Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 29, 2025 To January 04, 2026

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 5 NOMINAL INDEX Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501 Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 4 K.V.Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 5 REPORT Special Honours At Temple Cannot Be Claimed As Absolute Right, First Honour Always To Deity: Madras High Court Case Title: Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501 The Madras High Court recently held that special honours in a temple cannot be claimed as an absolute right and that the first honour in the temple was always to the deity. The court thus dismissed the plea of an ashramam that sought first special honour for its head at the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kanchipuram. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted though there was an existing practice of honouring the heads, whether it could be claimed as a right or not was an issue that was to be determined by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. Preventive Detention Laws Are Draconian, Can't Be Used To Settle Political Scores Or Silence Dissent: Madras High Court Case Title: Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 The Madras High Court recently remarked that preventive detention laws were draconian and the state could not use it to settle political scores or silence the dissenting voice. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal held that the authorities should exercise the detention power sparingly and with extreme caution. The bench added that the courts should take a serious view whenever these powers were not used by the authorities in good faith. The court also added that whenever it was established that the detention was in a callous manner, with extraneous consideration or for settling political scores, the State should take appropriate disciplinary action against the officer. Income Tax Act | Long Term Capital Gains Exemption Available Even If Residential House Was Demolished Before Sale: Madras High Court Case Title: C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 The Madras High Court held that the Long-Term Capital Gains exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely because the residential house was demolished before its sale. The bench stated that since the sale took place later and the assessee reinvested the capital gains in another house within the prescribed time, the exemption is allowable. Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi stated that Sections 54 and 54F are not two sides of the same coin. They are stand-alone provisions requiring satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein. Any claim for relief by an assessee can be considered and granted by the authorities only if a claim is made indicating compliance with those conditions. If No Permission Needed To Erect Stone Pillar For Stan Swamy, No Permission Required For Erecting War Memorial Stupa: Madras High Court Case Title: Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 The Madras High Court recently remarked that if no permission was necessary to erect a stone pillar for honouring Stan Swamy in patta land, no such permission was necessary for erecting a war memorial also. Justice GR Swaminathan thus allowed the construction of a stupa for honouring the Natham Kanawai War. The judge recalled that in a recent order, the High Court had allowed construction of stone pillar for Stan Swamy with his picture, in a private patta land. The court noted that while many saw swamy as a fighter for tribal rights, it was also true that he was arrested in a UAPA case and died in prison. The court then remarked that if no permission was necessary for that construction, it wasn't necessary for a war memorial also. Only Sandalwood Festival Permitted At Thiruparankundram Hills, No Animal Sacrifice: Madras High Court Case Title: M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 4 The Madras High Court has reiterated that animal sacrifice would not be permitted at the Thiruparankundram hills in the Madurai District. Justice S Srimathy directed the managing trustee of the Hazrat Sulthan Sikkanthar Bhadhusha Dargha to conduct only the Urus festival (sandalwood festival) with 50 persons. The court also restrained the dargah from carrying ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 29, 2025 To January 04, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags