Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 8 - December 14, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 483 NOMINAL INDEX R Thirumurugan v. R Thennarasu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473 C Kayalvizhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 474 TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475 A Affice Khan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 476 PVR Inox Ltd and Another v. Airports Authority of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 477 C Somasundaram v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 478 M/s China Datang Technologies and Engineering Company Limited v M/s NLC Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 479 Eros International Media Limited v. 14 Reels Entertainment Private Limited and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 480Tamil Nadu Housing Board v M/s NCC Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 481 Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 482 Kalanithimaran and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 483 REPORT HR&CE Department Can Probe Into Temple Maladministration Involving Public Donations, Can't Interfere In Religious Practice: Madras High Court Case Title: R Thirumurugan v. R Thennarasu and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 473 The Madras High Court recently held that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department can inquire into alleged maladministration in a temple. The court added that when a temple accepts public contributions, it assumes the nature of a public institution, and the State can intervene even if it is not a notified public religious institution. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal observed as under, “When public contributions/donations have been accepted, temple assumes the character of a public institution. If public contributions are involved, State can intervene in case of maladministration or misappropriation of funds, following the procedure as outlined in the Act and Rules, and take necessary actions. Right to administer the temple would not include maladministration. Therefore, power of State is not confined only in respect of notified public religious institutions, since the definition of temple would include temple used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, and Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is empowered to decide issues relating to characteristic of a religious institution,” the court said. Even Solitary Incident Of Sexual Offence Against Minor Can Be Considered To Pass Detention Order: Madras High Court Case Title: C Kayalvizhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 474 The Madras High Court recently observed that sexual offences against a minor is a heinous crime against society and even a single incident could be considered for detaining such an accused. The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima rejected a detenu's argument that the detaining authority could not invoke the provisions for a solitary incident. Madras High Court Orders Fresh Review of TVS Motor's Patent Plea For Scooter Frame Design Case Title: TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475 The Madras High Court has overturned a decision by the Patent Office that had denied TVS Motor Company a patent for its "vehicle frame assembly" invention. The court said the Patent Office did not properly examine how the design worked or whether it was truly obvious from earlier technologies. In its ruling dated November 28, 2025, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said the refusal order did not provide enough reasoning to conclude that TVS Motor's invention lacked originality. Because the analysis was incomplete, the court sent the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh review. Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Charged Under NDPS Act Case Title: A Affice Khan v. The State Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 476 The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a man booked under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The Supreme Court had recently orally observation that "Anticipatory bail is never granted in NDPS case". The Top Court had made the observation while refusing to interfere with Punjab and Haryana High Court's denial of anticipatory bail to an accused booked under the Act. In the present case however, Justice K Rajasekar noted that the conditions under Section 37 of the Act were satisfied for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail and ordered accordingly. Madras High Court Asks Union Govt To Take Policy Decision On Allowing Movie Theatres Within Airport Premises Case Title: PVR Inox Ltd and Another v. Airports Authority of India and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 477 The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Civil Aviation to take a policy decision on allowing cinema...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 8 - December 14, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags