- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Madras High Court
- /
- Madras High Court Quarterly Digest:...
Madras High Court Quarterly Digest: July - September 2025
Upasana Sajeev
12 Oct 2025 4:00 PM IST
CITATIONS: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223 to 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 NOMINAL INDEX ML Ravi v. Director General of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223 P Kishore v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224 M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 225 M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna, 2025 LiveLaw...
CITATIONS: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223 to 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
NOMINAL INDEX
ML Ravi v. Director General of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
P Kishore v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
S. Sai Priya and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Commissioner of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
Abimani v. Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Aro Granite Industries Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
M/s.Axeon Marketing India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group 2) and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
Krishna @ Krishnakumar v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
M/s.Madurai - Kanyakumari Tollway Private Limited and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
P Vikash Kumar v. A Mohandass, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
K.J. Vinod (Insolvency Professional) v. Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Kayar Nisha and Another v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
J Eswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
ICICI Securities Limited versus Kariabettan Sugumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
Malar Selvi v. The Director DVAC, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
Dr.A.K.Boominathan v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
Venkatesan v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
Prakash Ramachandran v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
R.K.M Powergen Private Limited v. The Assistant Director and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
High Court of Madras v. Siva Das Meena IAS and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
M/s. Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
P. Sakkarai vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
R Ramkumar and Others v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
Palai Rafi @ Mohamed Rafi v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
T Prabhakar v. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
Vanaraj and Others v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
Muniraj v The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Commissioner, GCC and Others v. S Jaya and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
CJ Christopher Signi v State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
S. H. Zarina Begum v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
M Pravin v. The Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Harinaa v. The Regional Passport Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
C. Ve Shanmugam v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
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
Raja Mathan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
Edappadi K Palanisamy v. S Suriyamoorthy and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
Dr Ilaiyaraja v. Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
R Kannan and Others v. T.R Baalu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
Annadhurai Ramasamy v. The Chief Secretary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
Lokeshwaran Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
Adv V Venkata Sivakumar v. The Election Commission of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
R Varadaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
Vignesh D v. The Health and Family Welfare Department and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
ST Sivagnanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
N Anand Bussi Anand v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
D Chandirasegar and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
Sarootham Padmanabhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
T Devanathan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Suo Motu WP v. The Director General of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
P Ayyakannu v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
R Sathish v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
A. Kasthuri v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Ulpath Nisha v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
Mohammed Iqbal v. S Manonmanian, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
VP v. M, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
SGS and another v. NIL, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Secretary to Government Education Department State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs J. Augustin & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
M/s.Sivakumar and Co., Perundurai Road, Erode v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
M/s. Inalfa Gabriel Sunroof Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
K Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong v. Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
M. R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
RAP v. AM, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
Cakes N Bakes v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
S Venkatesan v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
K Balachenniappan v. Jeyakrishnan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
A.G Ponmanickavel v. State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
REPORTS
Case Title: ML Ravi v. Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (July 1) dismissed a plea seeking to interrogate BJP leader Annamalai in connection with the evidence allegedly in his possession with respect to the Anna University sexual assault case.
In a recent interview, Annamalai had claimed that he had materials connecting higher officials with the Anna University Case. He said that he knew who the accused had referred to as “Sir” at the time of the offence.
Dismissing the petition filed by Advocate ML Ravi, Justice P Velmurugan said that politicians would keep on making such comments on a mic and the Courts should not waste its time on such matters.
Case Title: P Kishore v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has held that an individual's phone cannot be tapped in a secret operation to detect the commission of a crime, and the same would violate the individual's fundamental right to privacy.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that phone tapping would be justified only on two conditions: the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety. The court also highlighted that these situations/ contingencies should be apparent to a reasonable man.
The court also added that orders allowing phone tapping should specify the necessity of the same in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign nations, public order, and for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.
Case Title: M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
The Madras High Court stated that customs department bound by DGFT's classification of capital goods under EPCG scheme (export promotion capital goods scheme).
The Division Bench consists of Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar observed that “there is no justification in the Department having made the assessee litigate the issue needlessly despite the CBEC having categorically confirmed as early as in 2002 that the Customs Department must align with the stand of the DGFT and DG (Tourism) in matters of imports by hotels. The licence where the imports have been classified as 'capital goods' has not been revoked or withdrawn and it is nobody's case that the licence has been obtained on a wrongful or fraudulent basis.”
Madras High Court Upholds Global Prior Use In MediaMonks Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court has allowed a rectification petition for removal of trademark filed with the name "MEDIA MONK LABEL" and "MEDIA MONK" registered and being used by the respondent. The petition was filed by an international digital advertising company of the same name. The single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, allowing the petition, held that the party that uses the mark on a global scale, even if not used in India, shall be identified as the prior user.
Case Title: S. Sai Priya and Others v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court has rejected the appeal preferred against a single bench decision refusing to order re-examination of NEET UG 2025, over issue of power outage at some exam centres in Chennai.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman dismissed the appeal filed by a group of students, claiming that their performance was hindered due to the heavy rainfall and poor management by the center.
The court perused the order of the National Testing Agency, which was passed after conducting a field verification of the exam centres. The court said it has to uphold the integrity of the educational assessments in conducting examinations and it could not sit in appeal over the decision of the NTA, unless it was manifestly arbitrary, especially since a re-examination would affect more than 2 million other students.
Thus, the court observed that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the single judge and, dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Commissioner of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party to hold a protest over the custodial death of one Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga District. The court asked the party to submit a fresh representation to the state police seeking permission for the protest. The party had initially planned to conduct the protest on July 6th (Sunday).
Justice P Velmurugan said that the party should give adequate time to the State to consider its representation. The court made the comment, noting that the representation for permission was made by the party on July 1, and the party had approached the court on July 4th. The court orally remarked that the police have a lot of other work and could not be expected to deal only with the party's representation.
"Why are you in so much hurry? The police have a lot of other work. They can't be expected to only deal with your work. You should at least give them 15 days to decide on the representation," the judge orally remarked.
The judge then asked the party to submit a fresh representation with a new date for conducting the protest and asked the police to decide on the new representation.
Case Title: Abimani v. Government of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed seeking a direction to the Ministry of External Affairs to consider the issue of demanding a definite reformation of the United Nations Organisation (UNO).
A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete termed the petition and the relief sought therein as 'misconceived' which fell "beyond the realm of the jurisdiction of the high court".
Essentially, the plea filed by one Abimani sought issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Ministry of External Affairs to consider the issue of demanding a 'definite reformation' of the United Nations Organisation (UNO) to get the 'respective due place' for India and 'stable world peace'.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Aro Granite Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court has stated that the assessing authority is not bound by the appellate tribunal's observations in a De Novo assessment.
Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar opined that while concluding the assessment de novo, the assessing authority is not bound by the observations made by the first appellate authority.
Case Title: M/s.Axeon Marketing India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group 2) and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the laws relating to the import of drugs would also apply to ayurvedic drugs. Highlighting the absence of proper application forms for the import license of ayurvedic drugs, the court suggested that the existing rules should be modified to prescribe standards.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that there was a strong public element involved in the import of drugs, and it was necessary to regulate non-allopathic medicines also, which could have heavy metal content. Thus, the court stressed the need to modify the existing statutes. It added that the Parliament could, in the alternative, prohibit the import of ayurvedic or other classes of drugs if necessary.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Actors Krishna & Srikanth Booked For Consuming Drugs
Case Title: Krishna @ Krishnakumar v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The Madras High Court has granted bail to actors Krishna and Srikanth, who have been arrested in connection with offences under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar noted that the actors had purchased cocaine only for their personal use, which would attract Section 27 (Punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance) of NDPS Act. Since the offence under Section 27 was a bailable one, the court was inclined to grant bail.
Case Title: M/s.Madurai - Kanyakumari Tollway Private Limited and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has restrained the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation from passing its buses through four toll plazas on the National Highway in Tamil Nadu over unpaid toll arrears.
While taking the extreme step, Justice Anand Venkatesh added that the court was aware of the consequences of such an order but it was necessary to “jolt” the officials, who would otherwise not take any effort to settle the dispute. The court added that the if the payments are kept on being delayed, it would escalate to astronomical proportions.
Apprehending the law and order problem that would arise as a result of the direction, the court also directed the Director General of Police to issue necessary instruction to the concerned jurisdictional police to prove sufficient police protection at the toll plazas. The court asked the police to ensure that no undue pressure is exerted on the Toll Plazas to permit the buses to ply through.
Case Title: P Vikash Kumar v. A Mohandass
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court has sentenced an advocate to 4 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 for disobeying and violating its orders.
Justice N Satish Kumar noted that a fine alone would not meet the ends of justice and thus decided to sentence the lawyer to 4 months' imprisonment. The court thus directed the Registry to issue a necessary warrant and directed the lawyer to be detained in civil prison. Noting that the lawyer had also failed to appear before the court in the previous hearing, the court was not inclined to suspend the sentence.
The court passed the order on a contempt petition filed by one Vikash Kumar, highlighting that the lawyer, Advocate A Mohandass, had breached an undertaking given by him before the court to vacate the premises that he had been encroaching upon.
NCLT Is Bound To Appoint IRP Proposed By Corporate Debtor: Madras High Court
Case Title: K.J. Vinod (Insolvency Professional) v. Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
The Madras High Court on Monday held that the suggestions of the financial creditor, operational creditor, or corporate debtor with regard to the appointment of the IRP are liable to be accepted.
While hearing a writ petition challenging the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, the Madras High Court interpreted Sections 10 and 16 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petition was filed challenging the appointment of the IRP, which deviated from the name proposed by the corporate debtor.
The bench noted that the combined reading of Sections 10(3)(b) and 16(2) of the Code lays down that the IBBI board is bound to accept the name suggested by the financial creditor or corporate debtor.
Case Title: Kayar Nisha and Another v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court has reduced the sentence imposed on two women who had admonished a teen girl for having a relationship with their nephew, eventually leading to the girl's suicide.
While the court upheld the conviction, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was inclined to reduce the sentence imposed on the women, noting the mitigating factors. The court noted the background of the women, and opined that their behaviour stemmed from an internalised misogyny which was a product of the male-dominated society. The court added that it was the society's mindset that had prompted the women to question the girl for having a relationship, instead of admonishing their nephew.
Case Title: J Eswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently observed that protests should not be conducted at the whims and fancies of political parties.
Justice B. Pugalendhi highlighted that political parties have a responsibility towards the general public who would be affected by the protests. The court added that the right to protest should not affect the right of the general public who are not associated with the protests.
The court also highlighted that the right to protest did not give a right to cause inconvenience to the public, and such right should not be used to cause irritation and disharmony. The court added that though protests could be carried out public places, its purpose should not be forgotten.
Case Title: ICICI Securities Limited versus Kariabettan Sugumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once the petitioner chooses to file the appeal instead of directly approaching the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the two-tier arbitration, by stating that they were not given an opportunity by the Appellate Tribunal to prosecute the appeal on grounds of limitation.
Two-tier arbitration refers to a process where a dissatisfied party can file an appeal in the Appellate Tribunal.
Additionally, the court held that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the petitioner cannot claim that they were not put on notice by the Appellate Tribunal about the fact that their appeal is barred by limitation.
Case Title: Malar Selvi v. The Director DVAC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption should not brush aside complaints merely because of the absence of documents. The court added that the DVAC was a specialised investigative agency and must gather evidence across all departments.
Justice B Pugalendhi added that as per the Vigilance Manual, the department had the power to discreetly verify facts, access roads, and conduct discreet searches. The court added that the strength of the department was crucial for preventing corruption. Noting that the department, at present was understaffed, the court asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate steps to strengthen the department and enhance the sanctioned strength and infrastructure within 6 months.
Case Title: Dr.A.K.Boominathan v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court has held that a aided college cannot compel its students to take part in any religious, communal or other activities which are not approved by the Department of Education.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete also observed that if it was found that an aided college was compelling students either directly or indirectly, the Director of Collegiate Education could initiate appropriate action to cancel the aid. The court added that aid should be granted only to colleges that follow the law and the Constitution.
The court also made it clear that no posters or banners indicating communal name or a group's name should be affixed in the college premises and in case such posters are found, the police and the Department of Education could take all necessary action.
Case Title: Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently expressed shock over members of the Scheduled Caste community being made to wait for their turn till members from other community fetch water from the common tap.
Justice RN Manjula said that it was “surprising and pathetic” to note that even in this scientific age, some communities had to stand second in order to get their share of common resources. The court added that even though specific legislations had been brought in for protecting the vulnerable sections of the society, the situation still remained same at the grass root level.
The court added that while it may not be easy to remove the caste and class mentality from the minds of the people, the people in power could not remain mute spectators. The court emphasized that what was needed what not some make-believe stunt but some practical solution and noiseless action. Thus, being aware of the realities and doing things that can be best done with the power vested was the need of the hour, the court added.
Temple Entry Cannot Be Denied To Persons Based On Caste: Madras High Court
Case Title: Venkatesan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
The Madras High Court has emphasized that no person can be denied temple entry due to their caste, and action should be taken against any such person discriminating against persons who prevent individuals from participating in temple function.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that preventing people from entering temples and offering prayers on the basis of their caste was an affront to their dignity. The court added that such discrimination cannot be permitted in a country which was governed by the rule of law. The court also remarked that caste and community were human creations and the God was always considered neutral.
The court also highlighted that as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act 1947, every Hindu, irrespective of his caste or sect, shall be entitled to enter a Hindu temple and offer worship. In case a person was restricted from entry, action could be taken against the concerned persons.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) earlier this month granted anticipatory bail to four men accused of provoking religious unrest by allegedly liking social media posts labelling RSS and Bajrang Dal as terrorist organisations.
A bench of Justice P Vadamalai observed that a mere 'shared like' on a social media post cannot be construed as an intention to hurt religious sentiments.
Case Title: Prakash Ramachandran v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court recently observed that Nama Sankeerthanam, devotees chanting the names of god in a religious gathering, cannot be permitted at a residential premises without the approval of the District Collector.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus restrained an individual from converting his residential house into a prayer hall and conducting nama sankeerthanam without the permission of the District Collector. The court added that if at all any prayer was to be conducted, it should be inside the house, without causing nuisance to anyone.
Though the individual claimed that the religious rights were protected under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution and that the prayer was being conducted for peace of mind, the court noted that what was divine to him was causing nuisance to the neighbours.
Case Title: R.K.M Powergen Private Limited v. The Assistant Director and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the Enforcement Directorate can initiate action only upon the existence of a predicate offence and cannot conduct investigations on its own.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that ED was not a super cop to investigate anything and everything that came to its notice. The court stressed that there must be criminal activity coming within the schedule of the Act, and there should be proceeds of crime based on which the ED will have jurisdiction to commence an investigation.
The court stressed that if an act was to be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way and no other way. The court added that if the ED was allowed to conduct an investigation merely on coming to know about any activity, the ED would be conducting roving enquiry.
Case Title: High Court of Madras v. Siva Das Meena IAS and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
The Madras High Court on Monday (July 21) criticised the former Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary Siva Das Meena over delay in implementing its order to set up a committee to look into the issues with respect to compassionate appointments.
Justice Battu Devanand orally remarked that if the Chief Secretary himself doesn't comply with court order and implement it on time, how could the court expect other officers, who were working under him, to comply with the orders.
Though the counsel for the IAS officer told the court that he had "high regard" for the court, the judge orally remarked that it did not seem so, since the orders were not complied with on time.
Case Title: M/s. Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court stated that the GST authority can dismiss the rectification application without a personal hearing.
The issue before the bench was whether the third proviso to Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, requires complying with the principles of natural justice even for dismissing a rectification petition.
The Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that “When the rectification application is dismissed as such without there being anything more, the original order stands as such. In that event, there is no rectification at all. When there is no rectification, there is no question of invoking the principles of natural justice.”
Case Name : P. Sakkarai vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that a stale claim for retrospective promotion cannot be revived by a delayed representation after retirement. Further, no parity in promotion can be claimed across divisions following bifurcation into separate administrative divisions with distinct seniority lists.
It was held that after separate zones were created, each division maintained its own seniority list and promotion panel. Therefore, claim of parity across divisions could not be sustained. Further the petitioner's reliance on the 1986 circular regarding unified seniority was held to be misplaced. Hence, no merit in the petition was found.
Case Title: R Ramkumar and Others v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to remove the teaser of “Bad Girl” movie from YouTube after noting that the content disclosed exploitation of children and depicted them in a sexual manner.
Justice P Dhanabal on going through the content, opined that it could affect the minds of teenage children who will be able to access the content easily as it had been posted on the internet.
The court also highlighted that the State had a duty to protect the children, whose minds may be spoiled on coming across the content. Thus, the court observed that the content could not be allowed to continue and had to be removed.
Case Title: Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
The Madras High Court recently criticized the police authorities for closing down a public temple and denying entry to everyone in an effort to maintain public peace amidst communal tension. The court said that denying entry to everyone was not the way to keep peace, and the police had to make an effort to protect the rights of devotees.
Justice B Pugalendhi also criticized the District Collector for keeping a public temple closed, citing law and order problems without taking efforts to solve the problem. The court noted that if there was any real threat, the collector, as top officer of the District, should have used the State Machinery and handle the threat.
The court took note that the dispute was with regard to the entry of Scheduled Caste devotees in the temple. The court remarked that even after 75 years of independence, it was shocking that people were denied temple entry based on their caste. The court stressed that God did not belong to any caste and did not discriminate.
Case Name: P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that excess pension paid due to a clerical or mechanical mistake in pay fixation to the factually ineligible employee can be recovered post-retirement. Further the protection against recovery laid down in Rafiq Masih case does not apply when eligibility itself is lacking.
It was observed by the Court that the mistake in pay fixation was purely mechanical. The Court held that the petitioner had served only 2 years and 7 months in the Selection Grade and thus was factually ineligible for the pension. The error was not interpretational but an objectively verifiable shortfall in qualifying service, therefore, there was no need for subjective assessment. It was further observed that the absence of prior notice amounted to procedural irregularity but it did not cause any real prejudice to the petitioner. It was observed by the court that since the pension was erroneously fixed based on inapplicable criteria, the petitioner was not entitled to the higher benefits granted to him.
Case Title: Palai Rafi @ Mohamed Rafi v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court has granted bail to a 60-year old man who had participated in a protest objecting to the hijab judgment and had allegedly made hate speech against all political parties, and even the judiciary.
Justice P Vadamalai was inclined to grant bail on noting that the FIR was registered in March 2022 and probe might have been completed by this time. The court thus opined that no further interrogation was necessary. The court also noted that the man was 60-year-old and had been in custody since June 20, 2025. Thus, considering all the facts and the incarceration period, the court was inclined to grant conditional bail.
Madras High Court Appreciates TN Govt's Move To Include 'Economic Offender' Under TN Goondas Act
Case Title: T Prabhakar v. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court has appreciated the Tamil Nadu government for bringing in a GO, including “economic offender” as one of the categories under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The court said that the policy shift would strengthen the government's power to combat economic offences.
Justice B Pugalendhi also noted that the state issued a Standard Operating Procedure, bringing in various departments to ensure that offences under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 is dealt with in a time-bound manner.
The court also appreciated the state for taking criticism in a positive manner and for taking steps to effectively implement the TNPID Act and ensure that the interest of the investors are protected. The court added that such responsiveness reinforces rule of law and helps restore the faith of common public in the efficacy of the system.
Case Title: Vanaraj and Others v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court has criticised the 'snail pace' investigation being carried out in a kidnapping case, allegedly involving MLA 'Poovai' Jaganmoorthy and ADGP HM Jayaram.
Justice G Jayachandran remarked that it was not a regular case which could be closed on a compromise between the parties, but was a classic case of abuse of Government machinery to commit a crime.
The court noted that the incident and the subsequent follow-up events would raise serious concerns about the life and liberty of common men and would raise reasonable apprehension on people's mind that the grate nation was "drifting towards a police raj".
Case Title: Muniraj v The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Madras High Court has highlighted that under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, no preliminary enquiry should be conducted before registration of an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence under the Act.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that the intention of the legislature while inserting Section 18A(1)(a) of the SC/ST Act was to ensure immediate registration of complaints without procedural obstructions or administrative delays.
Madras High Court Refuses Permission To Exhume COVID Victim's Body For Reburial In Family Grave
Case Title: The Commissioner, GCC and Others v. S Jaya and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court has refused the exhumation of the body of a person who died due to Covid-19, noting that there was nothing to show that the deceased was not given a decent burial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman observed that once a body is buried, it should not be disturbed as removing it might cause the "spread of harmful diseases". The court also noted that if such exhumation was allowed, it would set a precedent for all families, who have lost their closed ones and would endanger the larger public. It also noted that there was no specific provision of law in India relating to the exhumation of the body except Section 176(3) CrPCC.
Case Title: CJ Christopher Signi v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
The Madras High Court recently noted that an apprehension that some contents may be altered was not a ground for refusing forensic examination. The court added that such apprehension only reinforces the need for an expert analysis.
“The apprehension that the contents may have been altered is not a justification for refusing forensic examination. On the contrary, such concerns reinforce the need for expert analysis. A determination as to whether the files were edited or manipulated can only be reached by a competent forensic authority, not through assumptions or oral statements by lay witnesses,” the court said.
Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the issue of whether compelling voice samples would be violative of the fundamental right to privacy was no longer res integra and the right to privacy can be curtailed when there is a larger public interest involved.
Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar alleging that the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, had been interfering with the functioning of his company “Savukku Media”.
The court said that there was no material to show that the commissioner was interfering with the working of the company.
“Since there are several complaints against the Petitioner (Shankar) which are under investigation, prima facie there is no material to show that the 3rd respondent (Commissioner) is interfering with the functioning of the petitioner organisation,” the court said.
Justice Velmurugan was hearing a petition filed by Shankar alleging that the Commissioner was subjecting him and his employees to various unlawful actions since he had been exposing police atrocities and misconduct through his YouTube channel. He had alleged that the police had been tracking his movements and subjecting him to harassment.
Case Title: S. H. Zarina Begum v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
The Madras High Court has directed the Director General of Police to place a Deputy Superintendent of Police under suspension for failing to submit a closure report and for failing to comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 173 of the CrPC.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that it was not an isolated case and on several instances, the court was coming across cases in which complaints were closed without filing any final report before the competent court. In the present case, the court noted that though the decision to close the case was taken in 2022, the final report was not filed before the concerned court till a notice was issued on the present plea.
The court added that if the present case had not been filed, the inaction would have continued indefinitely, and the closure report might never have been filed. The court remarked that the approach of the police reflected a serious lapse in adherence to legal procedure and a denial of justice to the affected parties.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Regulate Media Reporting Of Aviation Accidents
Case Title: M Pravin v. The Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea calling upon the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Director General of Civil Aviation, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary guidelines/advisories for media reporting in the aftermath of aviation accidents.
The bench of Chief Justice MM Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed the plea filed by Advocate M Pravin.
Pointing to the recent media reporting in the aftermath of the Ahmedabad Plane Crash, Pravin said that often, after aviation incidents, news agencies and social media platforms publish unverified content prejudicing and attributing the blame to the pilots. It was also submitted that such prejudicial reporting damages the reputation of pilots and their career prospects and affects their personal dignity and well-being.
Case Title: Harinaa v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court has directed the passport authorities to consider an application filed by a “Stateless woman”, born to Sri Lankan parents, seeking an Indian passport.
Justice C Saravanan of the Madurai bench noted that there were overwhelming records available to indicate that the woman was born in India and was issued a Birth Certificate. The court also noted that documents had been produced to show that the woman had completed her schooling in India and had also pursued her undergraduate degree in India. The court thus noted that there was nothing to show that the woman had travelled from Sri Lanka or that she had entered the country illegally.
Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court has made it clear that while launching and operating a government welfare scheme, the advertisements should not contain the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leader or party insignia, emblem, or flag of the party.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Common Cause and others, had clarified that publication of a photograph of the incumbent Chief Minister was permissible but use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Ministers was prima facie against the directives of the Supreme Court.
The bench also noted that it was impermissible to mention the name of political personalities in the nomenclature of a government scheme. The court also noted that using the name of any ruling political party was also against the directives of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India.
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.
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.
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 and they are exempted.”
Case Title: Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the recent appointment of 4 IAS officers as Government Press Spokesperson.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan said that the IAS officers were appointed as the State Government's spokesperson and not as the ruling party's spokesperson. The court also noted that no laws had been violated at the time of making the appointments and thus, was not inclined to entertain the plea. The court thus dismissed the plea with Rs. 1 Lakh costs.
Case Title: Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
The Madras High Court has set aside the detention order passed against 14 persons who have been accused to be involved in the murder of BSP Leader Armstrong in July 2024.
While setting aside the detention order, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Laksminarayanan noted that the detaining authority, while passing the detention orders, appeared to have scrutinised 14,000 pages in a day, which was an impossible task for any human being. The court thus observed that the detaining authority did not apply its mind, while passing the detention order.
Case Title: SSI Production v. The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Police to provide protection to movie-theatres screening the Vijay Devarakonda starrer “Kingdom”.
The direction assumes significance amid backlash from Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) party chief Seeman, who took offence to the manner in which the Tamil Ellam issue is allegedly portrayed in the movie.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that in a democracy, the movie-makers have a right to express their views and a third party cannot threaten the theatre owners or prevent the screening of the movie if they disagree with the views expressed in the movie.
The court reiterated that screening of a movie, which had been duly certified by the censor board, could not be halted merely because there was difference of opinion.
Case Title: P Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court has recently remarked that the depiction of Hindu gods in a disrespectful manner could not be justified. The court added that depicting Gods in such a manner had the potential to spark enmity, religious outrage, and affect the communal harmony.
Justice K Murali Shankar added that, considering the respect that was given to the religious symbols and deities, such actions of depicting the Gods should be dealt with sensitively. The court added that the Government should ensure that freedom of expression does not hurt the religious feelings of the people. In doing so, the court set aside the trial court order closing the case.
Case Title: S Sunil v. Senthamarai and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
A Madras High Court division bench has stayed the operation of a single judge order asking the Director General of Police to suspend a Deputy Superintendent of Police for failing to file final report in a case.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan ordered interim stay in a Letter Patent Appeal filed by the DySP challenging the order passed by Justice P Velmurugan, directing the DGP to take action.
When a question was raised as to the maintainability of a Letter Patent Appeal against an order by a judge exercising criminal jurisdiction, the court noted that the LPA would be maintainable against that part of the order, wherein the judge was not exercising criminal jurisdiction.
Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Dr. R. Anbumani and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi party, through its General Secretary against the public meeting convened by former Party president Anbumani Ramadoss.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the entire issue was an unfortunate ego clash between Dr. S. Ramadoss, the party's founder and his son Anbumani Ramadoss. Noting that a writ petition was not maintainable in case of private dispute, the court was not inclined to order the relief.
The court added that the argument of whether the party's bye-laws had been violated by calling the meeting could not be gone into by the High Court in writ proceedings, and at best, it could only be a subject of civil proceedings.
Case Title: Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
The Madras High Court recently observed that though pulling the hands of a woman by a man would shock her sense of decency, it would not amount to outraging the modesty of the woman if there was no criminal intention.
Justice RN Manjula added that without any clear evidence about the intention of the man, vague or generalised statements would only earn a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused with respect to his criminal intention.
The court thus set aside the conviction of a man, sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 354 of the IPC.
Case Title: Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking to forbear retired judges from issuing public letters, appeals, or statements allegedly intended to influence pending judicial proceedings, particularly in matters involving allegations against sitting Judges.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan called the plea a “publicity interest litigation” and remarked that judges are not affected by such statements made against them. The court thus dismissed the plea and imposed cost.
The plea was filed in light of the recent letter written by retired judges of the Madras High Court to sitting judge Justice GR Swaminathan, after the latter called for an explanation from a lawyer for raising caste bias allegation against the judge.
Case Title: D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, directed the State to take action to remove the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers who have been protesting at the Rippon Building for almost 12 days demanding a reversal of the Corporation's decision to privatise solid waste management in some zones.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the workers could protest only at authorised places. Since the rippon building was not an authorised place for protest, and since no permission had been taken to conduct the protest, the court ordered them to be removed from the place.
The court also added that it would be open for the protesting workers to make applications to the concerned authorities seeking permission for conducting the protest, which could be considered appropriately.
Case Title: M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court has delivered a split verdict on whether the community status of a government employee can be verified/scrutinised after their retirement.
While Justice Nisha Banu opined that reopening the verification of a community certificate would amount to re-litigation, Justice M Jothiraman opined that once a verification starts, it should continue till its conclusion.
Since contradictory views have been taken by the judges, the Registry has been directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further action.
The court was hearing two writ petitions filed by M Gunasekaran and G Thangavel seeking to restrain the SC/ST Vigilance Cell from conducting verification of their respective caste status. In both cases, the persons were issued notices calling upon them to appear for an enquiry in connection with the verification of their community certificate, years after their retirement.
Case Title: S Vijay v. Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 14) directed the release of four lawyers and two law students who were detained by the police at midnight in connection with the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers protest.
A division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan passed the interim orders in a habeas corpus petition against the detention of lawyers and law students who joined the protest yesterday.
Incidentally, on Wednesday a coordinate bench had directed the State to take action to remove the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers who have been protesting at the Rippon Building for almost 12 days demanding a reversal of the Corporation's decision to privatise solid waste management in some zones.
Case Title: GB Pachaiyappan and Another v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed an application seeking interim injunction to restrain actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vetrri Kazhagam party from using the party flag, over alleged infringement of a Trust's trademark.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy rejected the plaintiff's claim that the usage of the flag by Vijay's party amounted to copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and passing off. The court, however, added that these were tentative observations and the matter would be dealt with in September.
The interim orders were passed in a petition filed by G.B. Pachaiyappan, trustee of the Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to consider granting sanction for prosecuting a Resolution Professional for allegedly mismanaging funds of a company during a resolution process.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the resolution professional performed duties in connection with the administration of justice, was a person from whom a report was called for by the court of justice, and was performing a public duty. Thus, the court noted that the Resolution Professional would come within the definition of public servant as provided under Section 2(c)(v), 2(c)(vi), and 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
The Madras High Court has rejected a plea by the Greater Chennai Corporation's sanitation worker challenging the Corporation's resolution to outsource the sanitation work in two of its zones to private companies.
Justice K Surender noted that privatizing the sanitation work is a policy decision of the government and when the decision did not violate any provisions of law, it could not be quashed.
The court also noted that the change brought in by the government was to improve the quality of the sanitation and Solid Waste Management. The court also added that such economic policies were not amenable to judicial review unless it was contrary to the statutory policies or the Constitution.
The court made the observations in the plea made by Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam which was a General Workers Union organizing the unorganized workers throughout the State. The organization had challenged the resolutions made by the Greater Chennai Corporation through which a decision was taken to outsource the sanitation work in Zone 5 and 6 of Chennai to Hyderabad based company M/s. Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd.
Case Title: Dr. Ranganathan v. Dr. Lakshmanan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court recently refused to transfer a trial in connection with a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court said that merely because the respondent was an MLA, it could not be said that the trial would be unjust and that by itself would not be a reason to transfer the trial.
Justice P Velmurugan held that the power to transfer a trial must be exercised carefully and only when there is a genuine and reasonable fear that justice would not be done. The court noted that no materials had been produced to show that the Magistrate had made adverse orders or had acted in a biased manner. Thus, noting that the apprehension was vague and not based on any concrete materials, the court was not inclined to entertain the same.
Rithanya Dowry Death Case | Madras High Court Grants Bail To Husband & In-Laws
Case Title: KE Kavin Kumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court has granted bail to Kavin Kumar, Annadhurai, and Chitra Devi, the husband and in-laws of 27 year old 27-year-old Rithanya, who committed suicide earlier in July this year in Tiruppur, over alleged dowry harassment.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that since the investigation was almost completed, including the examination of the witnesses, it was not necessary to keep the accused under custody. The judge thus granted bail on the condition that the accused appear before the jurisdictional police every day in the morning and evening, till further orders.
Case Title: Mirthunaj Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
The Madras High Court has held that a second habeas corpus petition is maintainable against the same detention order if new grounds, that were not raised in the earlier habeas corpus petition, are available.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel, had held that the concept of public police was entirely inapplicable in illegal detention and does not bar a subsequent writ of habeas corpus on fresh grounds. The court added that detenues should not take undue advantage of this finding and file habeas corpus petitions on the same ground.
Case Title: Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a circular urging assessees to engage only qualified consultants for GST compliance.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that, "This Court comes across similar instances in several cases, extending ill advice to the clients by the consultants, who are all not qualified persons. Such kind of ill-advice leads to the fact that the clients are not in a position to appear before the Officers concerned with suitable reply supported by documents, which is purely on the negligence on the part of the consultant."
Case Title: M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
The Madras High Court stated that the Income Tax commissioner cannot revise an assessment merely because detailed reasoning was not given in the order.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan stated that, "an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If the Income Tax Officer, acting in accordance with law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, simply because, according to the Commissioner, the order should have been written more elaborately."
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of a Family Court asking a husband to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife till the pendency of a divorce petition filed by him.
Justice PB Balaji noted that the object of awarding interim maintenance, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was to ensure that the wife had sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is not merely survival but also allows her to lead a comfortable lifestyle that she would have otherwise had at the matrimonial home.
In the present case, the court noted that the wife had immovable properties in her name, and had substantial income through dividends. Thus, the court opined that the wife did not require any further interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle.
Case Title: Perumal v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Noting that several recreational clubs were only engaged in selling alcohol, the Madras High Court has issued directions to ensure that the licenses are issued only after verification and to take appropriate action.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that these clubs were becoming a nuisance for the people living near them. The bench also noted that the government was not taking any action against the clubs since in many instances, the clubs were owned by influential persons.
The bench has directed the Inspector General of Registration Department to ensure that the clubs selling liquor have a specific clause in their byelaws for selling of liquor by obtaining FL2 licence, which must be approved by due verification and in accordance with the law. The bench said that if a specific clause was not available in the byelaws, the registration of the club could be cancelled.
Case Title: S Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
Disposing of a batch of pleas seeking permission to install idols of Lord Ganesh in connection with Vinayaka Chaturthi celebration, the Madras High Court remarked that most of the requests were driven by ego clashes and a desire to show dominance.
Justice B Pugalendhi deprecated the practice of using divinity to settle personal scores and remarked that God was a symbol of unity, not a tool for rivalry.
The court also observed that most of the temples at street corners were neglected throughout the year but during the time of Vinayaka Chaturthi, elaborate efforts were made to install giant idols. Calling this a paradox, the court said that the devotees must introspect and understand that true devotion was not about grandeur but consistent reverence and upkeep of places of worship.
Case Title: Sun TV Network Ltd v. Central Board of Film Certification
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 28) dismissed a plea challenging the 'A' certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification for the movie “Coolie” starring Rajnikanth, Nagarjuna, and Amir Khan, among others.
Justice TV Thamilselvi while pronouncing the order said that the "petition does not have any merits".
The high court passed the order on a petition moved by production company Sun TV Network.
Case Title: SN Sathishwaran v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
The Madras High Court has set up a five-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct investigation into the allegations of human organ transplantation racket in the State, including kidney transplants.
Noting that the State's response was "disappointing", the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan has said that the SIT will be monitored by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court. The court has directed the SIT to submit reports before the Registrar (Additional Registrar General) or the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madurai bench periodically.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court has recently quashed a Government Order by which the State had granted permission for the construction of marriage halls by utilising the temple funds belonging to five different temples situated at different places.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the State's decision was violative of provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 and the Rules and did not fall within the definition of “religious purpose”.
The court noted that as per Section 66 of the HR & CE Act, surplus funds could not be diverted for commercial or profit making ventures but must be confined to religious or charitable purpose. The court also noted that Hindu marriages, though considered sacrament, was a union bound by contractual terms and hence could not be considered a religious purpose.
Case Title: Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
The Madras High Court on Friday (August 29) directed acclaimed Director and Producer Vetri Maaran to carry out certain cuts and modifications in his upcoming Tamil movie 'Manushi'.
Justice Anand Venkatesh, who had earlier decided to watch the movie, said that the exercise had to be done keeping in mind the principles of proportionality and to ensure that freedom of speech and expression is not unduly curtailed on surmises and conjectures.
The court, however, asked the members of the Central Board of Film Certification to deal with matters of artistic freedom broadly.
Case Title: Raja Mathan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (292)
The Madras High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to Hindu Munnani workers in an alleged hate speech case.
Interestingly, the bail has been granted on the condition that the accused write the preamble of the Constitution, along with Article 19 (Freedom of Speech), Part IV-A, Article 51A which pertain to fundamental duties 10 times either in Tamil or Hindi and submit it before the Magistrate court.
Justice M. Jothiraman imposed the condition to make the accused understand the object and constitutional valued enumerated in the Constitution.
Case Title: S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (September 2) constituted a 'one-man commission' headed by retired high court judge Justice V Parthiban to probe into allegations of police violence during the detention of lawyers and law students who took part in the protest organised by the sanitation workers of Greater Chennai Corporation.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan asked the Legal Services Authority to provide assistance to the commission. The commission has been directed to probe into the allegations levelled by both parties and submit a report by the next date of hearing.
The lawyers and law students had alleged that the police had used excessive force while detaining them. The state, on the other hand, had argued that the protestors had caused damage to public and private property.
Case Title; Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court recently remarked that there should be a change in the mindset of the people so that there is no discrimination between communities in sharing public resources.
'In addition to the directions already given, it is suggested to all the stakeholders that there should be a change of mindset in the people in order to ensure that there is no discrimination arises between different communities of people in the sharing of public resources and in the use of public facilities,' the court said.
Justice RN Manjula appreciated the government's efforts to address the issues of discrimination in using public resources. Previously, the court had expressed shock over members of the Scheduled Caste community being made to wait for their turn till members from the other community fetch water from the common tap.
Case Title: Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to reconsider an application filed by the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris for recognition.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that the Bar Council's view, that only one association could be recognised in a district, was misconceived and contrary to the Welfare Fund Rules, which specifically provided that the Bar Council could recognise more than one Bar Association. The court also added that the rules did not prohibit recognising more than one bar association.
The court thus opined that the Bar Council's decision was not based on any intelligible differentia and was violative of Rule 3(4) of the Welfare Fund Rules.
The Women Lawyers Association had approached the court after the Bar Council rejected their application under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act 1987 seeking recognition and registration of the association.
Case Name: K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Division Bench of Madras High Court, comprising Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar, has held that in the absence of disciplinary proceedings pending against the professional, NCLT is bound to appoint the IRP proposed by the applicant under sections 7 and 10 of the IBC, 2016.
Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v. S Suriyamoorthy and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
The Madras High Court has recently allowed a civil revision petition filed by AIADMK head Edappadi Palanisamy against the dismissal of an application filed by him to reject a plaint filed by one Suriyamoorthy against the AIADMK leadership.
Justice PB Balaji noted that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, there was no embargo on the courts taking note of subsequent events to reject a plaint. In the present case, the court noted that the plaintiff had contested against the AIADMK candidate in the assembly elections which showed that he no longer treated himself as a member of the AIADMK party.
Case Title: Dr Ilaiyaraja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the makers of Ajith starrer Good Bad Ugly movie from using three songs of musician Ilaiyaraja.
Justice N Senthilkumar granted the temporary injunction in a plea moved by the musician seeking to restrain Mythri Movie Makers, producers of the movie, from exhibiting, screening, selling, distributing, publishing, broadcasting the movie, along with the three songs of Ilaiyaraja.
Ilaiyaraja had argued that the songs "Otha Rubayum Tharen" from the movie "Nattupura Pattu", the song "Ilamai Idho Ido" from the movie "Sakalakala Vallavan", and the song "En Jodi Manja Kuruvi" from the movie "Vikram" had been used in the Ajith movie without obtaining express consent or permission from him and without paying royalties to which he is statutorily entitled.
Case Title: R Kannan and Others v. T.R Baalu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
The Madras High Court has stayed an order of the single judge directing the Editor, Publisher, and the Printer of the Tamil weekly “Junior Vikatan” to pay Rs. 25,00,000 as damages to DMK's TR Balu for publishing malicious and defamatory content against him.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Saravanan passed the interim order in an appeal preferred by the magazine and adjourned the hearing for 2 weeks.
Case Title: Annadhurai Ramasamy v. The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
The Madras High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, to monitor the investigation in connection with the death of 27-year-old Rithanya, who committed suicide earlier in July this year, over alleged dowry harassment.
Justice Satish Kumar disposed of the petition filed by Annadhurai, Rithanya's father, seeking to transfer the investigation to an independent investigating officer from the State Crime Investigation Department (CB-CID) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired judge.
Noting that a substantial progress had already been made in the investigation, the court was not inclined to order an independent probe in the case. However, since allegations had been raised regarding lapses in the investigation, the court directed the Superintendent to monitor the probe.
Case Title: Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
The Madras High Court recently directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the office of Medical Counselling Committee, the National Medical Commission, and the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to permit a physically disabled candidate to attend the counselling for NEET PG 2025-26 based on the rank secured by him in NEET PG 2024.
Justice C Kumarappan relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kabir Paharia vs National Medical Commission and others, in which the court had observed that the constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that person with disabilities and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities.
Case Title: Lokeshwaran Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
The Madras High Court has set aside an unusual order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, remanding a Deputy Superintendent of Police and externing other accused persons.
Calling the trial court judge's order "unwarranted", Justice N Satish Kumar directed the high court's Registrar (Vigilance) to conduct an enquiry into allegations of bias and misuse of power by the trial court judge. The high court opined that such a probe was necessary to uncover the truth.
The court noted that before passing the order of externment under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act there must be either a complaint or a Police report. In the present case, the court noted that except for the FIR, there were no other police reports.
The court observed that the order of externment is to be passed when there is a real atrocity committed on the members belonging to the SC/ST communities. In the present case, the court noted that the case was based on mere altercations and it might not have been possible for the persons to know the caste of the opposite party.
Case Title: Adv V Venkata Sivakumar v. The Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation asking the Election Commission of India to clarify its position regarding the allegations raised by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, regarding large-scale voter list manipulation in the 2024 General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the plea lacked materials and only referred to the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties. The court also noted that the plea was in the nature of asking the court to conduct a roving enquiry into the issue.
Case Title: R Varadaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer challenging the appointment of IPS officer R Venkataraman as the ad-hoc Director General of Police/Head of Police Force in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan orally remarked that some arrangements had to be made when the DGP demitted office following his superannuation in August 31st 2025. The court also noted that the Supreme Court, on September 8, had directed the UPSC to expeditiously consider sending recommendations for the appointment of the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu. The court thus opined that the present petition was baseless.
Case Title: Vignesh D v. The Health and Family Welfare Department and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Dr MGR Medical University to constitute a university-level committee as per Rule 10(8) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules 2020. As per this rule, all educational institutions shall have a committee which shall be accessible for transgender persons in case of any harassment or discrimination, with powers to ensure that transgender students do not affected by the presence of the persons bullying them, including teachers.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan issued the direction in a transgender student's plea claiming that the medical college where they were pursuing their medical degree had withheld their original documents and made an arbitrary fee demand.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Violation Of Pollution Norms At Isha Foundation
Case Title: ST Sivagnanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking direction to the authorities to take appropriate action against discharge of sewage and effluents by the Isha Foundation into the neighbouring lands.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of a subsequent petition filed by the same petitioner raising the same concerns, in which the pollution control board had conducted an inspection and had submitted a satisfactory report. The bench thus opined that nothing survived in the petition and dismissed the same.
Case Title: N Anand Bussi Anand v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court has stayed the criminal proceedings initiated against the general secretary of actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party for allegedly causing an unlawful assembly and obstructing the police from doing their duty.
Justice Sunder Mohan ordered an interim stay in a petition filed by N Anand alias Bussy Anand, seeking to quash the FIR registered against him by the Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Trichy.
Case Title: D Chandirasegar and Others v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation restricting the exempted establishments from amending their Trust Rules with retrospective effect so as to bring it in consonance with the Supreme Court's orders. The court also set aside an order of the EPFO rejecting an application for joint option request by employees to avail the benefits of higher pension.
Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the organisation was exempted under the Provident Fund Scheme and was governed by its Trust Rules. The court also noted that the establishment was governed under the Statutory Pension Scheme and the benefits under the scheme could not be denied to the employees citing the Trust Rules.
Case Title: Sarootham Padmanabhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Madras High Court has upheld the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed committee, declaring as null and void the land bought by the resort owners in the Segur plateau, in the Western Ghats area that had been declared as an Elephant corridor.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy agreed with most of the findings of the committee except that the land that was purchased subsequent to the declaration of the elephant corridor be handed over to the Government.
Case Title: T Devanathan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
The Madras High Court has granted interim bail to financier Devanathan Yadav till October 30 in the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund case wherein he had been accused of swindling funds to the tune of Rs. 619 crores.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that keeping the accused in jail for long would not yield any benefits
The court thus directed Yadav to be released on interim bail till 30th October and asked him to mobilise a sum of Rs. 100 Crore, to be deposited before the court dealing with cases under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act.
Case Title: Suo Motu WP v. The Director General of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, closed the suo motu case initiated against former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi for his remarks against Vaishnavism, Saivism, and women. The court noted that the complainants were at liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional magistrates against the closure of complaints.
While closing the suo motu case, Justice N Satish Kumar orally remarked that Ponmudi, while holding the public office, should not have made such comments which would hurt the sentiments of persons.
"If an ordinary person had uttered this, we could've avoided it. But a person in responsibility should not have uttered this. He should've asked for some advice before making such statements...It's not good for persons at the helm of affairs to speak like this. Everybody has rights under the Constitution. Sentiments should not be hurt like this," the court orally remarked.
The court also expressed displeasure in the manner in which the police had closed the complaints and filed their report before the Magistrate's court. The court orally remarked that instead of following their political bosses, the investigating officers should have conducted a proper inquiry.
Case Title: P Ayyakannu v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court recently held that the railway authorities cannot de-board a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because his travel was for conducting a protest.
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that, as per the Railways Act 1989, a person could be de-boarded only in limited circumstances like travelling without a ticket, having an infectious disease, or travelling in unauthorised parts. The court added that if a person with a valid ticket was de-boarded for other reasons, it would amount to an offence for which action could be taken against the officials.
Case Title: Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police in Karur District of Tamil Nadu for failing to prevent caste discrimination in two temples there.
Justice B. Pugalendhi emphasised that equality for all in temple worship is non-negotiable and that the officers in charge are expected to ensure that the temple is remained open for all devotees, including persons belonging to the scheduled caste community.
The bench observed that the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police of Karur had not shown neutrality but had in fact displayed an utter abdication of their constitutional responsibility. The court said that instead of defending rights, the officers had defended violations and had shown that they were unfit to discharge their official duties.
Case Title: R Sathish v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by a man against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti, refusing to register a complaint against a woman, who had allegedly blackmailed the man and fraudulently taken money from him.
Finding no merit in the plea, Justice Shamim Ahmed said that the plea was only a calculated attempt to defame a woman. The court added that entertaining such petitions could cause irreparable harm to the reputation of the woman. The court said that it would not allow such misuse of legal process and wanted to protect the dignity and reputation of the woman.
Case Title: A. Kasthuri v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court has directed the authorities of Stanley Medical College to give appropriate treatment for renal transplantation to a minor boy without insisting on the consent of his father, who had abandoned the family.
Justice M Dhandapani took note of the submissions of the hospital's counsel, who informed the court that it would conduct a meeting and take an appropriate decision in this regard.
Case Title: Ulpath Nisha v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court has observed that the jurisdictional Jamath is obliged to issue a No-Objection Certificate to an applicant for conducting Nikha, if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that the non-issuance of an NOC to an eligible applicant would violate the applicant's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that, as per the Islamic tradition, an NOC had to be obtained by the jurisdictional Jamath for the solemnisation of the Nikkah. Thus, the court said that when the custom stood thus, the Jamath had a duty to issue NOC unless the applicant was otherwise disqualified.
Case Title: Mohammed Iqbal v. S Manonmanian
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
The Madras High Court recently observed that a Xerox copy of a cheque can be accepted as secondary evidence in cheque bounce cases, and such a request cannot be refused merely because there is no evidence to prove that the original cheque was lost.
Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that when the trial judge had recorded the sworn statement in which he had made an endorsement with respect to the original cheque before giving it back to the complainant, he should have accepted the xerox copy of the original cheque as secondary evidence.
Case Title: VP v. M
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Family Court at Dindigul, which had directed a man to pay monthly maintenance to his wife, after noting that there was no evidence to prove the marriage between the parties.
The Madurai bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the trial judge had only relied on the evidence of the witness on the plaintiff's side without considering the evidence of the defendant's witness, which gave an undue advantage to the plaintiff. The court noted that in the absence of any evidence, the court should not have placed complete reliance on the unreliable witness, and thus opined that the trial court's order was unsustainable.
Case Title: SGS and another v. NIL
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court recently observed that when parties to a mutual divorce have affirmed their decision to go their separate ways, the court should not insist on them waiting for the mandatory cooling-off period, as the same would only increase their agony.
Justice PB Balaji, after considering the decision of the Supreme Court and other High Courts regarding the issue, held as under,
“Independently, I also find that both the petitioners have filed separate affidavits even in this revision, affirming their decision to go separate ways. The interest of any children is also not involved in the present case, since the parties were not blessed with any issues and both the petitioners have categorically asserted that the relationship has become irreconcilable and distressing. In such circumstances, compelling the petitioners to wait for the mandatory period to expire would only further increase their agony. The petitioners have also stated that their decision is voluntary and only based on their free will and there is no fraud, collusion or undue influence brought upon them to file the mutual consent divorce petition,” the court said.
Case Name : Secretary to Government Education Department State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs J. Augustin & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V.Karthikeya and Justice R.Vijayakumar held that an appointment cannot be made to a post abolished by a Government Order, and a stay order in a different matter does not confer any right to appointment or its approval.
It was noted by the court that an order of stay granted in W.A.(M.D).No.816 of 2023 was restricted to Sweepers and Scavengers. It was held by the court that the stay order granted by the Court was only to protect the interest of the parties to the proceedings pending disposal of the writ petition. If the respondent had been appointed prior to G.O.Ms.238, then he could have taken advantage of the stay order. It was further held by the court that the right to get an appointment or its approval should be traceable to a statute or a Government Order. It cannot be traced through an interim order passed by the Court.
It was concluded by the court that the Single Judge had erred in directing the approval of the appointment based on an interim stay in a different matter. Hence, the order of the writ court was set aside and the writ appeal filed by the Education Department was allowed by the court.
Case Title: M/s.Sivakumar and Co., Perundurai Road, Erode v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
The Madras High Court has held that if the assessee has purchased goods both within the State and from other States, then to claim exemption for inter-State purchases, the purchases made within the State must be segregated from those made from others.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam stated that when the facts are established in clear terms that the goods were found mingled during the course of physical verification/inspection, the decision of the assessing Authority and the appellate Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled for exemption, is correct and in consonance with the provisions of the exemption Order.
Case Title: M/s. Inalfa Gabriel Sunroof Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High Court has held that the scope of appeal is limited under Section 28KA of the Customs Act and an advance ruling is binding unless it is palpably arbitrary or irrational.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that the scope of appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962, is limited, as the ruling obtained is binding on the persons mentioned in Section 28J of the Customs Act, 1962. Unless the ruling of the Authority is palpably arbitrary or irrational or without any proper reasoning, they cannot be interfered by this Court under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Madras High Court Transfers Probe In BSP Leader Armstrong's Murder Case To CBI
Case Title: K Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong v. Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
The Madras High Court has transferred the investigation into the death of Bahujan Samaj Party leader Armstrong to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Allowing a petition filed by Armstrong's brother, Justice P Velmurugan has directed the CBI to file the chargesheet within 6 months.
The court noted that the investigation carried out by the State police did not inspire much confidence, and to ensure justice and to maintain public confidence, it was to transfer the investigation to the CBI for a free, fair, and impartial inquiry.
Provisions Of Right To Education & RPWD Act Don't Apply To Sainik Schools: Madras High Court
Case Title: M. R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court recently held that the provisions of the Right to Education Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act are not applicable to Sainik Schools since it is administered under the control of the Sainik School Society and the Ministry of Defence.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus found no infirmity or illegality in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling, for the year 2025, which had prescribed eye standards for children seeking admission to the Sainik School.
Husband, Children Have Legal And Moral Duty To Maintain Wife/Mother: Madras High Court
Case Title: RAP v. AM
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of a Family Court in Madurai asking a husband and his sons to pay Rs. 21,000 as monthly maintenance for their wife/mother.
Justice Shamim Ahmed remarked that a man had a legal and moral duty to maintain his mother/wife during her lifetime, and this duty was to ensure that the mother/wife is supported and cared for during their old age.
The court also added that by fulfilling this duty, the individual was demonstrating respect and gratitude towards their mother who had devoted herself to nurture and care for the family. The court called this a fundamental aspect of familial responsibility and remarked that it allowed the mothers to live their later years with dignity and care.
No Tax Exemption On Bakery Products Sold At Snack Bar: Madras High Court
Case Title: Cakes N Bakes v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
The Madras High Court held that there is no tax exemption for bakery products sold in a snack bar.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan were addressing the issue of whether bakery products sold in a snack bar are covered under the notification G.O.P.No.570 dated 10th June 1987 and exempted from tax.
The bench looked into Sl.No.9 to I Schedule and observed that the bakery products are not included and thus would not fall under the exemption notification. In fact, the bakery products are stated in I Schedule of Part B of Sl.No.11.
The said Sl.No.11 of part B of I Schedule has not been exempted under the notification. Therefore, the assessee's case would not fall under the exemption notification, added the bench.
The bench concluded that the Original Authority and the appellate Tribunal have rightly interpreted the exemption notification and the scope of its applications.
Case Title: S Venkatesan v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Madras High Court recently observed that for determining the indigency of a person under Order 33 of Civil Procedure Code, the court has to conduct an independent inquiry by itself or by appointing an officer of the court.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq said that the certificate obtained from the Government Authorities showing that a person is indigent can only be relied on for establishing the indigent circumstances and cannot be conclusive proof for to conclude whether the person is indigent.
Case Title: K Balachenniappan v. Jeyakrishnan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
The Madras High Court recently observed that the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act would override the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita since the former was a special law.
Justice Shamim Ahmed added that the offences under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act were compoundable at any stage, even after the dismissal of the revision/appeal. The court noted that even a convict undergoing imprisonment could compound the offence.
Case Title: A.G Ponmanickavel v. State and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court has quashed a case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation against former IPS officer Ponmanickavel, who was heading the idol theft wing of the CID in the state of Tamil Nadu.
Justice RN Manjula observed that the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet did not disclose any allegations committed by Ponmanickavel and were non est and redundant. The court also noted that the FIR had been registered in excess of authority without getting any permission from the High Court. In an earlier proceeding, while disposing of a petition alleging excess use of force by the officer, the court had ordered that any future case against the officer in connection with the case should be after getting the High Court's approval.