Women and Child Development to resume reserving two seats in MBBS and BDs courses for students who have been conferred with the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar.
While the court agreed that discontinuing the reservation is a policy decision of the government, the bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice N Senthuilkumar observed that such reservation would be a right step for inculcating scientific temper among students as envisaged in the preamble of the Constitution.
Though the Ministry argued that conferment of award was itself a recognition and hence no additional benefit may be given to the awardees beyond the award, the court observed that the "child awardee for exceptional achievements needs encouragement" and that the reservation was rightly introduced.
Case Title: Raji v Executive Magistrate/ The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
The Madras High Court has ordered reopening of a temple in Villupuram which was sealed in 2023 following caste related conflicts.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to reopen the Draupadi Amman temple. The court asked the government to take action against any person who attempted to create law and order problems. In March last year, the court had directed the Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE, Villupuram District to perform poojas in the temple but had emphasised that no one else will be allowed in the temple.
Case Title: ST Sivagnanan v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
The Madras High Court, on Monday, dismissed a plea seeking directions to the authorities to desist from issuing permission to conduct Maha Shivaratri celebrations at Isha Foundation in light of violations of pollution norms in previous celebrations. By doing so, the bench also allowed Isha to go ahead with its Mahasivarathri celebrations.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar took on record the affidavit filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board informing the court that Isha Foundation was well-equipped to deal with any solid, liquid or noise pollution that may arise during the Mahasivarathri festival in its Coimbatore premises on 26th and 27th of February 2025. The bench, noting that there was no reason to raise apprehensions, dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The Madras High Court stated that appeal can't be dismissed due to procedural delay, when assessee has complied statutory requirements including pre-deposit.
“The appeal should not be dismissed merely due to a procedural delay, especially when the petitioner has made an effort to comply with the statutory requirements, including the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments towards the disputed tax amount” stated the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh.
Case Title: Y Babu v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
The Madras High Court has referred to a larger bench the issue on whether subsequent bail applications filed by an accused should be listed before the roster bench even if the judge who had dealt with an earlier bail/anticipatory bail petition is available.
Justice Sunder Mohan referred the question to the larger bench after noting the Supreme Court's clarification in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. The Registrar General which the high court said had held that where the roster system is followed in many High Courts, the applications filed by the accused in the same FIR would have to be placed only before the roster Judge.
Justice Mohan was of the opinion that the Supreme Court's decision in the case was only a clarification with respect to the listing of bail applications filed by the accused in the same FIR and not with regard to the subsequent bail applications filed by the same accused.
Case Title: Poongundran and Others v. The State and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
The Madras High Court has quashed a case against members of the Dravidar Kazhagam for protesting against Hindi imposition in Egmore in 2022.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan quashed the FIR filed against Vice President Poongundran, General Secretary Anburaj, and Treasurer Kumaresan. They were booked by the Egmore Police for offences under Section 143(Punishment for member of unlawful assembly), 188(Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the IPC read with Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act for unlawful assembly and for disobeying the order promulgated by a public servant.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
The Madras High Court has recently held that when divorce is sought on the grounds of adultery, the alleged adulterer should be made a co-respondent if the details are known. The court also observed that if the details of the alleged adulterer is not known, the petitioner could be excused from the requirement of impleading the alleged adulterer.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that in Indian culture, being branded as an adulterer was not a badge of honor and the alleged adulterer should be given an opportunity to disprove the allegations made against him/her. The court added that if an opportunity was not given, the person would be condemned behind his back.
The court also noted that giving an opportunity to the alleged adulterer would discourage one from making reckless allegations as one would think twice before putting forth baseless allegations.
Case Title: S Gunasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
The Madras High Court recently upheld the compulsory retirement of a District Judge noting that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had assessed the materials and concluded that his continued service was not in the public interest.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that unless the material relied on by the administrative committee is shown to be irrelevant, tainted or with malice, the court could not interfere with the same.
The court observed that as a judicial officer, Gunasekar was bound to obey the circulars and the orders of the High Court. The court also observed that Gunasekar could not contend that he should be treated on par with other Government servants. The court also noted that to secure higher degree of probity and integrity, the High Court thought it fit to require judicial officers to provide information about the acquisition of assets by their family members even though it is out of their own funds.
Case Title: Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with an amendment made to Statute 25, Chapter IX, Volume 1, University Calendar 2016 of the Madras University through which the University decided to appoint Head of Departments on a rotational basis based on performance and merit of the professors of concerned departments.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the position was given as a designation and not a promotion to supervise the particular department. The bench added that the position did not alter the service conditions and thus could not be claimed as an absolute right by the professors.
The bench also noted that the headship was provided to represent, regulate, and monitor the activities in the department and was not a promotion. The court emphasized that even promotions could not be claimed as a right and what could be claimed was only a right to be considered for promotion.
The court noted that such rotational designation of the HOD post would enhance the efficiency in a department and would provide equal opportunity to all senior professors in the Department who may have their own expertise, ideas and vision. The court also added that before the amendment, the Senior most professor held the post till his retirement or promotion to higher rank which would, in effect, deny the opportunity of other senior professors who are all eligible to be designated as HODs.
Case Title: TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging the leasing out of temple land for building an Arts and Science College.
The division bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan noted that even though the requirements of Rule 2 (1) of the Alienation of Immovable Trust Property Rules 1960 have not been entirely complied with, the advantages of the purpose for which leasing was done would outweigh the procedural infractions.
The court also noted that while Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 and the rules provided the procedure to be followed during the alienation of immovable trust property, the act and the rule were silent on the consequences of non-compliance with the procedural requirements. Thus, the bench observed that in the absence of consequence of non-compliance, the word 'shall' used in the provisions could be said to be directory and not mandatory.
Case Title: M/s.United Breweries Limited v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals II)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the supply of holographic stickers or excise labels by the Prohibition and Excise Department which is to be affixed on manufactured and bottles alcoholic liquor is a supply of “goods” simplicitor and not a supply of “service”. The court thus ruled that such supply of holographic stickers would not be taxable under the GST enactments.
Justice C Saravanan noted that the holographic sticker was a label and therefore a good within the meaning of Section 2(52) of the CGST Act and the supply of label by the department had to be construed as a supply of “goods” and not a supply of “service”.
Case Title: Rajesh Anouar Mahimaidoss v Election Commission of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
While dismissing a plea seeking a system for educating voters against the corrupt practice of seeking votes in the name of religion, caste or language and uphold the Constitution of the country, the Madras High Court recently observed that the Indian Democracy, though 75 years old is still in its infancy.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that though a mandamus as sought for could not be issued, the court could only hope that things change and citizens as well as politicians change and not adopt caste or religion as the basis for contesting in election or for voting preference.
Case Title: Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam v. Regional Officer, CBFC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking direction to the Central Board of Film Certification to not certify the upcoming Tamil movie “Bad Girl”.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the plea noting the submission of the CBFC stating that till date, it had not received any application for censorship of the movie. The court added that even otherwise, the Board was equipped to perform its duty and would consider the application for censorship in accordance with law.
The observation was made on a petition filed by the President of Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam, an association to create unity and friendship among all community and help economically weaker people. The organisation also works for the development of Brahmins.
Case Title: Vendaraja v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man accused of setting his wife ablaze and killing her after noting that there was no legally acceptable evidence to connect him to the crime.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that though the woman had died in a tragic manner and there were matrimonial disputes between the couple, the accused could not be made liable unless there were legally acceptable evidence connecting him to the crime. The court also noted that the possibility of a suicide could also not be ruled out and the deceased could have committed suicide by self immolation.
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the Vendaraja, who was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court for offences under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. The case of prosecution was that he had set his wife ablaze.
The court opined that the trial court had casually brushed aside the discrepancies in witness testimonies and the recovery of material objects. The court noted that the deceased was a well-built woman, and her hands were not found tied. The court opined that it was difficult to believe that the accused had tied the legs of the deceased on his own and without anyone's aid.