Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 18 - August 24, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 284 NOMINAL INDEX 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 REPORT Relief For Actor Vijay, Madras High Court Refuses To Restrain His Party Flag For Alleged Trademark Infringement 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. Insolvency Resolution Professional Is Public Servant, Sanction Needed To Prosecute Him Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Madras High Court 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. Madras High Court Dismisses Sanitation Worker's Challenge Against Privatization, Says Greater Chennai Corporation Should Ensure Minimum Wages 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. Respondent Being An MLA Does Not Mean That Trial Will Be Unfair: Madras High Court Refuses To Transfer S.138 NI Act Trial 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 &...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 18 - August 24, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags