Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 17 - February 23, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 61 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 68 NOMINAL INDEX M/s. Ideaforge Technology Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 61 Suo Motu v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 62 V. R. Krishnakumar v. Commissioner of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 63 K. Shrish v The Controller Of Examination, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 64 M/s Janpriya Builders v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 65 XYZ v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 66 Sa. Sivasooryaa v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 67 REPORT Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating Case Against Drone Manufacturing Company, Says Sufficient Material To Proceed Case Title: M/s. Ideaforge Technology Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 61 The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Drone Manufacturing company – Ideaforge, seeking to quash a cheating case registered against it by Garuda Aerospace Pvt Ltd. Justice P Velmurugan noted that the grounds taken by Ideaforge to quash the case was in the nature of defence which could be decided only at the time of trial. The court also noted that there was prima facie material to proceed with the case. Thus, the court was not inclined to quash the case and dismissed the plea. Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Illegal Beach Sand Mining, Says 'Political Nexus' Cannot Be Ruled Out Case Title: Suo Motu v Union of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 62 The Madras High Court has ordered a CBI probe into the large-scale illegal mining of beach sand that has caused a huge loss to the Tamil Nadu state exchequer to the tune of ₹5,832 Crore. The division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman held that the facts of the issue- granting mining lease/approvals, permitting illegal inclusion of monazite in mining lease, lack of efficient monitoring, arbitrary royalty settlement, lack of initiation of appropriate actions, etc suggested that there was a scheme of collusion, corruption and connivance among political, executive, and private mining companies. The court thus opined that a thorough enquiry was necessary to unearth the involvement of government officials and the illegalities perpetuated by them. The court added that a political nexus to the massive scam also could not be ruled out and directed the CBI to probe into the same. 'Foisted False Case With Malafide Intention': Madras High Court Transfers Cases Against Whistleblower-Journalist To CB-CID Case Title: V. R. Krishnakumar v. Commissioner of Police and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 63 The Madras High Court has recently transferred pending cases against a whistleblower journalist to the Crime Brance – Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) citing that the Commissioner of Police (Vepery) and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central Crime Branch) seemed to have foisted false cases with malicious intention. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that though it was a settled law that the accused could not choose the investigation agency to investigate the case against him/her, in exceptional circumstances, the court could exercise its extraordinary power when the situation demands credibility and instill confidence in the investigation. The court was hearing a plea by Krishnakumar @ Varaaki who had approached the court to transfer the pending investigation against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other investigation agency. Varaaki informed the court that he was an activist, journalist, and whistleblower who was involved in exposing the corruption and misconduct in public offices. Madras HC Declines Student's Plea To Condone Attendance Shortage, Says It Would Amount To Mocking Students Who Attend Classes Regularly Case Title: K. Shrish v The Controller Of Examination Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 64 The Madras High Court recently refused relief to a student who had approached the court seeking condonation of deficiency of attendance. Calling him an “unfortunate student who wanted to ride two horses” the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan noted that if the court chose to sympathize with the student, it would only be misplaced sympathy and amount to mocking students who attend the classes regularly. The court also added that the courts could not interfere in academic matters and had to leave such matters to the wisdom of academicians. Govt Cannot Routinely Regularise Unauthorised Buildings By Invoking Exemption Under Town & Country Planning Act: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s Janpriya Builders v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 65 The Madras High Court has recently observed that regularisation of unauthorized construction cannot be claimed as an absolute right and the government was not expected to regularise ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 17 - February 23, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags