Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 15 - December 21, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 492 NOMINAL INDEX Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484 Milan Textile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Initiating Officer and Anr., 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 485 Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v The Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 486 Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 487 ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488 Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 489 Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. Director General of Police and Others (connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 490 Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491 Shri. Harigovind v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Non-corporate, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 492 REPORT Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order Against Accused In Anna University Sexual Assault Case Case Title: Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484 The Madras High Court has quashed the detention order issued against Gnanasekar, accused in the Anna University Sexual Assault Case. The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman was inclined to quash the detention order after noting that Gnansekaran was already convicted and sentenced in connection with the sexual assault case. The court thus disposed of a habeas corpus plea by Gnanasekar's mother, Gengadevi. Gnanasekar was accused of sexually assaulting a 2nd year engineering student at the Anna University campus in Chennai in December 2024. The High Court had constituted a Special Investigation Team to investigate the incident after finding faults in the state police's investigation. On June 2, Gnansekaran was sentenced to life imprisonment of a minimum 30 years and a fine of Rs 90,000. IBC | All Property, Including Alleged Benami Assets, Shielded From Action Over Pre-Resolution Offences: Madras High Court Case Title: Milan Textile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Initiating Officer and Anr. Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 485 The Madras High Court has recently held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, authorities cannot proceed against any property standing in the name of a corporate debtor for offences committed before the insolvency process, even if such property is alleged to be held benami. A single bench of Justice G R Swaminathan ruled that Section 32A(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, offers wide protection to the property of a corporate debtor after a successful resolution. The court observed that the word “property” in the provision is unqualified and must therefore be given its widest meaning. Centre Has Constitutional Duty To Aid Indians Working Abroad; Must Frame Policy For Legal Assistance Overseas: Madras High Court Case Title: Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v The Secretary to Government of India and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 486 The Madras High Court has directed the Government of India to formulate a comprehensive policy for providing legal assistance to Indian citizens outside its territory. Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the Government had a constitutional duty, and the absence of any legislative framework should not come in the way of such inference. The court noted that labour migration was a reality in the country, and through this migration of labour across continents, the Government was earning a huge foreign exchange through inward remittances. The court added that when the nation's exchequer was being benefitted, the Government had a correlative and corresponding duty to come to their rescue when there were issues from the overseas employment. Income Tax Act | Reassessment U/S 147 Valid If Original Order Did Not Consider S. 80HHC Claim Earlier: Madras High Court Case Title: Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 487 The Madras High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is valid if the original order is completely silent on the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to assess or reassess income that has escaped assessment. Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar stated that the original order of assessment is wholly silent in regard to the claim under Section 80HHC. Normally, when an order of assessment is passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, there is a presumption that the issues raised for consideration in the return of income have been duly taken note of by the Assessing Officer. Commercial Courts Act Bars Intra-Court Appeals In...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 15 - December 21, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags