Madras High Court Monthly Digest: January 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

S Ve Shekar v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1

Thol.Thirumavalavan v. Dr.V.Vedha @ Dhamodharan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 2

Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 3

Dr Jenbagalakshmi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 4

M. Nagappan v. The Management, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5

C Kannaiyan and Others v Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 6

K. Ezhilarasi v The Senior Divisional Manager, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 7

Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 8

K. Shiva Kumar v State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 9

S Muralidharan v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 10

P Bhaskar v The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 11

A. P. Raju v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12

R. Eswaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 13

Chinnakalai v The Tahsildar (Social Welfare Scheme) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 14

X v. The Chairperson and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15

A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16

M/s. Unique Builders Vs The Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 17

Dr. C. Vijayabaskar v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 18

Mohammed Tharik Anvar @ Thar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 19

HCL Technologies Ltd. v. X, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 20

State Secretary v Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 21

Ganesan v. The Commandant, TN Special Police Force, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 22

C.Kohila v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 23

Ameen Batcha v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 24

P. Anandasundaresan v. M/s. Akshaya Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25

R Kathiravan v The Divisional Engineer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 26

Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 27

The Secretary TNPSC v R Saravanan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 28

Thirumaran v The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 29

XX v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 30

Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 31

ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 32

Matrimony.com Ltd v. People Interactive (I) Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 33

PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 34

Sri Nithyananda Swami v The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 35

A. Jacob Sahariah v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 36

Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 37

M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai v. The Joint Commissioner or GST (Appeals), Coimbatore, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 38

REPORTS

Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Conviction Of Actor-Politician S. Ve Shekar For Comments Against Women Journalists

Case Title: S Ve Shekar v State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1

The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with the conviction of Actor-Politician S. Ve Shekar for his derogatory comments against women journalists.

Justice P Velmurugan noted that though Shekar had apologized, an apology itself would not be sufficient. The court added that once the contents are released and seen by persons, the complainants would be degraded and apologising would not remove the image from the public.

'Only Said What Was Stated In Manusmriti': Madras High Court Quashes Case Against MP Thol Thirumavalan For Alleged Comments On Hindu Women

Case Title: Thol.Thirumavalavan v. Dr.V.Vedha @ Dhamodharan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 2

The Madras High Court has quashed a case registered against Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party head and Lok Sabha MP Thol Thirumavalan for alleged comments against Hindu women. The case was registered based on a complaint in 2020 alleging that Thirumavalan, in one of his interviews had made comments lowering the Hindu women.

Justice P Velmurugan noted that Thirumavalan had only spoken about what has been stated in the Manu Smriti and thus offence was not made out. Thus, noting that nothing was available to prosecute Thirumavalan, the court was inclined to quash the complaint on the file of District Munisff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, Madurai.

FAOs And JAOs Have Concurrent Jurisdiction For Assessment, Re-assessment Or Re-Computation U/S 147 Income Tax Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 3

The Madras High Court recently clarified that both the Faceless Assessment Officer and Jurisdictional Assessment Officer have concurrent jurisdiction as far as assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made it clear that for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction. The court added that the in matters of international taxation, central Circle charges and search and seizure cases also, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction and the FAO, in such cases, did not have jurisdiction to make assessment, re-assessment or re-computation.

S.21 POCSO Act | Doctor Not Responsible To 'Verify' Age Of Victim Or' Ascertain' If Offence Has Been Committed: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr Jenbagalakshmi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 4

The Madras High Court has recently observed that a Doctor does not have a responsibility to 'verify' or 'ascertain' the age of a victim brought in for abortion, for the purposes of reporting crime under POCSO Act.

Section 19 of the POCSO Act put a legal obligation on a person to inform the relevant authorities when he/she has knowledge that an offence under the Act had been committed. Section 21 deals with the punishment for failing to report or record a sexual offence.

The High Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in SR. Tessy Jose and others v State of Kerala which held that the 'knowledge' requirement foisted on the Doctor cannot be that they ought to have 'deduced' from circumstances that an offence has been committed. It thus quashed the case lodged against a Doctor for failing to report an incident.

Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Pass Injunctive Relief In Industrial Disputes: Madras HC

Case Title: M. Nagappan v. The Management

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5

Madras High Court: A single judge bench consisting Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed a civil revision petition against a District Munsif's order that refused to pass an injunction against TAW Footwear Division. The Munsif had rejected the plaint holding that the matter was an industrial dispute and fell exclusively within the Labour Court's jurisdiction. However, the court ruled that civil courts have jurisdiction over matters not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. Following Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamalakar Shantharam Wadke, it held that since the labour courts were not empowered to grant interim injunctions under the Industrial Disputes Act, civil courts are the appropriate forum.

Madras High Court Calls Manual Scavenger's Death 'Homicide By Insensitive Society', Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Kin

Case Title: C Kannaiyan and Others v Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 6

The Madras High Court has ordered the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewage Board to pay Rs 10 Lakh compensation to the family of a man who died while doing manual scavenging in 2000.

Citing the words of Mahatma Gandhi, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that it was easy to blame the authorities when we, as citizens were pushing everything into the drains indiscriminately. The court emphasised the need to maintain the sewers much like the arteries carrying the blood to our brains.

The court criticized the authorities for making the father approach the labour commissioner for compensation and remarked that the authorities should have immediately agreed to pay the compensation. The court also observed that the labour commissioner should have been alive to the facts of the case instead of dismissing the case for default. The court added that the authorities could have initiated proceedings against the contractor, who made Sridhar work without any protective gears.

Mere Suppression Of Taking Treatment Or Obtaining Medical Leave Not Reason To Deny Entire Life Insurance Claim: Madras High Court

Case Title: K. Ezhilarasi v The Senior Divisional Manager

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 7

The Madras High Court recently observed that merely suppressing the fact of taking a treatment or obtaining medical leave could not be a ground to reject the entire life insurance claim.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus came to the aid of a widow, whose claim was rejected by the Life Insurance Corporation after her husband's death. The court noted that the petitioner's husband had died due to a sudden cardiac arrest and thus she was entitled to the claim amount as per the policy. The court thus directed the LIC to disburse the policy amount with 6% interest.

The court further noted that while filling out the application forms, the insured was to only answer in yes or no which was also filled up by the agent in most cases, without getting any instructions from the insured. In the present case also, the court noted that the insured had not approached LIC for policy but was rather canvassed by the agent, who later himself filed out the application form and obtained the signatures. Thus, the court opined that the insured had not suppressed the fact of medical leave or admission in hospital.

What Constitutes Valid Service Of Notice U/S 169 Of CGST Act? Madras High Court Clarifies

Case Title: Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 8

The Madras High Court interpreted Section 169 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and stated that Section 169 mandates a notice in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively and on a failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes, then the State can, in addition, make a publication of such notices/ summons/ orders in the portal/ newspaper through the concerned officials.

The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “when the Statute had also mandated issuance of notice in person/ registered post/ e-mail, etc., the Rules cannot be limited to only serving it through electronic modes.”

Sanctioning Authority U/S 17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Must Apply Mind To Both Complaint, Other Materials Related To Accusations: Madras HC

Case Title: K. Shiva Kumar v State and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 9

The Madras High Court recently observed that while granting approval for prosecuting a public officer under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the concerned authority should apply its mind not just to the complaint before it but also on other materials to throw light on the need for prosecution.

In the order passed before his retirement, Justice N Seshasayee observed that while the authority granting approval need not examine all the materials and evidence before it, the authority still had to apply its mind and satisfy itself as to whether the nature of decision taken or recommendation made leads to a bonafide suspicion.

The court also noted that while the order granting approval under Section 17A is an administrative order which is not justiciable, a collateral argument could be placed before the court while challenging the FIR and it is always open to the Court to consider the quality of approval granted. While considering the materials, if the court has reason to believe that the FIR is vexatious, motivated, or triggered by malafide or that the decision taken by the public servant is Bonafide, the approval under Section 17A would become critical for the case.

'Police Investigation Was An Eye-Wash': Madras High Court Constitutes SIT To Investigate Illegal Mining In Western Ghats

Case Title: S Muralidharan v Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 10

The Madras High Court on Friday, constituted a Special Investigation Team comprising of two IPS officers to enquire into large levels of illegal mining that has been happening near the reserve forests of Western Ghats.

The specially constituted forest bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy transferred all the pending investigations into the batch of cases to the newly constituted SIT comprising G.Nagajothi, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, State Crime Records Bureau and G.Shashank Sai, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, Organised Crime, Intelligence Unit. The SIT, apart from investigating the ongoing cases was also given liberty to register fresh cases with respect to any illegal quarrying that may be unearthed during the course of the investigation. The court also directed the SIT to look into the possibility of a larger conspiracy and not leave out any "big fishes" who might have been part of the devastation.

Surplus Temple Funds Cannot Be Used For Constructing Shopping Complexes: Madras High Court Restrains HR&CE

Case Title: P Bhaskar v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 11

The Madras High Court recently restrained the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department from constructing a shopping complex in a land belong to the Arulmighu Nandeeswaram Thirukoil using the surplus temple fund.

Commenting that temples should be kept out of litigation as much as possible, the bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that if the commercial complexes are permitted, there was a possibility that it could lead to further complications like return of investments, eviction of licensees/ tenants, recovery of unpaid rents, and preventing further encroachments.

More importantly, the court noted that as per the HR & CE Act, the surplus temple funds could be used only for the purposes specified in Section 66(1) or under Section 36A or Section 36B of the Act and for no other purpose. Noting that the purpose for which the shopping complex sought to be constructed by the HR & CE did not fall under any of the categories, the court observed that the decision had to be quashed and set aside.

Registrar Not Expected To Act As A Civil Court: Madras High Court Discharges Former District Registrar From Corruption Case

Case Title: A. P. Raju v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12

The Madras High Court recently discharged a former District Registrar from a corruption case observing that the materials put forward by the prosecution did not constitute any offence. The court noted that insisting a person to participate in a trial merely because the trial has commenced would violate his rights and compel him to undergo agony and anxiety.

Justice N Seshasayee (now retired) observed that while registering a document, the Registrar was only required to make prima facie inquiry and not expected to act like a civil court.

The court further noted that to constitute an offense under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution was required to produce materials that could prima facie persuade the court that it was adequate to frame charges. In the present case, the court opined that there was nothing to show that the petitioner had made personal gains with his decision which could attract the PC Act.

'Article 21 Doesn't Distinguish Between Good Or Bad Person': Madras HC Orders ₹50K Compensation For Illegal Detention Of History-Sheeter

Case Title: R. Eswaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 13

The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government to pay Rs. 50,000 compensation to a history sheeter for his illegal detention despite the Committee's report finding no sufficient cause for his detention.

Though the state claimed that the history-sheeter was not entitled for compensation, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution only uses the word 'person' and does not distinguish between a 'good person' or a 'bad person'. The court thus observed that no law could say that only a paragon of virtues could be paid compensation.

Persons Being Taken Care Of By Relatives Also Entitled To Claim Old Age Pension: Madras High Court

Case Title: Chinnakalai v The Tahsildar (Social Welfare Scheme) and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 14

The Madras High Court recently observed that the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme did not contain any specific provision that excluded persons who were being taken care of by their relatives.

Thus, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan ordered benefits to be given to an octogenarian whose application for old age pension was rejected due to the fact that he was being taken care of by his grandchildren.

The court ruled that even though the petitioner was being taken care of by his grand children, he might still require financial help for other things including medical and incidental expenses. Thus, the court set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed him to give benefits.

Merely Submitting Adoption Plea Wouldn't Confer Any Rights To Unilaterally Take Child's Custody Without Following Procedure: Madras HC

Case Title: X v. The Chairperson and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15

The Madras High Court has observed that merely submitting an application seeking adoption of a child would not confer any rights on the parties concerned to take custody of the child unilaterally without "scrupulously" following the due procedure.

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that the procedures contemplated under the relevant statutes have to be scrupulously followed and the committee constituted must assess the couple, including their mindset, capacity, family setup etc.

Madras HC Grants Bail To YouTuber Savukku Shankar Booked For Spreading Misinformation About Investigation In Land 'Scam' Case

Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16

The Madras High Court on Friday (January 17) granted bail to YouTuber and whistleblower Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in a case for allegedly spreading misinformation about the investigation in an alleged land scam case.

The vacation court of Justice GR Swaminathan, while granting bail, orally remarked that the charges against Shankar did not warrant an arrest. The judge wondered how the State could arrest Shankar for such a case. When the state submitted that Shankar had been spreading misinformation through his channel and other channels, the judge commented that the state could choose not to listen to the interview.

Award Passed After Inordinate And Unexplained Delay Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Unique Builders Vs The Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 17

The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the arbitral award can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

The court further referred to its own judgment in K. Dhanasekar v. Union of India, 2019 where the court while referring to Harji Engineering Works Private Limited (supra) held that when there is a huge gap between the last date of the hearing and the date on which the award is passed, the arbitrator is obligated to explain the inordinate delay and in absence of such an explanation it would cause grave prejudice to the aggrieved party.

Furthermore, the arbitrator is mandated to send signed copies of the award to each party to an arbitration agreement under section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act but in this case, the copy was served on the counsel of the petitioner and the petitioner got his copy only after 10 days from the date of passing the award. This indicates a serious irregularity being committed by the Arbitrator.

Jayalalithaa Death: Madras HC Quashes Arumughaswamy Commission Recommendation For Inquiry Against Former Health Minister Vijayabhaskar

Case Title: Dr. C. Vijayabaskar v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 18

The Madras High Court has quashed the report of Justice A Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry with respect to former Tamil Nadu Health Minister C Vijayabhaskar citing irregularities in the report. The court primarily noted that Vijabhayaskar, who was initially called by the commission as a witness, was not given an opportunity to present his case after finding materials against him.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that Vijayabhaskar was not given an opportunity of hearing or to cross-examine the witnesses as contemplated under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952. Thus, the court held that the commission's conclusion ordering appropriate action to be initiated against Vijayabhaskar could not be sustained and was thus liable to be quashed. The court had previously stayed the recommendations against Vijayabhaskar.

Mere Passing Of Detention Order Against An Individual Cannot Be A Bar For Deciding His Bail Application: Madras High Court

Case Title: Mohammed Tharik Anvar @ Thar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 19

The Madras High Court has held that passing of a detention order against an individual cannot be a bar on the Court to decide such person's bail application.

Justice Anand Venkatesh thus granted bail to a man against whom the State had passed a detention order, while the bail application was pending. The court had already passed the bail order when the Public Prosecutor informed the court that a detention order was passed. However, noting that the detention order could not be a bar, the court said that the bail order would stand and gave liberty to the man to work out his remedy against the detention order.

POSH Act | Any Inappropriate Or Unwelcome Behaviour Affecting Women Is" Sexual Harassment" Regardless Of Intent: Madras HC

Case Title: HCL Technologies Ltd. v. X

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 20

The Madras High Court has emphasised that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act [PoSH Act], the act of sexual harassment itself is given significance and not the intention behind the same.

Justice RN Manjula thus observed that in cases under the Act, what has to be looked at is not what the accused thought was 'decent' but how such a person made a person of another gender feel about his actions. Thus, the court held that if any action or gesture was not received well and was inappropriate and felt as unwelcoming behaviour, it would fall within the definition of sexual harassment.

Community Guilt? Madras High Court Reads Down TASMAC Circular Initiating Action Against All Employees Of Shop In Case Of Overpricing

Case Title: State Secretary v Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 21

The Madras High Court has read down a circular issued by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) initiating action against all employees of a shop including the supervisor of the shop whenever it was found that an employee of the shop was overpricing the customers.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy made it clear that a collective action could be taken only when there was prima facie material to show that all the employees had colluded and shared the profits among themselves. The court added that unless there was prima facie material, community liability could not be fastened merely based on the circular. Thus, the court deemed it fit to read down the circular to such an extent.

Provision Of Alternate Employment Applicable To Police Force Unless Exempted By State: Madras HC Grants Relief To Visually Impaired Nayak

Case Title: Ganesan v. The Commandant, TN Special Police Force

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 22

The Madras High Court recently granted relief to a Police Nayak who was discharged from service after acquiring 100% blindness during service and being declared medically unfit for service.

Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench observed that though the proviso to Section 20(1) empowered the Government to exempt any establishment from the requirements of the Act, no such notification had been made exempting the Police Department. Thus, the court noted that the provision would be applicable to the uniformed service also and thus directed the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force to reinstate the workman.

Cannot Interpret Maternity Leave Rules To Deny Leave For Third Pregnancy Even If Claimed For First Time: Madras High Court

Case Title: C.Kohila v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 23

The Madras High Court recently observed that the Maternity Leave Rules have to be interpreted in such a way that a woman employee would be entitled to seek leave twice during her service period and not in such a manner to deny her maternity leave for her third pregnancy even if it is taken for the first time.

Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the legislative intent of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government was to discourage having more children considering the health of the women, the financial constraints involved, the population control policy of the Government and the fact that the State exchequer may be burdened with more financial stress by extending maternity leave for many children. The court suggested that the rules should be given a purposive interpretation and when a female employee seeks maternity leave for the first time, the same could not be denied merely citing a third pregnancy.

'Consensual Relationship Turned Sour': Madras High Court Acquits Man Convicted For Committing Rape On False Promise Of Marriage

Case Title: Ameen Batcha v The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 24

The Madras High Court has recently quashed a case against a 26-year-old man who was convicted and sentenced for allegedly raping his partner on a false promise to marry.

Relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharastra & Another, Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the present case appeared to be one where a consensual relationship that prolonged for a long time had turned sour.

The court also noted that the victim's statement revealed that the couple's physical relationship was not merely due to the alleged promise to marry and that the couple shared a good relationship. The court also noted that the victim was aged 24 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and was aware of the consequences of her actions. The court also added that the victim was neither naïve nor gullible.

Letter Issued By Panchayat President Not Equivalent To Completion Certificate U/S 2 Of TN RERA: Madras High Court

Case Title: P. Anandasundaresan v. M/s. Akshaya Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25

The Madras High Court recently observed that a letter issued by a Panchayat President would not be equivalent to a completion certificate issued by the competent authorities under the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act.

A division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel observed that as per the Act, since there was no provision and procedure prescribed for projects under execution outside the Chennai Metropolitan Area, the same was to be intimated to the concerned Local Planning Authority or Regional Deputy Director of the Town and Country Planning Department within 15 days from the date of notification of the rules after which the same was made public in the RERA website. The court thus concluded that there was no provision to substitute a letter from the Panchayat President as a completion certificate.

Madras High Court Orders Political Parties & Other Organisations To Remove Permanent Flagpoles Erected At Public Places

Case Title: R Kathiravan v The Divisional Engineer and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 26

The Madras High Court had ordered all political parties, communal and other organizations in the State to remove permanent flagpoles erected by them on public places including national highways, lands belonging to the government, etc.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan of the Madurai bench directed the concerned parties to remove all permanent flagpoles within 12 weeks, failing which the authorities concerned shall take appropriate action after issuing notice to the parties. The court added that the authorities could, in such a case, recover the cost of removal from the concerned parties.

The court remarked that there was no law that permitted issuing licenses to install permanent flagpoles in public places. The court added that the police and the revenue authorities did not have jurisdiction to issue a No-Objection certificate allowing the erection of flag poles in public places. The judge also remarked that these flagpoles often caused inconvenience to the commuters and also affected traffic in some cases.

Madras High Court Dismisses Netflix India's Application To Reject Suit Filed By Dhanush Against Nayanthara's Documentary

Case Title: Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 27

The Madras High Court has dismissed applications filed by Netflix's Indian entity - Los Gatos, seeking to reject the plaint filed by Dhanush's Wunderbar, in connection with alleged copyright infringement by Nayanthara, Vignesh Sivan, and others.

Justice Abdul Quddhose also informed the parties that he would be hearing the interim injunction application filed by Wunderbar on February 5th, 2025.

Dhanush, who produced the movie “Naanum Rowdy Daan” has approached the court claiming that some behind-the-scene footages from the movie was used unauthorisedly in the making of Nayanthara's documentary “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale”. Since Netflix India's office is in Mumbai, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, he had moved an application seeking leave to sue the company in the High Court which was allowed.

Ex-Serviceman Not Employed When Applying For Recruitment Can Claim Concession While Applying For Multiple Posts: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Secretary TNPSC v R Saravanan and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 28

The Madras High Court recently observed that the proviso to Section 3(j) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 which prohibits an ex-serviceman once recruited from claiming concession for further recruitment, should be interpreted as applying to ex-servicemen who are already recruited on the date of the application. Thus, the court clarified that the proviso would not apply to an ex-serviceman who was not recruited at the time of the application but was subsequently recruited before the result of the recruitment for a higher post was published.

The Madurai bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that when an ex-serviceman has accepted employment in a lower post due to its immediate availability, he should not be held ineligible to claim the ex-serviceman concession for a higher post, especially when the disqualification was not expressly provided and when there was no fault on the part of the applicant. The court added that the concession given to ex-servicemen for their services to the nation should be reasonably interpreted in a manner that does not penalize them for procedural delays.

Ventilating That A Particular Religion Is Treated In A Particular Manner Doesn't Promote Hatred Between Classes U/S 505(2) IPC: Madras HC

Case Title: Thirumaran v The Inspector of Police and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 29

The Madras High Court has observed that merely ventilating about the manner in which a particular religion is treated would not constitute an offence under Section 505 of the IPC. The high court also added that to constitute an offence under the Act, there must be incitement of feeling of one group against another.

Justice Anand Venkatesh added that abusive language by itself was not an offence unless it was shown that the person making the speech had the intention or knowledge that the speech could provoke or break the public peace.

Minor Girl Has Autonomy To Decide If She Wants To Continue With Pregnancy Or Not: Madras HC Permits Termination Of 28-Week Pregnancy

Case Title: XX v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 30

While allowing a minor girl's mother's application to permit termination of a 28-week pregnancy, the Madras High Court observed that the minor girl, who was 16 years old had domain over her body and had the autonomy to make a decision regarding continuing her pregnancy or otherwise.

Noting that the minor had clearly mentioned her willingness to terminate the pregnancy, Justice S Sounthar observed that while deciding cases of this nature, consideration must be in the interest of the minor. The court added that since the medical termination is concerned with the body of the minor girl, her wish should be given primary importance.

"Education Will Provide Hope, Better Life When Free": Madras HC Asks Prison Authorities To Give Books, Basic Facilities To Undertrial Prisoner

Case Title: Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 31

While disposing of an undertrial prisoner's plea alleging mistreatment inside the Puzhal Central Prison, the Madras High Court emphasized that the education of a prisoner could provide scope for hope as it would help them lead a better life when they are out of the prison.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman observed that a prisoner was entitled to basic human rights and his right to education was a part of his fundamental right to personal liberty. The court also added that the Basic Principles for Treatment Of Prisoners 1990 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly specifically provided that all prisoners had the right to take part in cultural activities and education aimed at the full development of the human personality.

Compelling Spouse To Convert InInter-Religious Marriage Amounts To Mental Cruelty, Violates Right To Life: Madras High Court

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 32

In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court while upholding special court's order dissolving an inter-faith marriage, has held that in inter-religious marriages, persistently compelling a spouse to convert himself or herself to another religion to which the other spouse belongs to, amounts to cruelty.

A division bench of Justice N Seshasayee (now retired) and Justice Victoria Gowri further held that when a husband or a wife in a matrimonial life was subjected to persistent and consistent cruelty compelling them to convert to another religion, the same would also amount to curtailment of life and liberty ensured in Article 21 of the constitution. The bench further held that such cruelty would also amount to the denial of the fundamental right to profess religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.

The court observed that when a person is not allowed to profess and practice their religion, it would miserably affect the quality of their life and would result in a lifeless life without dignity. The court also held that when a man or woman in marriage is compelled to convert in the name of god and in the name of religion for the sake of securing matrimony, it would shatter the foundation of the matrimony itself.

Madras HC Finds Shaadi.com's "30-Day Money Back Guarantee" Ad Slogan Prima Facie Misleading, Says Real Terms 'Tucked In Fine Print'

Case Title: Matrimony.com Ltd v. People Interactive (I) Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 33

The Madras High Court has held that a recent advertisement of the matrimonial company Shaadi.com giving money back guarantee if unable to find a bride/groom in 30 days is prima facie misleading and deceptive.

Justice RMT Teeka Raman observed that real terms of the offer, which is "contrary" to the promise made in the ad, are "tucked in fine print". As per the terms and conditions, the money back guarantee is triggered when a premium member sends at least 10 interests but doesn't get a single accept within first 30 days.

This prompted the bench to allow an interim injunction application filed by Shaadi.com's competitor Matrimony.com.

“Pe” Is Commonly Used Word In Payment Services Industry: Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe's Trademark Infringement Suit

Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 34

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a suit filed by PhonePe to declare its mark as a well known trademark and to grant permanent injunction against “BundlePe” and “LatePe”.

Justice P Velmurugan observed that the term “Pe” was not a unique or distinct one as claimed by PhonePe and was commonly used word in the payment services industry. The court noted that the word, which was a transliteration of the Hindi word “Pay”, was widely used by other prominent companies such as Google Pay, Paytm, and ApplePay. The court noted that given the widespread use of the word “Pe” in the payment sector, PhonePe could not be exclusively associated with the word.

“You're Not Even In India”: Madras High Court Dismisses Nithyananda's Plea For Appointment As Madathipathi In Three Mutts

Case Title: Sri Nithyananda Swami v The Commissioner and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 35

The Madras High Court, on Friday, dismissed an appeal filed by Swami Nithyananda seeking to be appointed as the Madathipathi or Head of three Mutts - Sri Somanatha Swami Temple & Mutt at Thiruvarur, Sri Arunachala Gnanadesikar Swami Temple & Mutt at Vedaranyam, and Sri Po.Ka.Sathukal Madam at Vedaranyam.

Dismissing his appeal, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan orally remarked that Nithyananda was not even in India to be able to administer the temples. The court thus opined that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the single judge.

Nithyananda had approached the court against the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board directing the Assistant Commissioner to appoint Executive Officers to administer the properties of the three temples as per Section 60 of the HR&CE Act.

Right To Practise Religion Cannot Be Denied On Mere Apprehension Of Law & Order: Madras HC Allows Construction Of Bible Study Centre

Case Title: A. Jacob Sahariah v. The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 36

The Madras High Court recently allowed the construction of a Bible Study Centre by the District Secretary of the CSI Church Erichamamoottu Villai in the Kanyakumari District.

The bench of Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice N Senthil Kumar observed that the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the constitution could not be curtailed or taken away on mere apprehension of law and order and there could no impediment for the Government authorities to deny permission to construct a Bible Study Centre.

Proviso To S.10A Of IBC Doesn't Bar CIRP Applications Where Default Continues Beyond Moratorium Period: MadrasHigh Court

Case Title: Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 37

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice P. Dhanabal has held that the proviso to Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not extend to cases where the default continues beyond the moratorium period.

The court noted that Section 10-A only imposes a moratorium temporarily suspending the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Section 10-A bars an application for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor, for any default arising on or after 25.03.2020 for a period of six months.

In interpreting the proviso to Section 10-A, the court held that the bar on filing CIRP applications applies only to defaults that occur within the moratorium period. Thus, if a default persists beyond this period, the bar does not extend to such continuing defaults.

GST Registration And Payment Of Tax After Inspection Is Not Voluntary Conduct: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai v. The Joint Commissioner or GST (Appeals), Coimbatore

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 38

The Madras High Court stated that GST registration and payment of tax after inspection is not a voluntary conduct.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “there is a deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax by not registering himself under the Act and also issuing receipts as donation to the Trust. Only after the inspection they have agreed to pay the tax by registering themselves. This conduct cannot be said to be a voluntary conduct.”