Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 04 - August 10, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271 NOMINAL INDEX Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264 Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 266 Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 267 SSI Production v. The Director General of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 268 P Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 269 S Sunil v. Senthamarai and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 270 Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Dr. R. Anbumani and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271 REPORT Prima Facie Derogatory: Madras High Court Restrains Savukku Shankar From Making Allegations Linking IPS Officer To Sivaganga Custodial Death Case Title: Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 The Madras High Court has restrained YouTuber Savukku Shankar from making allegations against IPS officer Davidson Devasirvatham, implicating him in the recent custodial death of Ajith in Sivaganga. Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the statements made by Shankar were prima facie derogatory and defamatory, which would affect the reputation of the officer. Thus, considering the restrictions on the right to freedom of speech, the court was inclined to restrain Shankar temporarily from making the allegations. Madras High Court Allows TN Congress SC Wing To Conduct Hunger Strike Demanding Special Laws Against Honor Killing Case Title: MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264 The Madras High Court has permitted the Tamil Nadu Congress SC Wing to conduct a hunger strike demanding special laws against caste based honor killings. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of the State's submission that it was willing to permit the hunger strike if the same was to be conducted in a designated area. Since the party agreed to conduct the hunger strike in the earmarked place, the court directed it to make a fresh submission, which was to be permitted by the State with conditions that the Commissioner may deem fit. The court noted that, as far as Chennai was concerned, some areas had been earmarked for conducting protests. Since the state also expressed willingness to permit the hunger strike if conducted at these places, the court directed accordingly. Digital Marketing Is Business, Not Profession; Audit Report Not Required For Turnover Below ₹5 Crores: Madras High Court Case Title: Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 The Madras High Court held that digital marketing is a business and not a profession; and an audit report is not required for turnovers below Rs. 5 crores. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. In the event anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which is below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee is not required to file an audit report and they are exempted.” Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of 4 Senior IAS Officers As TN Govt Spokespersons, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost 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. Armstrong Murder Case: Madras High Court Quashes Detention Of Accused Under Goondas Act, Says Scrutiny Of 14K Pages In A Day Impossible 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...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 04 - August 10, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags