Madras High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 291 NOMINAL INDEX Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264 Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 266 Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 267 SSI Production v. The Director General of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 268 P Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 269 S Sunil v. Senthamarai and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 270 Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Dr. R. Anbumani and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271 Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273 D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275 S Vijay v. Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 GB Pachaiyappan and Another v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 278 Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam v. The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 279 Dr. Ranganathan v. Dr. Lakshmanan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 280 KE Kavin Kumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 281 Mirthunaj Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 282 Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 283 M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 284 ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 285 Perumal v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 286 S Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 287 Sun TV Network Ltd v. Central Board of Film Certification, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 288 SN Sathishwaran v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 289 Rama Ravikumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 290 Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 291 REPORTS Prima Facie Derogatory: Madras High Court Restrains Savukku Shankar From Making Allegations Linking IPS Officer To Sivaganga Custodial Death Case Title: Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 The Madras High Court has restrained YouTuber Savukku Shankar from making allegations against IPS officer Davidson Devasirvatham, implicating him in the recent custodial death of Ajith in Sivaganga. Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the statements made by Shankar were prima facie derogatory and defamatory, which would affect the reputation of the officer. Thus, considering the restrictions on the right to freedom of speech, the court was inclined to restrain Shankar temporarily from making the allegations. Madras High Court Allows TN Congress SC Wing To Conduct Hunger Strike Demanding Special Laws Against Honor Killing Case Title: MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264 The Madras High Court has permitted the Tamil Nadu Congress SC Wing to conduct a hunger strike demanding special laws against caste based honor killings. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of the State's submission that it was willing to permit the hunger strike if the same was to be conducted in a designated area. Since the party agreed to conduct the hunger strike in the earmarked place, the court directed it to make a fresh submission, which was to be permitted by the State with conditions that the Commissioner may deem fit. The court noted that, as far as Chennai was concerned, some areas had been earmarked for conducting protests. Since the state also expressed willingness to permit the hunger strike if conducted at these places, the court directed accordingly. Digital Marketing Is Business, Not Profession; Audit Report Not Required For Turnover Below ₹5 Crores: Madras High Court Case Title: Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 The Madras High Court held that digital marketing is a business and not a profession; and an audit report is not required for turnovers below Rs. 5 crores. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. In the event anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which is below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee is not required to file an audit report...

Madras High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags